Joe Biden had reached the end of the line.
Nothing to do with his swine flu gaffe, but our Vice President was more or less positioned literally at the southern edge of a unique rail network. He focused on a more prominent train system, namely Amtrak, but from where he stood - at Wilmington’s station - he could have traveled far more cheaply to Philadelphia, through New Jersey to Manhattan, and even to Montauk and Port Jervis, and indirectly to New Haven and Poughkeepsie.
We know of Amtrak’s reach, but not mentioned in news reports of the event is the inter-connected commuter rail network that runs parallel to the Amtrak trains in the Northeast at a lower cost. In the process, the network helps to keep Jewish communities connected, though not connected enough.
Consider that Jewish communities dominate throughout the Northeast. A contiguous network of Jewish communities threads from New Haven, Conn., south to, well, Wilmington, along with numerous branches through Long Island and North Jersey. In combination with Amtrak, large Jewish communities north to Boston and south to Baltimore and Washington, D.C., are accessible.
With all the available connections, a University of Pennsylvania student from Suffern in Rockland County, N.Y., can return home by picking up the SEPTA train at 30th Street to Trenton, switch to a New Jersey Transit train and transfer to a Suffern-bound train at Secaucus Junction where nine NJT lines converge. When he courted Hadassah, Joe Lieberman could have traveled 70 miles from New Haven to 125th Street in Harlem and switched to a Hudson line train to a station near Riverdale, where the Connecticut senator’s future wife lived at the time.
This inadvertent network coordinates among six separate transit systems through some of the heaviest Jewish populations in the country. From Wilmington, a passenger can board a SEPTA train - the system serving Philadelphia and its suburbs - for 30 miles to downtown Philly and switch to a second train for another 30 miles to Trenton. Next step: Ride NJT another 60 miles to Penn Station in Manhattan. One can yet travel from there to Great Neck, Long Beach, Huntington and even the Hamptons via the Long Island Rail Road.
Too bad none of this was mentioned, at least in news reports, when the Vice President returned to his old stomping grounds in Wilmington on Monday, May 4, to herald the administration’s $1.3 billion allocation for Amtrak capital projects, including $21 million to rehab his home state’s station. Biden passed through the station countless times to commute to Washington on Amtrak when he repped Delaware as a senator.
Interestingly, the Wilmington announcement was followed on Saturday, May 9, by National Train Day, which marks the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869.
Wilmington is actually SEPTA’s third most southernmost station, but the two beyond it are barely used. The region also covers a sizable if not so visible Jewish community estimated at 15,000. Jewish residents are supportive enough to have renovated and expanded the local Jewish Community Center a few years ago.
This commuter rail network has plenty of flaws. Its most prevalent drawback is being too short. Or, Amtrak is not financially accessible even to the middle class. Amtrak is too expensive, which leaves riders no options where a commuter system does not exist.
From Philadelphia to New York, a round-trip package combining rides on SEPTA and NJT costs $37.50, one-third the cost of riding Amtrak. There are even other cheap alternatives to Amtrak.
There is no viable alternative to Amtrak if one’s destination is Baltimore or Washington. The round-trip costs from Philadelphia to Baltimore and Washington are, respectively, in the range of $100 and $140. Washington is, naturally, an important city to visit for many reasons, but specifically it is a wonderful opportunity for Jews to tour the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Middle-class visitors can barely afford the cost.
Credit President Obama and Congress for increasing expenses for Amtrak, but passenger prices are too high. I often ride commuter rail to New York, but I could not afford to ride to Washington so frequently. A round-trip cost of $50 would be reasonable. For that matter, commuter costs have gotten too steep.
What could be dubbed The Times Square Gap is the second most serious flaw in the system because Metro-North, which serves Connecticut and Westchester County, does not hook up with the other systems. A train from New Haven or White Plains ends at Grand Central, 1 ½ miles from Penn Station.
To reach Grand Central, a passenger who arrives at Penn must spend $2 for the #1 subway train one stop north to Times Square and transfer to the Grand Central shuttle train. Actual riding time is two minutes on each train, but the entire trip takes 20 minutes.
One would think that New York commuter lines would be physically integrated, as are those in Philadelphia and Washington. Unlike Philadelphia, the NYC region had no rail links to any of its three airports until a few years ago. Now special trains link the LIRR to Kennedy and the NJT to Newark.
Another great stride was construction of the Secaucus junction where nine NJT lines come together, just a mile or so before the tunnel under the Hudson. Previously, trains from near Teaneck, Morristown, Rockland County and western Essex County towns ended in Hoboken and passengers had to transfer to another rail system to cross into Manhattan. With Secaucus, those passengers can get off there and switch to other NJT trains heading straight to Penn Station.
On the books are plans for another Hudson tunnel, expanded rail service in Bergen County and an LIRR stop at Grand Central.
Nifty network, one that can only enhance Jewish community.
Oh, yes, Atlantic City Jews have available to them a long-running NJT line to Philadelphia, which of course connects them to the rest of the system; this is separate from a new, more expensive line directly linking AC to NYC. The only risk with the older line is that Philadelphians still traveling to the casinos better be sure they have $8 left for the return trip.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
WARPED AND DISGUSTING
Leave it to Arab extremists to transform a sentimental moment into an ugly international incident.
A rare feel-good occasion was created when 13 teen-aged musicians from the Jenin refugee camp, in the West Bank, traveled to a Tel Aviv suburb to perform for 30 Holocaust survivors at a social club on Wednesday, March 25, The New York Times reported. Though the event was unusual, it sounded like a pleasant enough outing for both the audience and the performers, who were members of a camp youth orchestra.
By the weekend, Arab political activists who represent the Palestine Liberation Organization shut down the club and banned the orchestra’s director, an Arab Israeli woman, from all activity in the camp. This reaction was the most surprising in a series of warped and disgusting episodes among Arabs who must have been determined to reassure the world that peace in the Middle East is a fantasy…so long as they’re around.
We also witnessed an Arab Knesset member who voiced fealty for Iran, arms smuggling persisting in Gaza and a Palestinian Authority official distorting the history of the so-called peace process. The most disgusting spectacle was the hero’s welcome extended to Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir at an Arab League summit meeting in Doha, Qatar, on Monday, March 30.
Bashir faces war-crime charges leveled by the International Criminal Court for orchestrating the slaughter of up to 300,000 people in Darfur in addition to rape, pillaging and driving 2.7 million others from their homes. While the IOC urges Bashir’s arrest when he visits a foreign country, the Arab leaders in Qatar pulled Bashir to their collective bosom. It was sort of like the lawyer joke where a band of sharks surrounding survivors from a shipwreck forms a safe corridor for an attorney so he can swim to shore without harm. A matter of “professional courtesy.”
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose father once massacred 20,000 rebels, declared, “As for their weak pretexts about fabricated crimes committed by Sudan, we can discuss it with them after they bring those who committed the atrocities and massacres in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq to the court implicated for the same crimes.” Referring to Assad and other Arab leaders, former Kuwaiti minister of information Saad al-Ajmi told the Times, “Most of them have their hands smeared with the blood of their own people.”
Terrorists in Gaza are chomping at the bit to smear their hands with more Jewish blood. The departing Israeli cabinet learned on Sunday, March 29, that the terrorists are still smuggling weapons since the three-week war with Israel ended on Jan. 18. The Associated Press reports that the cache includes 22 tons of explosives, 45 tons of raw materials for producing bombs, dozens of rockets, hundreds of mortar shells, and dozens of antitank and antiaircraft missiles. Also, the military said that 185 rockets and mortars were launched from Gaza since Jan. 18.
