Peace be upon you, Jews, you are free!

via Yad Vashem

These words were spoken by Rabbi Herschel Schacter shortly after he rode through the gates of the Buchenwald concentration camp in 1945, together with the liberating American forces. Rabbi Schacter died in the Bronx on March 21, after a long career as one of the most prominent Modern Orthodox rabbis in the United States. And, as further reported by the NY Times on March 26, he cried “Shalom Aleichem, Yidden, as he ran from barracks to barracks, repeating those words: Peace be upon you, Jews, you are free! He was joined by those Jews who could walk, until a stream of people swelled behind him.”

His words still resonate in my head, and apparently won’t leave me in peace until I write this post and get it out of my system. Because, fellow Jews, it took me awhile to understand that they hold true today – though probably from a somewhat different angle – as they did 68 years ago. Not because Jews are not free. They are, in Israel and America (and most everywhere else), allowed to follow their dreams and live their lives as they please. And yet, and this is what bothers me the most, in Israel – and surly in some segments of American Jewry as well – some people, or better still some leaders, behave as if we are not yet free.

This is an oxymoron of sorts, which demands a careful examination. Let me have a crack at it then, here and now. What I keep hearing from Israeli leaders, and from some American Jews as well, is in what a dangerous neighborhood Israel exists. True enough. They keep stressing, also, that today, 65 years to the establishment of the Jewish state, Israel is still in a state of siege; still fighting for its survival, and still facing an “existential” threat to its existence. Oh, how much Mr. Netanyahu likes to use that old metaphor of comparing Israel’s struggle for survival with what we had suffered in the Holocaust. It is high time to put a stop to the constant, denigrating use of the Holocaust to justify false, cowardly policies.

Israel, after all, is the only unquestionable, unchallengeable superpower in the Middle East today. Furthermore, militarily and economically – with the support of America and American Jews squarely pushing and covering our back – one of the strongest nations on earth, possessing an amazingly strong army, with a large arsenal of nuclear weapons. (Which now we learn, thanks to WikiLeaks, Israel had vehemently refused to admit existed even to the American president and other leaders in 1975, refusing all attempts of inspection – remind you of something?…) So stop pretending as if Israel is not free. Stop pretending as if it faces a constant existential threat. Stop being such a militaristic, confrontational oriented society and realize – leaders and people alike – that only by making peace with your neighbors, far and foremost among them the Palestinians, the gaining of total freedom will be completed.

If there is an existential, external threat to Israel’s existence, it stems not from its neighboring countries, but from its refusal to compromise and make peace. The other existential threat is internally, and threatens the fabric of its society; i.e. the “The wars of the Jews.” It seems as if the gap between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem keeps widening, as is the gap between the liberal, largely secular Israel and the more fervent religious segments of its society. A gap like that, if not kept in check, can grow into an abyss. Tackling these issues at the core, and head on – like, for instance, allowing women to pray as they wish at the Western Wall, and not be pushed to sit at the back of the bus – is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, the rise of Yair Lapid and his Yesh Atid party signal, at least on that front, a promising move forward.

It is therefore important – especially on this unique April 2013, in which Passover ended and Lag B’Omer begins, in which we honored the memory of all the victims of the Holocaust, and then stood silence in memory of our fallen soldiers, who fought and died for our freedom, to be followed by a celebration of their (and our) achievement of being a free, independent sate – to remember the words Rabbi Schacter cried upon the liberation of Buchenwald: “Peace be upon you, Jews, you are free!” This is a reminder that we are indeed free. And that we better behave like free people – free to choose war or peace – if we don’t want to lose that precious freedom.

* Appeared first on “The Times of Israel.”

The Silence of the Friends

“Friends don’t let friends drive drunk,” a woman friend had told me at a Super Bowl party last month. (Both of us, if I remember correctly, were holding open beer bottles in our hands.) We were discussing a recent event here in the Sacramento Jewish community, centered on “Civil Discourse” in regard to talking about Israel, which both of us helped organize. While generally the event was considered a success, and was well-attended, I was voicing the opinion that it was not so. That it was more like preaching to the choir; that it was mostly attended by liberal-minded, left-leaning people, who were not afraid of openly discussing – and yes, criticizing too, if necessary – Israel’s political situation and policies. She made her remark, therefore, in response to my claim that there is still a “Code-of-Silence,” sort of, among a large section of the Jewish community.

