"A l’occasion de sa participation à l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU à New-York, il avait fait un saut à Washington pour rencontrer GW Bush"
"Bush a rencontré pas mal de monde à cette occasion... de qui parles-tu précisément ?"
"je veux parler de Michel Sleïmane, président de la République libanaise et ancien commandant en chef de l’armée de son pays"
"logique, il est maronite"
"ce jour-là, il a fait le point avec George sur le type d’armement nécessaire à l’armée libanaise et que les Etats-unis pourraient lui vendre"
"des armes pour quoi faire ?"
"ah non... ce n’est pas pour ce que tu penses... mais seulement pour combattre le terrorisme... surtout que Michel est bien rôdé sur la question"
"comment ça ?"
"oui... c’est lui qui a complètement rasé le camp des réfugiés palestiniens de Nahr el Bared"
"et alors ?"
"aujourd’hui, ils sont là"
"qui ?"
"les experts de George sont à Beyrouth"
"y a pas à dire... ils sont d’une très grande efficacité ces américains... sitôt dit, sitôt fait"
"alors ils sont en train de regarder au plus près du terrain ce que sont les besoins réels de l’armée libanaise en matière de lutte contre le terrorisme"
"et alors ?"
"ils ont déjà dégagé deux premières pistes"
"y a pas à dire... ils sont d’une très grande efficacité ces américains... sitôt arrivés, sitôt fait"
"ils proposent des jumelles à infra-rouge et des hélicoptères modèle cobra"
"et alors ?"
"va pour les jumelles et pour les cobra ont dit les israéliens"
"mais que viennent faire les israéliens ?"
"normal... ce sont eux qui coordonnent la lutte contre le terrorisme dans la région"
"ah bon !?"
"oui... puisque cette lutte a surtout pour mission de préserver la sécurité de l’Etat d’Israël"
"et qu’en pense Hassan Nasrallah de tout ça ?"
"il dit que si les américains sont là pour vendre des jumelles et des hélicos au Liban, alors ce dernier devrait s’adresser à d’autres marchands d’armes..."
"c’est-à-dire ?"
"la Russie par exemple"
"ah... c’est pour cette raison qu’Olmert s’est dépêché à Moscou !"
"non... c’est pour autre chose"
"c’est pour quoi ?"
"pour les S 300"
"c’est quoi ?"
"ce sont des batteries anti-aériennes que la Russie pourrait vendre à l’Iran"
"pourquoi l’Iran aurait-il besoin de ces batteries anti-aériennes russes ?"
"pour se préserver du terrorisme de l’Etat d’Israël qui vient de passer commande pour 25 Lookheed Martin F-35 et pour 50 autres en option... soit l’équivalent de 15 milliards de dollars"
"je vois que ça marche bien la lutte contre le terrorisme"
"oh oui... c’est une affaire qui rapporte gros... très gros"
"je comprends mieux à présent"
"tu comprends mieux quoi ?"
"pourquoi les Cac 40, les Dow jones, les Nasqad, les Ftse 100... se cassent la gueule"
"ah... tu penses qu’il y a un rapport avec la lutte contre le terrorisme ?"
"évidemment, puisque toutes ces fortunes investies dans les armes finiront un jour ou l’autre en fumée..."
"malheureusement, avec beaucoup de pauvres gens..."
"comme les réfugiés du camp de Nahr el Bared"
"on dit que le prix de l’immobilier a grimpé d’une façon vertigineuse à Tripoli"
"... !?"

Al Faraby
Mardi, 07 octobre 2008

This vital halachic question finally receives the attention it deserves in the virtual pages of Jewish Mayhem , an X-rated Jewish online magazine. Of course, the subtleties of the argument might be lost amid videos of bagpipe-playing Israeli metal bands and photos of Maxine X, Canada's top fetish model. But isn't that the point?

Online at jewishmayhem.com since 2005, Jewish Mayhem is probably the only place where you can find disgraced Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and porn legend Ron Jeremy sharing a page. Joshua Andrews, publisher and primary writer of the online spread, founded the adults-only Jewish magazine with the intention of publishing material that would be both controversial and explicit.