These Gazans have an ally in Hanin Zoabi, the first woman elected to the Knesset representing an Arab party, according to Philadelphia’s Bulletin. Discussing Iran as a potential nuclear power, Zoabi said, “It would be more supporting me to have a counter-power to Israel…It’s the balance of power. Our only idea that it is more dangerous to the world, more dangerous to everyone, more dangerous to the Palestinians, to Israelis to have Israel as the only powerful state…This balance will restrict the Israeli using its power. The Israeli violence of the army is an outcome of Israel’s convenient feeling that no one will restrict her, that no Arab country will really declare a war.”
While observers could debate the justification for the recent Gaza conflict, an Iranian bombing raid of Israel could kill Zoabi and her family members by the very acting of living in the target zone. Am I being too logical here?
Before Netanyahu was sworn into office, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat slammed the incoming administration in a Washington Post op-ed for the prime minister’s refusal to endorse creation of a Palestinian state and limiting any changes to “a series of disconnected cantons with limited self-rule.” He adds, “The new Israeli government must unequivocally affirm its support for the two-state solution and the establishment of a viable, independent and fully sovereign Palestinian state based on 1967 borders.”
A previous Israeli prime minister - three prime ministers ago - did in fact “unequivocally affirm its support” for a Palestinian state. Erakat conveniently neglects to mention that Ehud Barak agreed to establishing a Palestinian state during negotiations at Camp David in July 2000, but then Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat twice refused the offer. That futile exercise in diplomacy was followed by three wars and Israel’s unilateral withdrawal of settlements from Gaza.
Back in Jenin, PLO leaders were so aghast that Arab teens would perform for Holocaust survivors that Wafaa Younis, the orchestra’s director, was prohibited from all activity in the camp and that the house she rented as a studio was sealed, Adnan al-Hindi told the Times.
Hindi, leader of the camp’s popular committee that represents the PLO, indicated that his people balked because the teens might come to believe that their people must sacrifice because Israel was established to compensate for the Holocaust. He charged that the program was targeted to “destroy the Palestinian national spirit in the camp.”
Younis claimed that camp officials seized control of the orchestra to acquire its money, according to the Associated Press. “What did these poor, elderly people do wrong? What did these children do wrong?”
Wafaa Younis is living proof that there are good people among the Arabs. Yet, the inmates continue to run the asylum.
A rare feel-good occasion was created when 13 teen-aged musicians from the Jenin refugee camp, in the West Bank, traveled to a Tel Aviv suburb to perform for 30 Holocaust survivors at a social club on Wednesday, March 25, The New York Times reported. Though the event was unusual, it sounded like a pleasant enough outing for both the audience and the performers, who were members of a camp youth orchestra.
By the weekend, Arab political activists who represent the Palestine Liberation Organization shut down the club and banned the orchestra’s director, an Arab Israeli woman, from all activity in the camp. This reaction was the most surprising in a series of warped and disgusting episodes among Arabs who must have been determined to reassure the world that peace in the Middle East is a fantasy…so long as they’re around.
We also witnessed an Arab Knesset member who voiced fealty for Iran, arms smuggling persisting in Gaza and a Palestinian Authority official distorting the history of the so-called peace process. The most disgusting spectacle was the hero’s welcome extended to Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir at an Arab League summit meeting in Doha, Qatar, on Monday, March 30.
Bashir faces war-crime charges leveled by the International Criminal Court for orchestrating the slaughter of up to 300,000 people in Darfur in addition to rape, pillaging and driving 2.7 million others from their homes. While the IOC urges Bashir’s arrest when he visits a foreign country, the Arab leaders in Qatar pulled Bashir to their collective bosom. It was sort of like the lawyer joke where a band of sharks surrounding survivors from a shipwreck forms a safe corridor for an attorney so he can swim to shore without harm. A matter of “professional courtesy.”
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose father once massacred 20,000 rebels, declared, “As for their weak pretexts about fabricated crimes committed by Sudan, we can discuss it with them after they bring those who committed the atrocities and massacres in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq to the court implicated for the same crimes.” Referring to Assad and other Arab leaders, former Kuwaiti minister of information Saad al-Ajmi told the Times, “Most of them have their hands smeared with the blood of their own people.”
Terrorists in Gaza are chomping at the bit to smear their hands with more Jewish blood. The departing Israeli cabinet learned on Sunday, March 29, that the terrorists are still smuggling weapons since the three-week war with Israel ended on Jan. 18. The Associated Press reports that the cache includes 22 tons of explosives, 45 tons of raw materials for producing bombs, dozens of rockets, hundreds of mortar shells, and dozens of antitank and antiaircraft missiles. Also, the military said that 185 rockets and mortars were launched from Gaza since Jan. 18.
These Gazans have an ally in Hanin Zoabi, the first woman elected to the Knesset representing an Arab party, according to Philadelphia’s Bulletin. Discussing Iran as a potential nuclear power, Zoabi said, “It would be more supporting me to have a counter-power to Israel…It’s the balance of power. Our only idea that it is more dangerous to the world, more dangerous to everyone, more dangerous to the Palestinians, to Israelis to have Israel as the only powerful state…This balance will restrict the Israeli using its power. The Israeli violence of the army is an outcome of Israel’s convenient feeling that no one will restrict her, that no Arab country will really declare a war.”
While observers could debate the justification for the recent Gaza conflict, an Iranian bombing raid of Israel could kill Zoabi and her family members by the very acting of living in the target zone. Am I being too logical here?
Before Netanyahu was sworn into office, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat slammed the incoming administration in a Washington Post op-ed for the prime minister’s refusal to endorse creation of a Palestinian state and limiting any changes to “a series of disconnected cantons with limited self-rule.” He adds, “The new Israeli government must unequivocally affirm its support for the two-state solution and the establishment of a viable, independent and fully sovereign Palestinian state based on 1967 borders.”
A previous Israeli prime minister - three prime ministers ago - did in fact “unequivocally affirm its support” for a Palestinian state. Erakat conveniently neglects to mention that Ehud Barak agreed to establishing a Palestinian state during negotiations at Camp David in July 2000, but then Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat twice refused the offer. That futile exercise in diplomacy was followed by three wars and Israel’s unilateral withdrawal of settlements from Gaza.
Back in Jenin, PLO leaders were so aghast that Arab teens would perform for Holocaust survivors that Wafaa Younis, the orchestra’s director, was prohibited from all activity in the camp and that the house she rented as a studio was sealed, Adnan al-Hindi told the Times.
Hindi, leader of the camp’s popular committee that represents the PLO, indicated that his people balked because the teens might come to believe that their people must sacrifice because Israel was established to compensate for the Holocaust. He charged that the program was targeted to “destroy the Palestinian national spirit in the camp.”
Younis claimed that camp officials seized control of the orchestra to acquire its money, according to the Associated Press. “What did these poor, elderly people do wrong? What did these children do wrong?”
Wafaa Younis is living proof that there are good people among the Arabs. Yet, the inmates continue to run the asylum.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
DUAL LOYALTY UNDER OBAMA
Face it: The Nov. 4 presidential election was a test of dual loyalty if there ever was one.
American Jews had to choose between a candidate who was clueless on fixing our economic mess and an opponent with suspect attitudes toward Israel. As TV host Jay Leno would ask, who do you root for? An estimated 79 percent of Jews voted for Barack Obama.
Yes, it was a loyalty test. President Obama clearly had plans to improve living conditions for all struggling Americans, which takes in a high percentage of Jews. However, we had legitimate concerns about his future influence on Israel. If Sen. John McCain intended changes to advance the lot of the disenfranchised, he kept it a tightly-guarded secret. There was no reason to question his position on Israel, though.
We can only hope that Obama is good for the Jews here and those Jews there, 5,600 miles to the east. American presidents have generally stood in solidarity with Israel since President Truman supported its founding nearly 61 years ago. A large segment of the African-American community has voiced anti-Israel sentiments, and some of Obama’s associations spurred suspicions about his stance on Israel.