This attitude was not new to me, of course, even though I kind of deluded myself that it was a thing of the past (what with “J Street,” for instance, coming to relative prominence in the last few years). Very early on in my life in America, first in Los Angeles and then in Sacramento, it was made clear to me by my Jewish American friends – and Israelis, too, to a degree – that one is forbidden from speaking ill of Israel. Keep your opinion to yourself, in other words. It was also made clear to me that only because I was an Israeli, an ex-officer in an elite paratroops unit who was wounded in battle (words get around, you see), that I was “allowed” to speak my unorthodox, “lefty” opinions, in private and in public. So generally, at least out of politeness (one hopes out of some respect, too), people had listened to my views without excommunicating me.

Not that it helped much, you see. I always compered it, within myself, to what I call the “(Jewish) Mother Syndrome.” In other words, whether your son is a drug dealer, a cheat and a thief and, worst of all, a murderer; you defend him to your last drop of blood. It reminds me of an interview on the radio I heard some time ago with the actress Halle Berry, who just had a baby daughter not so long prior. And in response to the interviewer question, demonstrating how much she loved her daughter and would do anything to defend and protect her, she plainly remarked that if her daughter were to kill/murder somebody, she would “help” her bury the victim. So there you have it, my friends, in a nutshell: the whole theory of the “Mother Syndrome.”

And yet to my mind it’s not only wrong but, let’s face it, almost criminal. After all, a murderer is a murderer, whether he is your daughter or your son (think of Oscar Pistorius and his parents, why don’t you?). The same goes for Israel as well, and its policies in the occupied territories, which includes the steady march towards a state of apartheid – if not by design than by de facto – in the West Bank. The result of which might be a “drunk drive” (power can corrupt and intoxicate, no doubt) towards the cliff of destruction; both of the Zionist dream, and of what had been achieved until 1967 by way of establishing a democratic, pluralistic Jewish State. Just imagine how better things night/could have been by now, in these regards, had the Jewish people of America, with their political clout and financial strength, had spoken firmly against the occupation and settlements – when there was still time to reverse course – and had forced the various American administrations to act more responsibly and firmly against Israel’s bad tendencies, and its wrongheaded use of the many millions of dollars given to it yearly by America. Just imagine.

There was not much to imagine this past weekend while watching “The Gatekeepers,” the Oscar-nominated documentary by Dror Moreh. It was all there in the open, up on the screen, for all to see and hear, being said by – no, not by Jewish and Israeli-haters from the left – but by the last six heads of the Shin Bate, the Israeli Security Service. They spoke so frankly and decidedly in the film – including comparing Israel’s tactics and actions against the Arab population in the occupied territories to those of Nazi Germany in Europe – that, even though they hadn’t said anything I didn’t already know, it was still so very hard, painful even, to hear; since it was coming from the mouths of the people who enabled all these policies. Where were they, one achingly wants to ask, when they had the power to change things? Why did they choose to keep so quiet and mum about it all? I know, I know, it was not their job to do so. Yet their obligation as citizens, colleagues and friends, was to warn their leaders of the approaching, terrible consequences. Because that what friends do, whether in Israel or in America: they don’t let their friends drive drunk!

P.S. – In Jerusalem yesterday, President Obama said this: “Israel has no greater friend than the United States…” And: “The only path to security – the only way for Israel to endure and thrive as a Jewish democratic state is through the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state.”

* Appeared first on “The Times of Israel.”

Death of the Generals

Israelnationalnews.com

The untimely death last December of the Israeli General Amnon Lipkin-Shahak (whom I had the privilege of knowing way back then), had put the January elections and the ongoing struggle to form a coalition,  in a new and surprising perspective. I call it “Death of the Generals” – it does seem, doesn’t it, that most of them die relatively young? – though the changing of the guards might be just as appropriate. It quite possible also that, as far as the political arena in Israel and its leaders are concerned, this would be the most significant outcome of the last elections.