A recent Mayhem cover featured the porn star Queeny Love clad in a tight black leather bikini and chained to an X-shaped steel beam. Love was featured in the issue's "Hebrew Hottie" section, posing in shiny rawhide. Other recent features have included an "Israeli Army Hotties" section, an interview with Israeli psychedelic trance duo Infected Mushroom, a video on the 2007 Marijuana March in Washington, and a recurring column entitled "Foreskin of the Month," in which vicious invective is hurled at Jews perceived by the editor to be anti-Israel.

"Jews are healthy, vibrant, disgusting, shameful, ridiculous, sad, fun, and more intelligent than ever. In other words, it's Jewish mayhem," Andrews said.

Born in Toronto, Andrews grew up adamantly secular and a Tolkien fiend. After dropping out of high school, his life changed course while on a short trip to a kibbutz in Israel. He soon enrolled in Aish HaTorah's Yeshiva in Jerusalem, eventually making aliyah in 1995. After a stint in the IDF Andrews took up airbrushing, gaining entre into the Israeli counterculture through relationships with tattoo artists.

Jewish Mayhem was a logical next step.

"I feature heavy metal, rap, ethnic world beat drumming, and Kinky Friedman," Andrews said. "By making it adults-only, it immediately vets the kids, the super pious, and the thin-skinned."

But Mayhem tends to shy away from any substantive international or political issues. "It's a lot of work. If I had an investor with some money to grease the machinery then I'd get more of everything," Andrews said.

So, among the growing selection of Jewish dating sites, magazines, and blogs, what's Mayhem's special niche?

"I made Jewish Mayhem because once upon a time it is what I wished someone else would do, but no one had the balls or nose to do it, so I did," Andrews said. "I built it for me."

Not Your Mother's Jewish Magazine - Published in New Voices Magazine

Un altro capo di governo è implicato in alcuni processi. Si fa votare dal parlamento una legge per la propria immunità e, parlando della situazione del suo collega, che ho descritto sopra, afferma: "La democrazia ha anche questi difetti".

Qual è Olmert e quale Berlusconi?

Case in point - Ehud Olmert's admission in a farewell interview on Monday where he stated his (long held?) belief that Israel must face some hard facts if there is ever to be peace in the region:

We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, one meaning that we will withdraw in practice from nearly all of the territories, if not from all of them.

Not to draw on hackneyed religious phrasework here, but when did Olmert experience this 'road to Damascus' conversion (no pun intended) ? Is it possible he has simply changed his opinion on the entire situation - or perhaps stripped of any chance of political gain, and free of the posturing and bullying of the Israeli political machine he believes what most thinking and decent people have always known.

And so the torch potentially passes to a former Mossad Agent and daughter of ex-Irgun fighters, Tzipi Livni. A breath of fresh air - not likely.

Afterall, she's still on the inside.

"With them, it is all about tanks and land and controlling territories and controlled territories and this hilltop and that hilltop,” he said. “All these things are worthless.”

He added, “Who thinks seriously that if we sit on another hilltop, on another hundred meters, that this is what will make the difference for the State of Israel’s basic security?"

The link between security — the protection, to varying degrees, of acquired values, physical or meta-physical  —  and strategy — the use of physical force to achieve political ends  — is a contentious one. Olmert gets at the heart of this dilemma: a hyper-strategic mindset focuses on how territorial adjustments improve the ability to physically secure a country's area. This was highly relevant in 1948, 1967, and 1973. But the threat to Israel's security today, Olmert argues implicitly, is not an Arab coalition invasion, in which terrain would matter to Israel's defensive abilities. Instead, Israelis way of life, the purpose of their polity, is threatened by frustrated Palestinian nationalism and international exploitation of it. Squandering a settlement to hold a hilltop threatens Israel's secruity.

Territory still matters, and clearly the Palestinians want more of it. Exactly what they will get and what Israel will surrender is difficult to predict. But Palestinian nationalists want territory in order to fulfill their aspirations to statehood, still a requirement in international law.

Strategic issues are still relevant. A border that would allow revanchists to launch terrorist attacks in Israel or Palestine would undermine the stability of any settlement. Any settlement will require an arms control agreement that assures Israel that a Palestinian state will not become an anti-Israeli rocket-launching pad. It almost must assure Palestine that more than a Damoclesian thread keeps the the Israeli military from continual intervention.

But Olmert's argument still stands. Security is about more than strategy.

Monday September 29 2008

While the subject of this post is Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, such a question could easily apply to his British counterpart, Gordon Brown, his predecessor Tony Blair, and even President George Bush.