American Jews have always been loyal citizens of the United States and forceful advocates for Israel. We have always been able to simultaneously assume both roles with few problems.
Our concerns for the Obama Administration could lead to some intriguing twists and turns.
Primarily, Obama has embarked on a risky undertaking which directly affects the estimated 5.1 million Jews here. Many Jews are poor to begin with, others have lost satisfying jobs and lack health insurance and still more sat helpless as their fortunes evaporated in flawed investments. Jewish agencies face a simultaneous boost in demand for services as their resources shrink.
Philadelphia’s Jewish Exponent reports in an ongoing series of an unemployed widow with three grownup children who live with her, and they all lack health insurance. Two men, ages 53 and 61, lost lifetime jobs or careers. New food assistance requests at the Jewish Relief Agency in Philadelphia surged to 100 in December, up from an average 15 each month; at the same time, the state cut $30,000 from subsidies to the JRA, according to the Exponent.
The Jewish Federations in New York, Atlanta and Cleveland laid off more than 75 employees, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported.
Jewish lobbying organizations for domestic issues fervently support Obama’s programs to improve the economy, but they worry about proposals to reduce tax deductions for charitable giving while raising taxes on the wealthy. These steps could lead to a reduction in contributions from an otherwise reliable funding source.
We 5.1 million are in the same boat as our 294.9 million fellow Americans. We have been tossed into a struggle for financial survival.
Interestingly, competing stereotypes could emerge. Since Jews comprise a high percentage of the wealthy, others may believe that Jews have Mad(e)…off * well from the crisis. Conservatives who dub Obama’s plans as socialism might possibly blame the Jews, as they have been persecuted before for perceived associations with socialism and communism.
Those of us loyal to Israel must consider its web of crises. Israel is attacked daily by Gaza and threatened - in wink and nod style - with nuclear annihilation by Iran. Israel’s government has long operated in crisis mode while so-called Arab peace partners engage in anything but peace among themselves.
Obama wades into this travesty amid questions of where he stands on Israel. Many Jews fear he will pressure the Israeli government into taking action that could harm Israel. So far, he has done little to clarify the direction he intends to take. He claims he and his delegates are attempting to learn what they can before making any decisions.
However, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already declared that a two-state solution must become a reality. Is it the solution? Actually, the best approach is to preclude entering the situation with any pre-conceived notions.
Likewise, it is too early to assess the actions of Obama and Congress on either domestic or international issues. The usual eternal vigilance is necessary, and the government’s policies should be supported when we believe they will benefit America and protested when we fear they could be harmful.
*Author’s note - Sorry, couldn’t resist the pun, which of course is not original.
American Jews had to choose between a candidate who was clueless on fixing our economic mess and an opponent with suspect attitudes toward Israel. As TV host Jay Leno would ask, who do you root for? An estimated 79 percent of Jews voted for Barack Obama.
Yes, it was a loyalty test. President Obama clearly had plans to improve living conditions for all struggling Americans, which takes in a high percentage of Jews. However, we had legitimate concerns about his future influence on Israel. If Sen. John McCain intended changes to advance the lot of the disenfranchised, he kept it a tightly-guarded secret. There was no reason to question his position on Israel, though.
We can only hope that Obama is good for the Jews here and those Jews there, 5,600 miles to the east. American presidents have generally stood in solidarity with Israel since President Truman supported its founding nearly 61 years ago. A large segment of the African-American community has voiced anti-Israel sentiments, and some of Obama’s associations spurred suspicions about his stance on Israel.
American Jews have always been loyal citizens of the United States and forceful advocates for Israel. We have always been able to simultaneously assume both roles with few problems.
Our concerns for the Obama Administration could lead to some intriguing twists and turns.
Primarily, Obama has embarked on a risky undertaking which directly affects the estimated 5.1 million Jews here. Many Jews are poor to begin with, others have lost satisfying jobs and lack health insurance and still more sat helpless as their fortunes evaporated in flawed investments. Jewish agencies face a simultaneous boost in demand for services as their resources shrink.
Philadelphia’s Jewish Exponent reports in an ongoing series of an unemployed widow with three grownup children who live with her, and they all lack health insurance. Two men, ages 53 and 61, lost lifetime jobs or careers. New food assistance requests at the Jewish Relief Agency in Philadelphia surged to 100 in December, up from an average 15 each month; at the same time, the state cut $30,000 from subsidies to the JRA, according to the Exponent.
The Jewish Federations in New York, Atlanta and Cleveland laid off more than 75 employees, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported.
Jewish lobbying organizations for domestic issues fervently support Obama’s programs to improve the economy, but they worry about proposals to reduce tax deductions for charitable giving while raising taxes on the wealthy. These steps could lead to a reduction in contributions from an otherwise reliable funding source.
We 5.1 million are in the same boat as our 294.9 million fellow Americans. We have been tossed into a struggle for financial survival.
Interestingly, competing stereotypes could emerge. Since Jews comprise a high percentage of the wealthy, others may believe that Jews have Mad(e)…off * well from the crisis. Conservatives who dub Obama’s plans as socialism might possibly blame the Jews, as they have been persecuted before for perceived associations with socialism and communism.
Those of us loyal to Israel must consider its web of crises. Israel is attacked daily by Gaza and threatened - in wink and nod style - with nuclear annihilation by Iran. Israel’s government has long operated in crisis mode while so-called Arab peace partners engage in anything but peace among themselves.
Obama wades into this travesty amid questions of where he stands on Israel. Many Jews fear he will pressure the Israeli government into taking action that could harm Israel. So far, he has done little to clarify the direction he intends to take. He claims he and his delegates are attempting to learn what they can before making any decisions.
However, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already declared that a two-state solution must become a reality. Is it the solution? Actually, the best approach is to preclude entering the situation with any pre-conceived notions.
Likewise, it is too early to assess the actions of Obama and Congress on either domestic or international issues. The usual eternal vigilance is necessary, and the government’s policies should be supported when we believe they will benefit America and protested when we fear they could be harmful.
*Author’s note - Sorry, couldn’t resist the pun, which of course is not original.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
RESHAPE THE SENATE...ALREADY
Brooklyn native Barbara Boxer achieved bragging rights in 2004 to winning more votes - 6.9 million - than any Senate candidate in American history. Her accomplishment can probably be attributed to her staying power and the ongoing growth of her adopted state, California, which is home to 36 million people.
Larry Craig retired in 2008 after 18 years in the Senate representing Idaho, where 1.4 million people live. His departure follows his perceptible overtures to an undercover police officer in the next toilet stall in an airport restroom in Minneapolis.
While Craig distinguished himself in a distasteful manner, Boxer has distinguished herself as a commanding figure in the Senate. In a world that is historically unfair, Boxer and Craig exercised exactly the same level of clout for their respective constituents during the 16 years that they simultaneously spent in the Senate chamber; Craig was first elected to the Senate in 1990 and Boxer was elected two years later.
This contrast exemplifies, if to an extreme degree, that the constitutional requirement of two Senate seats for each state does not work in a democratic system. It allows all the smaller states to exercise far more clout than the larger states. The House of Representatives’s seats are allocated proportionately, but not power in the Senate.
Not only are Senate votes tainted by this system but so is the Electoral College vote and the Senate rule permitting filibusters. A Senate majority takes 51 votes, yet as few as 41 senators can block legislation with the filibuster. Worse, a majority of the 26 least populous states could control the legislative process.
We could eliminate the Senate entirely and allow the House to take on powers that it currently lacks. However, a plan described below would leave smaller states with one senator apiece and expand the number of senators in larger states.