Here’s why: The first phase of Israel’s political leadership, the Pioneers Phase, had lasted roughly forty years (kind of symbolic, come to think of it), from the War of Independence to the end of the eighties. From Ben-Gurion to Begin, and from Eshkol to Shamir, with Sharett, Golda and Peres in between, these were the political pioneers and political operators who secured, to a large degree, Israel’s independence and survival. Not that there were not generals in those days. Quite the opposite: Yigal Allon and Moshe Dayan, and later on Ezer Wiezman, were not only generals but also mythical figures, at least as I was growing up. It was always assumed that they would become Israel’s next political leaders; just one more government and one of them would be Prime Minister. However, not only did they die young (Allon for sure), but important and significant as the roles they had played in Israel’s wars-of-survival were, they never reached the top echelon of being Prime Ministers (exception: when Eshkol died, Allon briefly served as Acting Prime Minister). The political apparatchiks of those days, and the well-oiled political machinery, were too strong for them to overcome.

Then, in the nineties, came the second phase: the Generals Phase. A generation of leaders: Rabin, Sharon and Barak, who all became Israel’s Prime Ministers. Rabin tried to bring peace and reconciliation with the Palestinians, and paid for it dearly with his life. He might as well have succeeded with the Oslo Accords in bringing some reasonable solution to the now all but deceased two-state solution. Alas, the fanatic, religious right, and those behind who inflamed the rhetoric of hate to a great effect, had gunned him down. Sharon, the great architect and enabler of the settlers movement, came to his senses late and tried to bring about at least a relative and temporarily – albeit a step in the right direction – solution when he pulled Israel’s army and its settlements out of Gaza. Call it a Pulsa Dinure, or call it what you will, but he too paid for it personally when he went into a coma. Barak is still with us, and though he had tried with the Camp David talks and President Clinton’s help to bring about an acceptable peace resolution, he was out-maneuvered by Arafat and Sharon. And for dancing with the devil all these later years, he paid a heavy price by almost single-handedly destroying the historic Labor party.

And here comes the third phase, following the results of these elections, a phase we might as well call the Professionals Phase. I find it intriguing that my mother, a veteran Labor party cardholder for as long as I can remember, had voted for Yair Lapid and Yesh Atid; my sister had voted for Meretz, and a woman friend of mine had voted for Yachimovich and Labor. They all live in Tel Aviv, by the way. Yet it does bring to mind the idea that, together with Tzipi Livni, all four party heads represent a new generation of leaders: professional, with successful civil careers. So maybe – just maybe – they will now show the way to a better, down-to-earth future. It’s hard to tell yet, since the forces on the right are still strong and fanatic as ever, and the forces left-of-center don’t give any signs of willingness to put personal ambitions aside and unite under one umbrella, in order to have a stronger political leverage.

On the other side, the right-of-center side, Netanyahu and Bennett do have behind them an honorable army service (though they were never generals), and also had an established, successful business careers. Shaul Mofaz, the last of the Mohicans/generals, is hardly alive political wise, and even though he may still play a role in the next government, it won’t be a significant, leading one. His party, Sharon’s party, is a thing of the past and clinically dead. And dead are most of the old generals. And though Lipkin died of a natural cause, too many of them had died this way: too young, without – politically speaking – reaching their full potential. His death may signify something larger, therefore: the end of an era, and the beginning of a new one.

*Appeared first on The Times of Israel.

Elections and Consequences

blogs.reuters.com

First, the good news: The elections in Israel this week have produced some surprising and encouraging, limited as they are, results. To begin with, while Mr. Netanyahu’s party, Likud-Beiteinu, has retained its position as the larger political party in the upcoming Knesset with 31 MKs, and while this development most certainly positioning the outgoing Prime Minister as the most likely candidate to be Israel’s next PM, he and his party have suffered, at the same time, a severe blow. The party has lost about a quarter of its Knesset members, and when one takes into account the fact that it is a party that was united prior to the election of two previous parties (a very Israeli thing), it means that in reality Netanyahu’s Likud party has no more than 20 MKs, if that. This is by no means a strong vote of confidence; in truth, a defeat is more like it.