As the economy spirals out of control, Gordon appears on our screens daily with his jaw hanging slackly every five words, as brief expostulations on how Labour can save the economic cosmos ooze forth.

Although I have long held that the day I quote a Conservative MP would be the day I decline a chocolate truffle, decline I must, for George Osborne expressed the financial reality:

Gordon Brown will do anything to avoid telling this country the truth. So as he won't, I will.

The cupboard is bare. There is no more money. Tax revenues have collapsed. Unemployment costs are rising. Borrowing is out of control. Labour has done it again.

It's no good talking about the big up-front tax giveaways we might like to make, or the big spending increases it might be nice to have. Because I repeat: there is no more money. [Source]

Gordon swiftly recovered in the aftermath of the defeat of the $700 billion bailout bill in the United States to condemn such a seemingly selfish action.

Which is ironic, given how little Labour has delivered since its hey-day of Cool Britannia, for Cool Britannia it certainly shall be this winter as the credit crunch forces pensioners to seek warmth in bed all day, and the rising costs of fuel loom with grim tidings.

Then there is Tony; skulking around the Middle East peddling peace initiatives after shaking hands on immeasurable occasions with the very man who has wreaked the havoc that has blighted the lives of countless Iraqis, Palestinians, and Afghans.

The irony is not lost: Tony, the warmonger turned peace guru; Gordon, the economist turned human death-nell to the British economy; and now, Ehud, who single-handedly brought Lebanon to her knees in 2006, posits a landmark deal for the Palestinians.

According to Olmert, Israel should withdraw from almost all the territory garnered during the 1967 War, in return for peace with the Palestinians and Syria:

I am saying what no previous Israeli leader has ever said: we should withdraw from almost all of the territories, including in east Jerusalem and in the Golan Heights. We have an opportunity that is limited in time, in which we can perhaps reach a historic deal in our relations with the Palestinians and another historic step in our relations with Syria. In both cases, the decision we must reach is a decision that we have been refusing to accept for the past four decades.

We must reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the significance of which is that we will withdraw from almost all of the territories, if not all of them. We will maintain control over a certain percentage of the territories, but we will have to give the Palestinians a commensurate percentage of our land, because without this, there will be no peace. [Source]

How lovely such words are! Yet how futile and useless, as the former leader exits in a flurry of scandal with little or no influence with which to enact such sentiments.

As the Palestinian Foreign Minister, Riyad al-Malki expressed: "We wish we had heard this personal opinion before he resigned. It is a very important commitment but it came so late."

Too little, too late: the expression is swiftly becoming a maxim for our times.

[Image via: Cecilia]

In an interview with the Yedioth Aharonoth daily, Olmert said that as a hard-line politician for decades he had not been prepared to look at reality in all of its depth.

"Ariel Sharon spoke about painful costs and refused to elaborate," Olmert told the daily. "I say, we have no choice but to elaborate. In the end of the day, we will have to withdraw from the most decisive areas of the territories. In exchange for the same territories left in our hands, we will have to give compensation in the form of territories within the State of Israel."

"I think we are very close to an agreement," Olmert added.

These comments were the clearest sign to date of Olmert's willingness to meet key Palestinian demands in peace talks.

With regard to the Syria track, Olmert added that a future peace agreement required a pullout from the Golan Heights, an area under Israeli control since the 1967 Six-Day War.

"First and foremost, we must make a decision. I'd like to see if there is one serious person in the State of Israel who believes it is possible to make peace with the Syrians without eventually giving up the Golan Heights."

"It is true that an agreement with Syria comes with danger," he said. "Those who want to act with zero danger should move to Switzerland."

Yedioth Aharonoth noted that in this "legacy interview," published on the eve of the Jewish New Year, Olmert went further in making offers for peace than he ever did publicly when he was in active office and had greater power to see them carried out.

The interview was met with fierce criticism from politicians on both the right and the left.

MK Yuval Steinitz said the comments demonstrated the outgoing leader's readiness "to ignore even the most crucial" of Israel's needs.

"The prime minister's concession the essential borders of defense is a gamble on the bone of existence, and the future of the State of Israel," Steinitz told Army Radio in response to Olmert's comments.

"Ignoring the distance between rockets fired from afar and the enemy sitting on top of Jerusalem reveals how little he understands the basis of security," Steinitz added.