Minority groups have long been harmed by this system. In his book How Democratic is the American Constitution?, Yale professor emeritus Robert A. Dahl recounts that the House passed eight anti-slavery measures between 1800 and 1860; all eight were defeated in the Senate. The South also exploited its Senate power to end Reconstruction “and for another century it prevented the country from enacting federal laws to protect the most basic human rights of African Americans,” Dahl wrote.
Boxer represents the second largest Jewish population in America, at 1.1 million, which includes her, and Craig represented a tiny Jewish population, 1,100; South Dakota’s Jewish community is the smallest at 295. The greater Jewish populations are concentrated in the larger states which have been historically shortchanged - New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, southern Florida, California and Illinois.
Like most minority groups, Jews have been jeopardized over bread-and-butter issues including prescription drugs for the elderly, Social Security, education, health care and the economy. Jewish support for Israel has yet to be threatened.
Already, the 2010 Senate campaigns have begun. Democratic operative J. B. Poersch has been sending e-mails urging his minions to galvanize to produce a filibuster-proof Senate. Poersch will almost certainly get his wish. Senate seats held by Republicans in 11 states are somewhat vulnerable. Figure on Ohio and New Hampshire falling to the Democrats.
Currently, Democrats hold 56 seats and are supported by two progressive-leaning independent senators, while Democrat Al Franken is waiting out a court battle in Minnesota.
If Democrats solidify their power, they could at least dispose of the filibuster and, naturally, the Electoral College, and go on to transform the Senate structure. Practically speaking, President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress will probably benefit politically from any changes in this system, but what is crucial is that the American people will benefit.
This has long been my personal view as a citizen, and I was pleased to find myself in good company with Professor Dahl, who wrote in his book: “Because the votes of U.S. senators are counted equally, in 2000 the vote of a Nevada resident for the U.S. Senate was…worth about 17 times the vote of a California resident. Surely the inequality in representation it reveals is a profound violation of the democratic idea of political equality among all citizens.”
Even Constitution signer and eventual President James Madison doubted this arrangement, saying, “The states were divided into different interests, not by their differences in size, but by other circumstances,” according to Dahl’s book.
A more proportionate scheme to reshuffle the Senate would reduce the number of senators for states as politically disparate as Wyoming and Vermont - respectively, the first and second least populous - to one senator each, and boost the amount of senators in large states to at least three.
However, states with a multiple number of senators would no longer be represented on an at-large basis. Instead, each senator would exclusively represent a separate district equal in population to the districts represented by the state’s other senators.
Pennsylvanians might reap the most benefits from this arrangement. Senator #1 might represent Philadelphia, its suburbs and other surrounding counties, which is a moderate to liberal region; the second senator might represent central Pennsylvania, which is ultra-right; and the third for western Pennsylvania, a swing area.
No longer would any senator in Pennsylvania need to navigate among so many competing constituencies with impossibly opposing priorities. Senator #1 could not survive politically without a centrist or liberal voting record. The ultra-conservative Rick Santorum, ousted in 2006 as voters trended liberal, could have counted on a lifetime job if central Pennsylvania was his sole constituency.
Senators would also be able to resist partisan pressure because party leaders will automatically understand that each senator will likely represent a more narrow constituency. Sen. Arlen Specter is expected to face a risky primary challenge next year after voting for the stimulus package.
The Philadelphia and Pittsburgh senators would certainly get a break in traveling. Approximately one-third of Pennsylvanians lives within a 50-mile drive of Philadelphia. Specter, for example, could forgo trips to Erie and Johnstown and have more time to meet with constituents who reside no further than Allentown or Reading.
The arrangement would open the door to multiple parties or independent senators. Around Philadelphia, voters might be able to elect a progressive independent rather than a Democrat or a moderate Republican. Two independent senators now serve there, and independent candidates were elected as governors in Maine and Minnesota.
The Senate can eliminate the filibuster because it is a Senate rule, but Constitutional requirements would, on the surface, thwart removal of the Electoral College and reshaping of the Senate. Perhaps the 14th Amendment, which mandates “equal protection of the laws,” voids the unwieldy process to change the Constitution. Worth looking into.
Larry Craig retired in 2008 after 18 years in the Senate representing Idaho, where 1.4 million people live. His departure follows his perceptible overtures to an undercover police officer in the next toilet stall in an airport restroom in Minneapolis.
While Craig distinguished himself in a distasteful manner, Boxer has distinguished herself as a commanding figure in the Senate. In a world that is historically unfair, Boxer and Craig exercised exactly the same level of clout for their respective constituents during the 16 years that they simultaneously spent in the Senate chamber; Craig was first elected to the Senate in 1990 and Boxer was elected two years later.
This contrast exemplifies, if to an extreme degree, that the constitutional requirement of two Senate seats for each state does not work in a democratic system. It allows all the smaller states to exercise far more clout than the larger states. The House of Representatives’s seats are allocated proportionately, but not power in the Senate.
Not only are Senate votes tainted by this system but so is the Electoral College vote and the Senate rule permitting filibusters. A Senate majority takes 51 votes, yet as few as 41 senators can block legislation with the filibuster. Worse, a majority of the 26 least populous states could control the legislative process.
We could eliminate the Senate entirely and allow the House to take on powers that it currently lacks. However, a plan described below would leave smaller states with one senator apiece and expand the number of senators in larger states.
Minority groups have long been harmed by this system. In his book How Democratic is the American Constitution?, Yale professor emeritus Robert A. Dahl recounts that the House passed eight anti-slavery measures between 1800 and 1860; all eight were defeated in the Senate. The South also exploited its Senate power to end Reconstruction “and for another century it prevented the country from enacting federal laws to protect the most basic human rights of African Americans,” Dahl wrote.
Boxer represents the second largest Jewish population in America, at 1.1 million, which includes her, and Craig represented a tiny Jewish population, 1,100; South Dakota’s Jewish community is the smallest at 295. The greater Jewish populations are concentrated in the larger states which have been historically shortchanged - New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, southern Florida, California and Illinois.
Like most minority groups, Jews have been jeopardized over bread-and-butter issues including prescription drugs for the elderly, Social Security, education, health care and the economy. Jewish support for Israel has yet to be threatened.
Already, the 2010 Senate campaigns have begun. Democratic operative J. B. Poersch has been sending e-mails urging his minions to galvanize to produce a filibuster-proof Senate. Poersch will almost certainly get his wish. Senate seats held by Republicans in 11 states are somewhat vulnerable. Figure on Ohio and New Hampshire falling to the Democrats.
Currently, Democrats hold 56 seats and are supported by two progressive-leaning independent senators, while Democrat Al Franken is waiting out a court battle in Minnesota.
If Democrats solidify their power, they could at least dispose of the filibuster and, naturally, the Electoral College, and go on to transform the Senate structure. Practically speaking, President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress will probably benefit politically from any changes in this system, but what is crucial is that the American people will benefit.
This has long been my personal view as a citizen, and I was pleased to find myself in good company with Professor Dahl, who wrote in his book: “Because the votes of U.S. senators are counted equally, in 2000 the vote of a Nevada resident for the U.S. Senate was…worth about 17 times the vote of a California resident. Surely the inequality in representation it reveals is a profound violation of the democratic idea of political equality among all citizens.”
Even Constitution signer and eventual President James Madison doubted this arrangement, saying, “The states were divided into different interests, not by their differences in size, but by other circumstances,” according to Dahl’s book.
A more proportionate scheme to reshuffle the Senate would reduce the number of senators for states as politically disparate as Wyoming and Vermont - respectively, the first and second least populous - to one senator each, and boost the amount of senators in large states to at least three.
However, states with a multiple number of senators would no longer be represented on an at-large basis. Instead, each senator would exclusively represent a separate district equal in population to the districts represented by the state’s other senators.