The second encouraging development to come out of the elections is the rise of Yair Lapid and his Yesh Atid party. A newly formed party, it gained a surprising 19 MKs, which positions it as the second largest party in the new Knesset. Similar such surprising results for new parties – only to disappear soon from the political arena with the same meteoric speed with which they originally propelled into prominence – had happened before (case in point, Yair’s father Tommy Lapid and his Shinui party). Still, from no-party to 19 seats in the space of a year is a major achievement and development. And Yair Lapid – a novice politician, yet charismatic TV personality – possesses, so it seems, some promising good qualities for a new kind of Israeli leader. Indeed, his platform and talk in the campaign centered on economic, social, middle class, and equality (ultra-orthodox’ service in the army and in the country’s work-force) issues, shying away, to a large degree, from the burning issues of war and peace with the Palestinians.

The third encouraging development is that, with the near-death of the Kadima party (2 seats) – yes, PM Sharon and PM Olmert’s party – the Labor party regained some strength and momentum with 15 seats. And while this is still a far cry from the power and influence of the old ruling Labor party, it may yet signify a return to form and – just maybe – to power in the future. Shelly Yacimovich, its new leader – also a TV personality – is one of a troika of women party leaders. Tzipi Livni with her new party, Hatnua, gained 6 MK seats, and Zahava Gal-On, the leader of the Meretz party, has also gained 6 mandates. Should these three women were to unite under one party roof – fat chance, I know, but still – they will have the largest block or party in the Knesset (there are 26 women in new Knesset, the most ever). And as is the case with Yesh Atid, they represent the sane, secular, Tel-Avivian center-to-left side of the Israeli people and politics. United, it has a significant role to play in the current, and future Israel.

Now, secondly, to the bad news: The consequences of the new elections regarding the Palestinian issue and the Iranian issue, are more likely than not to remain more of the same, as far as Israel is concerned. Yet far worse as far as America, the Arab world and the European nations are concerned. Of course, it all depends on what kind of government Mr. Netanyahu will eventually form – he has vowed to form a broad coalition, which is easier said than done – but no matter what, some worrying signs are blinking red already as a result of this election and the campaign that led to it.

Most candidates paid but a lip service to these issues, and together with the Israeli public at large, tried to concentrate instead on domestic issues. The exception was Naftali Bennett and his party Habayit Hayehudi, the darlings of the campaign – until the results with Yesh Atid overshadowed them somewhat – who bluntly declared that he favors the annexation of the larger part of the West Bank, and thus nailing shut once and for all the coffin on the two-state solution. He may still be serving in the new government, and disastrously for Israel and the Jewish People, may see his vision come true. A likely coalition of Likud, Yesh Atid and Habayit Hayehudi, might de-facto produce such an outcome.

Or worse. “Israel society today is in despair,” said Yossi Klein Halevi (according to the NY Times Jan., 21), a journalist and senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, “And despair is a dangerous political place, because despair can yield extreme temptations.” Such “temptation” can be an adventure in Iran, to deflect the Palestinian issue and America’s wrath away, and retain the status quo. Since Mr. Netanyahu will find a much stronger President Obama standing against him in the White House, sandwiched by tall and strong Kerry and Hagel on both his sides, he surely won’t be able to maneuver and play with the American president that easily any longer.

Even worse. It is conceivable – unlikely as it may seem at the moment – for Mr. Netanyahu in his thirst to rule, to form a coalition with Habayit Hayehudi and the other two religious, ultra-orthodox parties. To secure such coalition, he may need one smaller partner, and may succeed – as he had done previously with Labor and Ehud Barak – to convince, let’s speculate Kadima to join him on the premise of this or that, and therefore build a generally right-wing, fervently religious coalition. Such narrow coalition, 62 MKs or so, won’t disguise its extreme policies with any fig leaves, but pursue and execute them in broad daylight. And that, my friends, spells trouble. Big time. Or as Etgar Keret, a celebrated Tel Aviv short story writer and filmmaker said (NY Times, Jan., 21) about this election campaign: “In a metaphorical way, we are choosing the new captain of the Titanic.”