Former Meretz chairman Yossi Beilin criticized Olmert for having offered such concessions only on the eve of his departure from premiership.

"Olmert has committed the unforgivable sin of revealing his truce stance on Israel's national interest just when he has nothing left to lose," said Beilin.

According to Western and Palestinian officials, Olmert has proposed in peace talks with the Palestinians an Israeli withdrawal from some 93 percent of the West Bank, plus all of the Gaza Strip, from which Israel pulled out in 2005.

The negotiations, which Olmert has vowed to continue until he leaves office when a new government is formed, have shown few signs of progress and both sides acknowledge chances are slim of meeting Washington's target of a deal by the end of the year.

Olmert has also engaged Syria in indirect negotiations with Turkish mediation, but has not remarked publicly on the scope of an Israeli pullout from the Golan Heights.

Olmert has said repeatedly that Israel intends to keep major Jewish settlement blocs in the West Bank in any future peace deal with the Palestinians.

A peace agreement, Olmert has said, would mean Israel would have to compensate the Palestinians for the land it hopes to retain by "close to a 1-to-1 ratio."

In exchange for the settlement enclaves, Olmert has proposed about a 5 percent land swap giving the Palestinians a desert territory adjacent to the Gaza Strip, as well as land on which to build a transit corridor between Gaza and the West Bank.

He has so far put off negotiations on sharing Jerusalem and ruled out a so-called "right of return" for Palestinian refugees, a central Palestinian demand. On both issues, there is strong opposition in Israel to significant concessions.

Olmert, who has stepped down in the face of a possible criminal indictment in a corruption investigation, will remain caretaker prime minister until a new government is approved by parliament.

A week ago, President Shimon Peres asked Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, now leader of Olmert's centrist Kadima party, to try to put together a governing coalition within six weeks. Failure to do so would likely lead to a parliamentary election.

Ref: Haaretz

Olmert: Israel Must Hand Back Land for Peace with Palestinians and Syria

Outgoing PM says in newspaper interview there will be no deals without withdrawing from 'almost all' land captured in 1967 war

by Rory McCarthy

JERUSALEM - The outgoing prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, has said his country will have to withdraw from "almost all" the land it captured in the 1967 war and divide Jerusalem in order to agree long-awaited peace deals with the Palestinians and Syria.

His comments, which were unusually far-reaching for an Israeli leader, came in an interview with an Israeli newspaper ahead of the Jewish new year and days after his resignation. He remains in his post in a caretaker capacity and is thought unlikely to be able to follow through with any of the proposals he has made.

In the long interview with two senior political columnists at the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Olmert talked about peace with the Palestinians and the Syrians and continued to maintain his innocence over a series of high-profile corruption investigations that in the end pushed him to step down.

His most striking words came on the Palestinian issue. "We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning of which is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all the territories, if not all the territories," Olmert said. "We will leave a percentage of these territories in our hands, but will have to give the Palestinians a similar percentage, because without that there will be no peace."

Israel wants to keep some of the main settlement blocs in the West Bank, but in return for any occupied land Israel keeps the Palestinians want a land swap for territory of equal size and quality within Israel. If a peace deal is ever struck, that land swap would probably include a corridor linking Gaza and the West Bank.

At another point, Olmert said: "In the end, we will have to withdraw from the lion's share of the territories, and for the territories we leave in our hands, we will have to give compensation in the form of territories within the State of Israel at a ratio that is more or less 1:1."

Olmert said the withdrawal would have to include parts of east Jerusalem, which Israel captured in the 1967 war. "Whoever wants to hold on to all of the city's territory will have to bring 270,000 Arabs inside the fences of sovereign Israel. It won't work," he said. The prospect of dividing Jerusalem remains hugely contentious within Israel, although few believe a peace deal could work without a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem.

On Syria, he said his government began secret talks in February last year and said he believed that Israel would have to give up the Golan Heights in return for Syria breaking its relationship with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Olmert admitted his comments were rare. "What I am saying to you now has not been said by any Israeli leader before me. The time has come to say these things." He seemed to admit his thinking in the past had been mistaken, particularly on his previous belief that Jerusalem should remain wholly inside Israel. "I am not trying to justify retroactively what I did for 35 years. For a large portion of these years, I was unwilling to look at reality in all its depth," he said.