Pennsylvanians might reap the most benefits from this arrangement. Senator #1 might represent Philadelphia, its suburbs and other surrounding counties, which is a moderate to liberal region; the second senator might represent central Pennsylvania, which is ultra-right; and the third for western Pennsylvania, a swing area.
No longer would any senator in Pennsylvania need to navigate among so many competing constituencies with impossibly opposing priorities. Senator #1 could not survive politically without a centrist or liberal voting record. The ultra-conservative Rick Santorum, ousted in 2006 as voters trended liberal, could have counted on a lifetime job if central Pennsylvania was his sole constituency.
Senators would also be able to resist partisan pressure because party leaders will automatically understand that each senator will likely represent a more narrow constituency. Sen. Arlen Specter is expected to face a risky primary challenge next year after voting for the stimulus package.
The Philadelphia and Pittsburgh senators would certainly get a break in traveling. Approximately one-third of Pennsylvanians lives within a 50-mile drive of Philadelphia. Specter, for example, could forgo trips to Erie and Johnstown and have more time to meet with constituents who reside no further than Allentown or Reading.
The arrangement would open the door to multiple parties or independent senators. Around Philadelphia, voters might be able to elect a progressive independent rather than a Democrat or a moderate Republican. Two independent senators now serve there, and independent candidates were elected as governors in Maine and Minnesota.
The Senate can eliminate the filibuster because it is a Senate rule, but Constitutional requirements would, on the surface, thwart removal of the Electoral College and reshaping of the Senate. Perhaps the 14th Amendment, which mandates “equal protection of the laws,” voids the unwieldy process to change the Constitution. Worth looking into.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
JEWISH SOLIDARITY, RECONSIDERED
As 10,000 or more gathered for an Israel-solidarity rally in midtown Manhattan, some speakers voiced joy and surprise as they scanned the unexpectedly massive crowd in front of them.
Surprised? The Jan. 11 event was held on a Sunday, when most Jews are off work and not observing Shabbat. During the past few years, at least three pro-Israel rallies were held in Manhattan on Mondays. Many Jews work on Mondays, and usually their jobs are located beyond a reasonable walking distance from these demonstrations.
With the Israeli invasion of Gaza at its peak, I spotted a newspaper letter in which the writer complained that American Jews should have conducted protests on the first day that a rocket launched from Gaza struck Sderot. A more recent letter in The Los Angeles Jewish Journal urged the Jewish community to become more active in Jewish causes.
I would argue that Israel is winning the public-relations war in the United States and elsewhere in the West. In sports terms, Israel prevailed in the image tussle on points - far short of a knockout punch. My impression has been that most Americans are scared and confused whenever war breaks out in the Middle East. Given recent history, they have little empathy left for the Arabs, though they have a measure of understanding for Israel.
Yet the abrupt bombardment of Gaza on Dec. 27 struck the world’s psyche like a sledgehammer. This perception could have been averted had the Jewish community prepared America for Israel’s actions. A much stronger drive to present Israel’s grievances in the past decade might have cushioned the public response. Maybe a more forceful initiative would have helped prod a political resolution, precluding a military confrontation.
During the past decade, Israelis and their supporters have contended with a range of ordeals while neglecting to sufficiently expose Arab crimes to their international neighbors. Israel offered the Arabs an independent state, and the Arab response was a war which ended in the deaths of 1,100 Israelis and 3,000 Arabs. Israel fully withdrew from Gaza, and extremists there responded by firing rockets into Sderot and other southern Israeli towns.
A mad tyrant, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, threatens to nuke Israel and supplies weapons to Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. An Israeli soldier who was kidnapped in June 2006 remains in captivity, most likely in Gaza. Even now, a terror spree threatens Jews in Islamic countries, and jeopardizes Jews in Europe and to a lesser extent in South America.
Some of these events, taken together, affords a convincing rationale for the invasion of Gaza even if it meant the deaths of innocent Arabs caught in the crossfire. The Israeli government made certain to brief the news media on much of this backstory, which helped shape public opinion.
America’s Jewish community made a limited effort to lay the groundwork to educate its neighbors. As the results bear out, those initiatives were not good enough. Advocates needed to conduct a sustained, forceful and methodical drive to ensure that these issues were heavily promoted in the public arena.
We cannot go back in time, but the Jewish community can reassess how to confront comparable concerns in the future. First step is to identify legitimate concerns which are not subject to debate. The Jewish community may never reach common ground on settlements, but we should be capable of coalescing around the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, the end of rocket attacks and portraying Ahmadinejad as the Darth Vader of the Middle East.
“Doing nothing is not an option,” and “failure is not an option,” to respectively quote President Obama at his first press conference and Ed Harris in Apollo 13. The Jewish community must devise a strategy to tackle issues affecting Israel and the Jewish community elsewhere, including America.
Any strategy must engage the grassroots as well as Jewish leaders and furnish a means of attracting Jews who feel disconnected from the Jewish community. Tactics can incorporate rallies, petition drives, support from political figures, news conferences by Jewish leaders, newspaper advertisements and exposure of inappropriate behavior of advocates for the Arabs.
Such a campaign should be engineered for maximum effect. The use of demonstrations was mismanaged in recent years, especially those in Manhattan. Any gathering in midtown Manhattan can be a magnet for world attention because of its center-of-the-universe status. New York City is accessible via cheap transportation not only from its suburbs but as far as Philadelphia, the Hamptons and New Haven. From Philadelphia, I frequently take advantage of this transportation network.
It makes sense to hold a Manhattan rally on a Sunday at 1 or 2 p.m. for the convenience of those who work outside midtown on weekdays and/or observe Shabbat on Saturdays, and even those who live 100 miles from NYC.
Prior to the most recent war, the midtown rallies were held on Mondays at noon. They reportedly drew a respectable turnout, partly because students from Jewish day schools were bused to the site. Turnout could have been far more abundant if they were held on a Sunday, the later the better.
On Jan. 11, a Sunday, four pro-Israel rallies were held in the New York region - in midtown, Long Island, New Jersey and the northern suburbs, each drawing a healthy turnout. They were covered by daily newspapers in the area, including suburban papers. Rabbi Avi Weiss, spiritual leader of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, led fellow Riverdalians to the Manhattan rally, according to The Riverdale Press.
The only glitch for the Manhattan event was the start time, 11 a.m. I skipped it because of other business, but the 11 a.m. start was too early for me and possibly for many others who might have been willing to attend.
A Philadelphia demonstration was held at lunchtime downtown on a weekday, but another protest was staged on the following Saturday night, Jan. 10, at a suburban synagogue. The center city event happened to work for me since it was held across the street from my office. Florida Jews staged a series of rallies nights and weekends, even after the fighting ended, and many were reported in their local newspapers.
Holding rallies is not the sole instrument, but an organized campaign is key to telling Israel’s side. Such a drive makes people aware of Israel’s challenges and provides public officials with ammunition when they speak in solidarity with Israel. As a bonus, the entire Jewish community has the opportunity to help their fellow Jews elsewhere
.
Surprised? The Jan. 11 event was held on a Sunday, when most Jews are off work and not observing Shabbat. During the past few years, at least three pro-Israel rallies were held in Manhattan on Mondays. Many Jews work on Mondays, and usually their jobs are located beyond a reasonable walking distance from these demonstrations.
With the Israeli invasion of Gaza at its peak, I spotted a newspaper letter in which the writer complained that American Jews should have conducted protests on the first day that a rocket launched from Gaza struck Sderot. A more recent letter in The Los Angeles Jewish Journal urged the Jewish community to become more active in Jewish causes.