Olmert has taken a similar tone in several speeches since resigning, although he went further in this interview than before.

He has been in office since early 2006 and although peace talks have been under way with the Syrians and, for the past year, the Palestinians, there has been no concrete progress. Instead, Jewish settlements have continued to expand in the West Bank and the number of roadblocks and checkpoints has increased. Olmert has put off talks on the future of Jerusalem and adamantly refused to allow any Palestinian refugees to return to what is now Israel, even though both are core issues to be negotiated in peace talks.

Rather than being remembered for peace negotiations, Olmert is more likely to be remembered as an unpopular prime minister who was strongly criticised for his handling of the war in Lebanon in 2006 and who faced a long series of embarrassing corruption investigations - although no charges have yet been brought.

The two journalists who interviewed Olmert, Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer, wrote that his goal was to leave a legacy, defend his conduct and perhaps pave the way for a return to political office in the future. "He places on the doorstep of his successor a foreign policy doctrine, the likes of which has never been spoken by an incumbent prime minister," they wrote.

They said it was legacy that might make life harder for Tzipi Livni, who replaced Olmert as the head of the ruling Kadima party and is now trying to form a coalition government that would make her prime minister. She would be called on to either back or reject Olmert's proposals and, as Barnea and Shiffer noted, "there is no diplomatic fog in this interview that she can hide behind".

© 2008 Guardian News and Media Limited

I am writing from my friend's computer because mine is at the computer doktor. Enough about that.

So I went to Weimar. Saw Goethes Haus and many status of Goethe and Schiller (Hi, Ken/Lee!). Fifteen minutes up a winding road (built by forced labor during National Socialism), was Buchenwald concentration camp. It was a chilling experience. I spent about 5 hours there so I have a lot to say about it, but I don't know that I could really articulate it here or that I want to. I will say that I think it is important to see the physical site of a tragedy so immense.

Speaking of immense tragedy, (goodness, so much can follow that clause!), there is actual some good news from the land of war and violence! Today I saw that Prime Minister Olmert says Israel should pull out of the West Bank. This is very positive. I hope that this Jewish New Year reflects the same shift in collective mentality towards compromise, peace, and freedom.

It is also the first night of Rosh Hashanah. I am not in synagogue, instead I am watching MoNeY MeLtDoWn unfold on CNN World News. I am sad not to be in New Jersey with my family tonight, as I am usually home for some, if not all, of the High Holidays. Tomorrow night I think I will try to wiggle my way into a Berlin synagogue and catch the second night of services. I have certainly been grappling with my Jewish identity here so tomorrow will surely be an interesting experience for me. I'm so lucky to have two New Years. I sure do love starting over, or at least the illusion of doing so.

How about a New Year of peace? A little less war, a little less violence. How about starting with electing Barack Obama? I stayed up until 5:00 am on Saturday morning watching the debates which were good, solid, but somewhat disappointing. I like Maureen Dowd's sum-up the best (and not only for the A Few Good Men references!). I didn't like the talk about military action in Iran. If Olmert won't attack Iran, maybe we shouldn't either, you know? Anyway, I look forward to Biden-Palin. Speaking of all this peace puts me in the mood for a good ol' fashion bloodbath! 

What else? America looks disorganized, chaotic, and very desperate from abroad...how's it look back home?

L'shana Tova.

I can almost hear the outcry from here.

If negotiations do indeed result in an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank before 2048, it could cause problems for my speculative fiction novel "The Four," in which Israel keeps that land as a buffer to the New Caliphate, which surrounds Israel on all land borders. Oh well, that's what editing is for.

An "evil wind of extremism" is threatening Israel's democracy, outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned Sunday, after a pipe bomb attack wounded a professor critical of Israel's settler movement.

Olmert's forceful comments came amid growing concerns in Israel about violence by hard-line radicals, including extremist West Bank settlers.

Israeli defense officials and human rights groups have noted a rise in settler violence against Palestinian soldiers and Israeli soldiers in recent months.

Now, perhaps, is also not the time to delve into the injustices of Israeli rule in the Palestinian territories (for instance, how Palestinians who live in the territories are governed by the laws of military occupation, but how Jewish settlers who live in those same territories are governed by civilian Israeli law).  I view this story as a further example of how most acts of extremist violence (however unforgivable they may be) arise out of issues more concrete than simple ideological hatred.  Palestinian violence is motivated more by instances like these than by radical Muslim ideology.  I am not justifying any act of violence, but I do believe that understanding the true causes of conflict can help in its resolution.

O objetivo político imediato do vencedor das eleições primárias do Kadima [partido que detém a maioria no parlamento de Israel - o Knesset] deve ser formar uma coalizão e assumir rapidamente o controle do novo governo, em um esforço para firmar o partido e seu líder na ponta da corrida entre o Kadima (e idealmente o Labor [partido trabalhista israelense], em um bloco unificado) e o Likud [maior partido liberal e de centro-direita] nas próximas eleições gerais [em 2010]. Isto não pode ser feito apenas apagando os incêndios, gerenciando as crises e buscando oportunidades. Para isso, é necessário uma estratégia.

A base para toda estratégia de sucesso - seja ela militar, política ou do mundo dos negócios - é focar no que é essencial e concentrar seus esforços. Todos os líderes precisam de um tema central, com o qual eles se identificam, segundo o qual eles priorizam suas agendas e através do qual eles ganham respaldo público e internacional. A mensagem precisa ser simples, compreensível e consistente, e tem de apresentar uma solução para um importante problema nacional.

Novos primeiros-ministros estão suscetíveis a dois perigos imediatos. O primeiro é sua tendência a envolver-se com tolices que roubam a energia e o poder político que lhes são necessários. É o que ocorreu a Ehud Barak com o transporte de uma turbina de superaquecimento no Shabbat [dia de descanso semanal dos judeus, em que todo trabalho é proibido], o que desestabilizou sua coalizão, e a Benjamin Netanyahu com sua luta contra as "velhas elites", que apresentaram forte resistência contra ele.

O segundo perigo é o de emaranhar-se em uma crise de segurança desnecessária, que distrai o público do problema central. É o que aconteceu a Netanyahu com a abertura do túnel sob o Muro das Lamentações em Jerusalém e a Ehud Olmert durante a Segunda Guerra do Líbano. Nestes casos, o novo líder viu-se preso a situações complicadas por tentar mostrar que era forte e que detinha o poder, quando, na realidade, os eventos terminaram expondo suas fraquezas.

Independente de quem suceda Olmert, essa pessoa precisará evitar este tipo de armadilhas e perceber que sua situação é pior que a de Olmert quando este assumiu, parcialmente porque o novo líder não terá um mandato escolhido pelo povo - apenas pelos votantes do Kadima. E o público estará pronto para relembrar o novo primeiro-ministro disso ao primeiro sinal de uma crise. Além disso, o novo primeiro-ministro não terá muito tempo. Um novo líder necessita aproximadamente um ano para formular uma estratégia e uma política praticável. Mas a pessoa que chegar ao poder no meio do jogo não terá muitas oportunidades para corrigir erros, o que significa que o novo primeiro-ministro deverá ser rápido em estabelecer uma estratégia distinta da que foi realizada por Olmert, e esperar que esta agüente até as eleições gerais.

Também há fatores ameaçadores no exterior do país. Os Estados Unidos estão paralisados enquanto esperam um novo presidente, o presidente palestino Mahmoud Abbas deverá deixar seu cargo em janeiro, o líder do Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, quer vingança, e a recessão global ameaça a todos. É claro, deve-se estar atento a crises inesperadas, como violentos conflitos entre colonos [israelenses] e palestinos na Cisjordânia que poderiam pôr Israel em um atoleiro internacional e ameaçar a estabilidade doméstica. As peças parecem estar se encaixando exatamente para um conflito deste tipo, ou talvez um confronto entre colonos e soldados.

Em que poderá o herdeiro de Olmert focar seu trabalho? O avanço das negociações com os palestinos para uma solução baseada na co-existência de dois Estados parece uma escolha óbvia que caracterizaria o Kadima como o partido da paz, em contraste com o Likud, e garantiria o apoio internacional para o novo primeiro-ministro. Mas sérias negociações com a Autoridade Palestina colocariam em risco a coalizão por causa do Shas [partido que defende os interesses dos judeus ortodoxos], e, de qualquer forma, o público não acredita que tal acordo seja possível.