I would argue that Israel is winning the public-relations war in the United States and elsewhere in the West. In sports terms, Israel prevailed in the image tussle on points - far short of a knockout punch. My impression has been that most Americans are scared and confused whenever war breaks out in the Middle East. Given recent history, they have little empathy left for the Arabs, though they have a measure of understanding for Israel.
Yet the abrupt bombardment of Gaza on Dec. 27 struck the world’s psyche like a sledgehammer. This perception could have been averted had the Jewish community prepared America for Israel’s actions. A much stronger drive to present Israel’s grievances in the past decade might have cushioned the public response. Maybe a more forceful initiative would have helped prod a political resolution, precluding a military confrontation.
During the past decade, Israelis and their supporters have contended with a range of ordeals while neglecting to sufficiently expose Arab crimes to their international neighbors. Israel offered the Arabs an independent state, and the Arab response was a war which ended in the deaths of 1,100 Israelis and 3,000 Arabs. Israel fully withdrew from Gaza, and extremists there responded by firing rockets into Sderot and other southern Israeli towns.
A mad tyrant, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, threatens to nuke Israel and supplies weapons to Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. An Israeli soldier who was kidnapped in June 2006 remains in captivity, most likely in Gaza. Even now, a terror spree threatens Jews in Islamic countries, and jeopardizes Jews in Europe and to a lesser extent in South America.
Some of these events, taken together, affords a convincing rationale for the invasion of Gaza even if it meant the deaths of innocent Arabs caught in the crossfire. The Israeli government made certain to brief the news media on much of this backstory, which helped shape public opinion.
America’s Jewish community made a limited effort to lay the groundwork to educate its neighbors. As the results bear out, those initiatives were not good enough. Advocates needed to conduct a sustained, forceful and methodical drive to ensure that these issues were heavily promoted in the public arena.
We cannot go back in time, but the Jewish community can reassess how to confront comparable concerns in the future. First step is to identify legitimate concerns which are not subject to debate. The Jewish community may never reach common ground on settlements, but we should be capable of coalescing around the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, the end of rocket attacks and portraying Ahmadinejad as the Darth Vader of the Middle East.
“Doing nothing is not an option,” and “failure is not an option,” to respectively quote President Obama at his first press conference and Ed Harris in Apollo 13. The Jewish community must devise a strategy to tackle issues affecting Israel and the Jewish community elsewhere, including America.
Any strategy must engage the grassroots as well as Jewish leaders and furnish a means of attracting Jews who feel disconnected from the Jewish community. Tactics can incorporate rallies, petition drives, support from political figures, news conferences by Jewish leaders, newspaper advertisements and exposure of inappropriate behavior of advocates for the Arabs.
Such a campaign should be engineered for maximum effect. The use of demonstrations was mismanaged in recent years, especially those in Manhattan. Any gathering in midtown Manhattan can be a magnet for world attention because of its center-of-the-universe status. New York City is accessible via cheap transportation not only from its suburbs but as far as Philadelphia, the Hamptons and New Haven. From Philadelphia, I frequently take advantage of this transportation network.
It makes sense to hold a Manhattan rally on a Sunday at 1 or 2 p.m. for the convenience of those who work outside midtown on weekdays and/or observe Shabbat on Saturdays, and even those who live 100 miles from NYC.
Prior to the most recent war, the midtown rallies were held on Mondays at noon. They reportedly drew a respectable turnout, partly because students from Jewish day schools were bused to the site. Turnout could have been far more abundant if they were held on a Sunday, the later the better.
On Jan. 11, a Sunday, four pro-Israel rallies were held in the New York region - in midtown, Long Island, New Jersey and the northern suburbs, each drawing a healthy turnout. They were covered by daily newspapers in the area, including suburban papers. Rabbi Avi Weiss, spiritual leader of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, led fellow Riverdalians to the Manhattan rally, according to The Riverdale Press.
The only glitch for the Manhattan event was the start time, 11 a.m. I skipped it because of other business, but the 11 a.m. start was too early for me and possibly for many others who might have been willing to attend.
A Philadelphia demonstration was held at lunchtime downtown on a weekday, but another protest was staged on the following Saturday night, Jan. 10, at a suburban synagogue. The center city event happened to work for me since it was held across the street from my office. Florida Jews staged a series of rallies nights and weekends, even after the fighting ended, and many were reported in their local newspapers.
Holding rallies is not the sole instrument, but an organized campaign is key to telling Israel’s side. Such a drive makes people aware of Israel’s challenges and provides public officials with ammunition when they speak in solidarity with Israel. As a bonus, the entire Jewish community has the opportunity to help their fellow Jews elsewhere
.
Monday, February 16, 2009
ISRAEL'S NEW GOV'T NEEDS DIRECTION
Perhaps Cheltenham High School helped shape Benjamin Netanyahu’s smarts so he gets why many Israelis flocked to the Likud Party, which he leads, and other right-wing parties. They voted for security, not to expand West Bank settlements or force Israeli Arabs to sign loyalty oaths.
If he becomes Israel’s seventh prime minister in 16 years, Netanyahu will preside over a broad coalition government in spirit if not reality. He probably recognizes that any victory he can claim is due to his lesser-evil status. He has already said he wants to form a centrist coalition government. Even if the Labor and Kadima parties rebuff his offer to join a government headed by Netanyahu, he will be crazy if he takes a hard-right stance on most issues.
Figuring out the Feb. 10 election is not easy. A draw? A moral victory? As in war, nobody won. Each candidate lost more than the eventual prime minister, who is expected to be either Netanyahu or Tzipi Livni, leader of the centrist Kadima Party. As some news articles quoting Israelis suggest, most voters want none of them. They do want Israel to survive and a leadership that acts sensibly, not in extremes.
Once the smoke from the election clears, the new government must settle into a stable course. It must move in a purposeful direction to build Israel’s future.
Israel has lacked for stable leadership since the Arab uprising in September 2000. Then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak performed a credible job confronting that conflict, but the following year his immediate successor - Ariel Sharon - employed a heavyhanded approach which contributed to a sharp rise in casualties on both sides.
Gaza and the West Bank afforded the perfect storm for the main battlegrounds as Israeli troops not only fought Arab terrorists but needed to protect the settlers. Sharon initially resisted the construction of the security barrier, which is credited with preventing the bombing attacks in Israel proper.
Credit Sharon’s government for withdrawing from Gaza in August and September 2005. The settlements were too difficult to protect. Perhaps a military presence should have been maintained, but even then the troops would been dragged into fights with Hamas and other terrorist factions. Of course, the upside is that their very presence would have prevented Hamas’s seizure of Gaza.
The war in June 2006 was started by Hamas from Gaza and Hezbollah in south Lebanon, after three Israeli soldiers were reportedly seized by terrorists with no provocation whatsoever. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had appointed a defense minister with barely any military experience, and that inexperience showed as Israel initiated an air campaign that could literally be described as overkill. Meanwhile, the army’s ground engagement was delayed too long and reserve troops in particular discovered that the military was poorly prepared for the war.
That war ended with no resolution on the capture of the three soldiers. Of course, we learned later that two soldiers were dead, but the soldier detained by Arabs in Gaza - Cpl. Gilad Shalit - was apparently still in captivity. Israel ended that war and, in fact, the recent war without freeing Shalit.
This means that Israelis first contended with a government that was too harsh and then a government that was in some ways too soft. Can Israel afford to keep swinging from one drifting governing approach to another?
Among the incoming government’s most important first steps will be appointment of the most qualified Defense Minister possible. Retaining Barak as Defense Minister will relieve every citizen of Israel. So far, Barak’s performance seems almost flawless. He smoothly planned and executed the Gaza retaliation that began last Dec. 27 and thoroughly utilized intelligence to impair Hamas’s military capability.
Moreover, he upgraded Israel’s military readiness; at least, I have seen no media reports criticizing the nation’s military preparedness. If Barak’s retention is not in the cards, the new prime minister must appoint a defense minister with ready credentials to build public confidence.