As negociações com a Síria têm o apoio das autoridades de segurança e envolvem benefícios estratégicos para Israel, que está tentando colocar alguma distância entre o presidente sírio, Bashar Assad, e suas alianças no Irã. O problema é que o avanço das conversas em vista de um acordo requer uma intervenção norte-americana; o que não é de interesse da administração que está deixando o poder, e a que vai assumir necessitará algum tempo para formular uma política.

A preparação do país para enfrentar a ameaça iraniana lembraria memórias heróicas dos anos 1950, reforçando a imagem do primeiro-ministro como um líder eficaz em matéria de segurança, e queimaria a melhor cartada de Netanyahu para as eleições gerais. Mas o risco é grande. O público começaria a esperar uma guerra preventiva contra o Irã para impedir que este país desenvolva armas nucleares. Isto necessitaria apoio norte-americano, o que não existe atualmente, e o fracasso em realizar o que foi planejado transformaria o primeiro-ministro em uma figura patética.

Se o novo primeiro-ministro inicia um conflito com os colonos, como fez Ariel Sharon, isso fortaleceria o Kadima aos olhos dos votantes centristas, mas criaria uma profunda fissura interna. E há dúvidas de que o sucessor de Olmert terá o prestígio público ou a habilidade política para realizar um movimento como este.

Convocar eleições antecipadas antes que a liderança do herdeiro de Olmert se grave na consciência pública seria um suicídio político. Uma tentativa de congelar tudo, conduzir negociações políticas fúteis e tratar de questões domésticas tais como a "reforma política" ou a "luta contra a corrupção" até que as circunstâncias externas mudem, tornaria o primeiro-ministro um personagem de menor importância, apenas passando o tempo no poder, assim como Olmert foi descrito desde a Segunda Guerra do Líbano.

Quem quer que suceda Olmert, este terá de escolher entre um grande espectro de opções, colocando o novo líder em um teste complexo em um período no qual o público deseja encontrar seu caminho para sair do marasmo dos últimos dois anos, mas não acredita no sistema político. Não há outra conclusão possível senão a de que não há razões para se ter inveja do vencedor.

Aluf Benn

Acesse o texto original clicando aqui.

But the statement was made by outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, so arguably, it's not anti-Semitic but merely a statement of informed opinion based on facts.

And it's interesting - and more than a little frustrating - that these extremist Israelis are not being called what they are: terrorists. For God's sake, these people planted a bomb at the home of a prominent Israeli critic of the Settler Movement. This and other actions are described by Olmert as "threatening Israeli democracy and the ability of those in charge in Israel to make decisions, and the ability of people to freely express opinions without fearing that they will be hurt by wild and violent people, people who break the law and break the framework of normal democratic life."

To any reasonable person, that is the definition of terrorism: causing fear and disruption of life.

But despite the fact that these people - the hard-core Settlers - are absolutely committed to wiping out the Arabs, think of them as sub-human, and see their killing as not just acceptable, but as a moral duty, they are somehow not called terrorists. And, just as important, they are not seen as characterizing Israelis or Jews as a whole.

This latter distinction is critical. Fear-mongers and racists like Daniel Pipes and Brigitte Gabriel look at the actions of radical Islamists and extrapolate them to all Muslims, even going so far as to say that there is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim; that any Muslim who really believes in their religion is necessarily in agreement with the radicals. But you can be sure that if the same logic were used to characterize Jews as being violent, racist, intolerant fanatics, they would (rightly) point out how absurd such a contention is.

Let's be logical about this: if it's indeed true that all 1 billion Muslims on the planet are as radical as the nut-cases we see publicized by the anti-Muslim folks, what chance would any country in the world have against them? The truth is that most Muslims see these radicals as so out-of-touch as to be beneath contempt. Most Muslims in Western nations are grateful for the opportunities afforded them. I know I thank God that my father came to the U.S. and that I was born here. The last thing on my mind is going to a "Muslim" country or changing the U.S. to be a "Muslim" country. As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. is just as Muslim as it is Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Pagan. Nobody stops me from worship or tells me I have to do it differently.

There are Israeli terrorists, just as there are Islamic terrorists. Most Muslims are moderate and want only peace, just as most Jews and Israelis are moderate and want only peace. It's pathetic that extremists on both sides point to the evil elements in each others' camps as evidence that an entire religion is worthy of contempt and persecution.