The political parties need to seek common ground, decide on a general direction for Israel’s future and prioritize the issues facing Israel. Many delicate concerns will defy an organized approach, but these factions should work together to reach compromises and perhaps find alternate solutions that never occurred to anyone before.
Judging from the election results, the Israeli people are first worried about survival. Understandably, they are tired of jumping through hoops for the Arabs. After offering the Arabs an independent state and fighting three wars in less than a decade, they want a government that will stand firm, but not a government that will recklessly incite World War III.
The outcome amounts to a split decision. The centrist party, Kadima, won 28 seats - one seat ahead of Likud, yet Likud and the other hardline parties won a collective 65 seats. That leaves 55 seats for Knesset members who do not support a hardline position. In addition, there is no question that the Yisrael Beitenu Party led by Avigdor Lieberman siphoned enough votes (winning 15 seats) from Netanyahu to allow Livni to edge him out.
Netanyahu, who spent part of his childhood in a Philadelphia suburb, is jostling with Livni for leadership of a coalition government. Interestingly, all three principal politicians - Netanyahu, Barak and Livni - possess impressive strengths. Any leader who could combine their qualities - Netanyahu’s natural leadership skills, Livni’s intelligence and sensibility and Barak’s abilities in military management - would make a great prime minister.
Drama will likely dominate the formation of the next government, but let’s hope the politicians keep the internal drama to a minimum once a government is established. The Arabs will give them enough drama.
If he becomes Israel’s seventh prime minister in 16 years, Netanyahu will preside over a broad coalition government in spirit if not reality. He probably recognizes that any victory he can claim is due to his lesser-evil status. He has already said he wants to form a centrist coalition government. Even if the Labor and Kadima parties rebuff his offer to join a government headed by Netanyahu, he will be crazy if he takes a hard-right stance on most issues.
Figuring out the Feb. 10 election is not easy. A draw? A moral victory? As in war, nobody won. Each candidate lost more than the eventual prime minister, who is expected to be either Netanyahu or Tzipi Livni, leader of the centrist Kadima Party. As some news articles quoting Israelis suggest, most voters want none of them. They do want Israel to survive and a leadership that acts sensibly, not in extremes.
Once the smoke from the election clears, the new government must settle into a stable course. It must move in a purposeful direction to build Israel’s future.
Israel has lacked for stable leadership since the Arab uprising in September 2000. Then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak performed a credible job confronting that conflict, but the following year his immediate successor - Ariel Sharon - employed a heavyhanded approach which contributed to a sharp rise in casualties on both sides.
Gaza and the West Bank afforded the perfect storm for the main battlegrounds as Israeli troops not only fought Arab terrorists but needed to protect the settlers. Sharon initially resisted the construction of the security barrier, which is credited with preventing the bombing attacks in Israel proper.
Credit Sharon’s government for withdrawing from Gaza in August and September 2005. The settlements were too difficult to protect. Perhaps a military presence should have been maintained, but even then the troops would been dragged into fights with Hamas and other terrorist factions. Of course, the upside is that their very presence would have prevented Hamas’s seizure of Gaza.
The war in June 2006 was started by Hamas from Gaza and Hezbollah in south Lebanon, after three Israeli soldiers were reportedly seized by terrorists with no provocation whatsoever. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had appointed a defense minister with barely any military experience, and that inexperience showed as Israel initiated an air campaign that could literally be described as overkill. Meanwhile, the army’s ground engagement was delayed too long and reserve troops in particular discovered that the military was poorly prepared for the war.
That war ended with no resolution on the capture of the three soldiers. Of course, we learned later that two soldiers were dead, but the soldier detained by Arabs in Gaza - Cpl. Gilad Shalit - was apparently still in captivity. Israel ended that war and, in fact, the recent war without freeing Shalit.
This means that Israelis first contended with a government that was too harsh and then a government that was in some ways too soft. Can Israel afford to keep swinging from one drifting governing approach to another?
Among the incoming government’s most important first steps will be appointment of the most qualified Defense Minister possible. Retaining Barak as Defense Minister will relieve every citizen of Israel. So far, Barak’s performance seems almost flawless. He smoothly planned and executed the Gaza retaliation that began last Dec. 27 and thoroughly utilized intelligence to impair Hamas’s military capability.
Moreover, he upgraded Israel’s military readiness; at least, I have seen no media reports criticizing the nation’s military preparedness. If Barak’s retention is not in the cards, the new prime minister must appoint a defense minister with ready credentials to build public confidence.
The political parties need to seek common ground, decide on a general direction for Israel’s future and prioritize the issues facing Israel. Many delicate concerns will defy an organized approach, but these factions should work together to reach compromises and perhaps find alternate solutions that never occurred to anyone before.
Judging from the election results, the Israeli people are first worried about survival. Understandably, they are tired of jumping through hoops for the Arabs. After offering the Arabs an independent state and fighting three wars in less than a decade, they want a government that will stand firm, but not a government that will recklessly incite World War III.
The outcome amounts to a split decision. The centrist party, Kadima, won 28 seats - one seat ahead of Likud, yet Likud and the other hardline parties won a collective 65 seats. That leaves 55 seats for Knesset members who do not support a hardline position. In addition, there is no question that the Yisrael Beitenu Party led by Avigdor Lieberman siphoned enough votes (winning 15 seats) from Netanyahu to allow Livni to edge him out.
Netanyahu, who spent part of his childhood in a Philadelphia suburb, is jostling with Livni for leadership of a coalition government. Interestingly, all three principal politicians - Netanyahu, Barak and Livni - possess impressive strengths. Any leader who could combine their qualities - Netanyahu’s natural leadership skills, Livni’s intelligence and sensibility and Barak’s abilities in military management - would make a great prime minister.
Drama will likely dominate the formation of the next government, but let’s hope the politicians keep the internal drama to a minimum once a government is established. The Arabs will give them enough drama.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
THE NEW POGROMS OF EUROPE
Love Park failed to live up to its name when 2,500 Philadelphia Jews gathered there last month to support Israel’s invasion of Gaza. From the sidewalk, 50 pro-Arab demonstrators chanted, “We don’t want this racist war!”
Police kept the two factions separate from one another. From my experience, the pro-Arab side in this country can behave unseemly at rallies, not that Israel supporters are faultless. However, advocates for the Gazans are tame compared to those in Europe. Jews across Europe face a pattern of violence that compares to the pogroms which victimized their ancestors through the centuries.
It is a grave issue that must rise close to the top not only of the Jewish communal agenda but of the human agenda. The severity of such concerns becomes evident from a check of reports on Web sites for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the Anti-Defamation League. A New York Times article places Paris as Ground Zero for this domestic terror spree.
Jews in France contended with at least 60 offenses during the three weeks since Israel attacked Gaza on Dec. 27. A gang of youths beat up a 15-year-old Jewish teen near Paris on Jan. 7 as they vowed revenge for the people of Gaza. As a rabbi led a class inside a synagogue in Toulouse, a burning car with a Molotov cocktail was rammed into the door of the building. A rabbi in Vincennes, a Paris suburb, received a death threat directed at all Jews.
In the days since the Gaza cease-fire began, I spotted two more JTA reports of such incidents in Europe. The terrorism struck even closer to home - in Venezuela - when a group of thugs on Saturday, Jan. 31, broke into a Caracas synagogue and left Torah scrolls strewn around the floor.
The first shot in the European terror war was fired, literally, by a Dane of Arab descent at two Israelis in a shopping mall in Odense, Denmark. In Norway, 1,000 pro-Arab demonstrators caused injuries to six people when they attacked a pro-Israel rally of 500 people in Oslo on Jan. 9; 31 people were arrested. Vandals sacked the central London office of a pro-Israel advocacy group. Arsonists attempted to burn synagogues in Belgium, Sweden and England, mostly with Molotov cocktails.