The United States refused to back the plan citing the probability that Iran would retaliate, that American bases in the Middle East might prove more interesting targets, and that all-out war could break out in the Middle East. None of these fears are irrational. Even if the United States doesn't provide military backing, once Israel flies through Iraqi airspace--because that's the shortest route and because Syria and Saudi Arabia would be crazy to consider supporting an Israeli attack on Iran--the Iranians will believe Americans were behind the attack. Since Iran and Iraq are neighbors, provoking Iran is a little more than unwise. Not only that, when you provoke Iran you provoke Russia and China. Not a good idea.

Mark Regev, spokesman for the Prime Minister, denied such a conversation had ever happened. I suppose that's what a spokesman (or spokeswoman) is for.

In related news, Muslims in Gaza and Iran celebrated "Quds Day," an annual even established by Ayatollah Khomeni to oppose Israeli control of Jerusalem and support the rights of Muslim Palestinians, by mocking the Holocaust and calling for the death of Israel. "Hamas legislator Ahmed Abu Helbiya called on Arabs 'to contain the enemy and halt its [Israel's] aggression by planning martyrdom operations,'" the report stated.

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has talked about religious reasons for not having nuclear weapons:

"Our religion prohibits us from having nuclear arms and our religious leader has prohibited it from the point of view of religious law. It's a closed road.”

It is may be a sin against Islam to own and maintain nuclear weapons, but it's apparently OK to rile up Israel's neighbor Gaza to do all your dirty work for you.

The bill was introduced on May 22, one day after the story broke that then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) to impose a naval blockade on Iran as a way of stopping its uranium enrichment program. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has endorsed the bill as a way to “stop Iran’s nuclear program.”  >>>>>

Non tutti sanno che annualmente l'organizzazione Transparency International pubblica un rapporto sulla percezione della corruzione da parte della popolazione nei confronti della pubblica amministrazione del proprio Stato.

Nella classifica di quest'anno i Paesi più virtuosi (a pari merito) sono Danimarca, Finlandia e Nuova Zelanda, seguiti da Singapore; mentre Iraq, Myanmar (ex Birmania) e Somalia sono agli ultimi posti. Per corruzione si intende "l'abuso di pubblici uffici per il guadagno privato".

Fin qui niente di strano, sono risultati che in un certo senso ci si potrebbe aspettare. Quello che non ci aspetta è, invece, che un Paese come l'Italia si trova soltanto al 55esimo posto. Prima di noi ci stanno pure, oltre a quasi tutti i paesi industrializzati, il Botswana, la Repubblica Ceca e il Sud Africa (solo per fare qualche nome); ci precede anche Israele dove da poco si è dimesso il primo ministro perché coinvolto in un'inchiesta giudiziaria su presunte tangenti (la stessa cosa che avviene qui da noi! ;-) ).

L'Italia, per di più, è scesa vertiginosamente in classifica rispetto all'anno scorso. ll punteggio di quest'anno è di 4,8 su un massimo di 10, mentre nel precedente rapporto aveva un punteggio di 5,2: ben 14 posti più in basso!!!

Huguette Labelle, direttore dell'ong Transparency International, ha sottolineato come "arginare la corruzione necessita di una stretta sorveglianza dei parlamentari, dell'applicazione della legge, di media indipendenti e di una società civile viva. Quando queste istituzioni sono deboli, la spirale della corruzione esce fuori controllo con conseguenze terribili per la gente comune, per la giustizia e per l'uguaglianza della società".

La presidente di Trasparency Italia, Maria Teresa Brassiolo, ha chiesto al Ministro Brunetta di nominare con la massima urgenza un nuovo sottosegretario con la funzione di "Alto commissario alla lotta alla corruzione", una sorta di autorità super partes in grado di proseguire il monitoraggio iniziato dalla ONG e di indagare caso per caso al fine di debellare questa piaga. Vedremo se Brunetta accoglierà la proposta...

"L'Italia ha registrato casi acuti di corruzione e frode nel sistema sanitario nazionale che si sono tradotti nell'arresto di politici di primo piano e funzionari pubblici in Abruzzo", si può leggere nella parte del rapporto di Transparency International che riguarda l'Italia". Ma non è solo la sanità...

A me questa notizia sembra molto grave, nonostante ciò i media non le hanno dato il risalto che merita (anzi, spesso hanno propio taciuto). Per fortuna che c'è la rete...

O forse non dicono nulla perché si prospetta una nuova mani-pulite!? ;-)