Police in Duisburg, West Germany said they were trying to defuse tensions when they broke into an apartment on Jan. 10 and removed Israeli flags from the tenant’s window, which overlooked an anti-Israel demonstration. Police entered the apartment after they saw protestors toss snowballs and other objects at the apartment window, according to JTA.
Duisburg police actually had honorable intentions, but they took the easy way out instead of performing their duties. They should have commanded of the pro-Arab group: Protest, yes, but disturb anyone and we will arrest you and prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.
The Duisburg response reflects what might be enabling the violence. In the United States, illegal activity by supporters of the Arabs has been minimal. “They are coming after us in France because they can’t get us in Israel,” an unidentified Jewish woman in Paris told a New York Times reporter.
Exactly. They know they can get away with bullying and harming Jews in European countries. I have witnessed pro-Arab demonstrators push the limits in the past, especially at a rally in Times Square on Jan. 3. New York’s Finest moved on the pro-Arab crowd when a few objects were tossed at a pro-Israel counter-protest. In most American towns, especially big cities, they could not get away with the modern-day pogroms perfected by their brethren in Europe.
Law enforcement in America has been superb for Jews. Anti-Semitic acts will occur, and when they do police move swiftly to investigate and enforce the law. Arabs in America know this because the same system benefits them so well.
Police in Duisburg were downright timid when they acted against the family instead of the activists. If law enforcement in Europe operates like this, it is no wonder that pro-Arab advocates are so bold there. European police could be so lax that offenders never experience a deterrent effect. However, French Jews praised the quick and firm response of French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s government, according to The Forward, a Jewish weekly newspaper.
Reticence among European police is understandable. Europe is more vulnerable to terrorism due to proximity to the Middle East and the greater number of Arab residents, and Europeans are concerned about the cost and supply of oil. Jews who live outside the United States will be more vulnerable to anti-Semitic acts so long as their numbers are smaller and their influence is limited. Jews in America, Israel and more tolerant countries must stand in solidarity with European Jews and urge action to minimize harassment and violence. Of course, they should be joined by anyone else, regardless of their Israel views, who believe in civil discourse.
Worse is the attitude in Venezuala. Like Hitler, President Hugo Chavez has whipped up anti-Semitic fervor by consistently attacking Israel and making anti-Semitic comments himself. European leaders cannot be accused of sponsoring criminal activity against Jews while, in an indirect way, Chavez clearly encourages such acts.
Anyone who still doubts the severity of conditions in Europe might wish to consider the words of Enis Chabchoub in the Times: “It’s good that the fighting has stopped, but that doesn’t mean we will forget. This war will be remembered, and not only in Gaza.” His family members are Tunisian immigrants.
Or the rationalizing of M’hammed Henniche, of the Union of Muslim Associations in a Paris suburb: “Yes, there is anger, but it’s not against Jews, it’s against Israel.” So why do these hoods attack Jews who live not in Israel, but Paris, Duisburg, Odense and London?
Police kept the two factions separate from one another. From my experience, the pro-Arab side in this country can behave unseemly at rallies, not that Israel supporters are faultless. However, advocates for the Gazans are tame compared to those in Europe. Jews across Europe face a pattern of violence that compares to the pogroms which victimized their ancestors through the centuries.
It is a grave issue that must rise close to the top not only of the Jewish communal agenda but of the human agenda. The severity of such concerns becomes evident from a check of reports on Web sites for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the Anti-Defamation League. A New York Times article places Paris as Ground Zero for this domestic terror spree.
Jews in France contended with at least 60 offenses during the three weeks since Israel attacked Gaza on Dec. 27. A gang of youths beat up a 15-year-old Jewish teen near Paris on Jan. 7 as they vowed revenge for the people of Gaza. As a rabbi led a class inside a synagogue in Toulouse, a burning car with a Molotov cocktail was rammed into the door of the building. A rabbi in Vincennes, a Paris suburb, received a death threat directed at all Jews.
In the days since the Gaza cease-fire began, I spotted two more JTA reports of such incidents in Europe. The terrorism struck even closer to home - in Venezuela - when a group of thugs on Saturday, Jan. 31, broke into a Caracas synagogue and left Torah scrolls strewn around the floor.
The first shot in the European terror war was fired, literally, by a Dane of Arab descent at two Israelis in a shopping mall in Odense, Denmark. In Norway, 1,000 pro-Arab demonstrators caused injuries to six people when they attacked a pro-Israel rally of 500 people in Oslo on Jan. 9; 31 people were arrested. Vandals sacked the central London office of a pro-Israel advocacy group. Arsonists attempted to burn synagogues in Belgium, Sweden and England, mostly with Molotov cocktails.
Police in Duisburg, West Germany said they were trying to defuse tensions when they broke into an apartment on Jan. 10 and removed Israeli flags from the tenant’s window, which overlooked an anti-Israel demonstration. Police entered the apartment after they saw protestors toss snowballs and other objects at the apartment window, according to JTA.
Duisburg police actually had honorable intentions, but they took the easy way out instead of performing their duties. They should have commanded of the pro-Arab group: Protest, yes, but disturb anyone and we will arrest you and prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.
The Duisburg response reflects what might be enabling the violence. In the United States, illegal activity by supporters of the Arabs has been minimal. “They are coming after us in France because they can’t get us in Israel,” an unidentified Jewish woman in Paris told a New York Times reporter.
Exactly. They know they can get away with bullying and harming Jews in European countries. I have witnessed pro-Arab demonstrators push the limits in the past, especially at a rally in Times Square on Jan. 3. New York’s Finest moved on the pro-Arab crowd when a few objects were tossed at a pro-Israel counter-protest. In most American towns, especially big cities, they could not get away with the modern-day pogroms perfected by their brethren in Europe.
Law enforcement in America has been superb for Jews. Anti-Semitic acts will occur, and when they do police move swiftly to investigate and enforce the law. Arabs in America know this because the same system benefits them so well.
Police in Duisburg were downright timid when they acted against the family instead of the activists. If law enforcement in Europe operates like this, it is no wonder that pro-Arab advocates are so bold there. European police could be so lax that offenders never experience a deterrent effect. However, French Jews praised the quick and firm response of French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s government, according to The Forward, a Jewish weekly newspaper.
Reticence among European police is understandable. Europe is more vulnerable to terrorism due to proximity to the Middle East and the greater number of Arab residents, and Europeans are concerned about the cost and supply of oil. Jews who live outside the United States will be more vulnerable to anti-Semitic acts so long as their numbers are smaller and their influence is limited. Jews in America, Israel and more tolerant countries must stand in solidarity with European Jews and urge action to minimize harassment and violence. Of course, they should be joined by anyone else, regardless of their Israel views, who believe in civil discourse.
Worse is the attitude in Venezuala. Like Hitler, President Hugo Chavez has whipped up anti-Semitic fervor by consistently attacking Israel and making anti-Semitic comments himself. European leaders cannot be accused of sponsoring criminal activity against Jews while, in an indirect way, Chavez clearly encourages such acts.
Anyone who still doubts the severity of conditions in Europe might wish to consider the words of Enis Chabchoub in the Times: “It’s good that the fighting has stopped, but that doesn’t mean we will forget. This war will be remembered, and not only in Gaza.” His family members are Tunisian immigrants.
Or the rationalizing of M’hammed Henniche, of the Union of Muslim Associations in a Paris suburb: “Yes, there is anger, but it’s not against Jews, it’s against Israel.” So why do these hoods attack Jews who live not in Israel, but Paris, Duisburg, Odense and London?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)