Facts On The Ground

Settlement Construction site in the West Bank (photo dpa)

These four simple words at the top, combined together to form the most typical, and topical of Israeli expressions – in Hebrew, poignantly, it takes only two words – can sum up not only the modus operandi of the current Israeli government, but epitomizes Israel’s policy and action in the last 45 years, going all the way back to the day after the Six-Day-War in 1967. One can even make the argument that, not entirely without justification, these four magic words – taken as a call for action – are actually representing the foundation for the whole Zionist endeavor; from Theodor Herzel to David Ben-Gurion, and from Ariel Sharon to Benjamin Netanyahu.

Yet there are differences and variations, not to mention some leaders – such as Menachem Begin, to a degree, and Yitzhak Rabin – who tried, in between, to reverse this policy and make peace. But let’s examine the differences first. Herzel’s vision was the creation of a Jewish State. At some point in his struggle to find such a place, he was even ready to consider accomplishing that in Uganda. Without going too deep into history, it is suffice to say that his main concern was that the Jewish people – suffering for over 2000 years from persecutions, pogroms and discrimination – would have a place they can call home, where they would safely exercise their culture, religion and heritage. Once Jews began to follow his lead, they made their voyage towards their “Fathers Land,” and began to settle there. Creating, in reality, facts on the ground.

David Ben-Gurion took the baton from Herzel and, being the practical leader that he was, transferred that dream into reality. Now, it is true that to a large extant this enterprise included the actual settlement of what was then Palestine, the building of Tel Aviv, the kibbutzim and moshavim throughout the land. Yet Ben Gurion was ready to accept the UN Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947. He drafted, together with others, the Declaration of Independence, the most wonderful document we have in Israel to date. He himself had settled in a kibbutz in the Negev Desert, down in the south of Israel, and had called on Israelis to do likewise, in this largely (still) barren land. Israel before his death, and before the Six-Day War, was a small but strong, democratic and secular state – the envy of the world on many levels. And it fulfilled Herzel’s vision and dream beautifully.

That war, however, had changed everything. It was no longer a question of survival, after it, but of expansion. It was no longer a question of a nation among the nations, but of fulfilling messianic, biblical aspirations on the grand scale of the “Kingdom of David.” The settlers’ movement of Gush Emunim and all their zealots and followers, found in Arial Sharon the right leader. It was probably he who coined the term “Facts on the Ground,” by actions if not by words. What it meant was that, when you came with Arik to a hill in the West Bank and looked around, and one would say that that hill over there would be a nice place to build a settlement, Arik would say: “Let’s bring the bulldozers.” There was no method of thinking behind that policy, and no process of long-term strategy. It was just let’s do it – let’s flatten the land and build on it – and ask questions later. Later though, he had to evacuate first a small city, Yamit, in Northern Sinai, and then the Gaza Strip, and flatten also some of the settlements he and his followers had built. No wonder he went into a coma afterwards.

And it is written in that book, also, that after King Arik came King Bibi. (Again – with some leaders in between, trying other things such as peace and reconciliation, without much success.) What did Mr. Netanyahu do when Vice President Biden came to town to prepare the ground for peace talks? He announced, in his face, the construction of more building-units in East Jerusalem and around it. What did he do when, supposedly, he had agreed to freeze the building of new settlements for a few months in order to “give peace the chance?” He actually continued to build more of the same, mostly in “old” settlements. On and on it goes. Build first; ask questions later. What was his reaction to the world’s decision (minus 6 countries, 3 of them you never heard of before), to grant the Palestinian People an upgrade status of a non-member observer state in the UN? You guest it, my friends, more settlements. He announced the settlement-construction of the E1 zone near Jerusalem, effectively putting an end to the idea and dream of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even the USA – practically Israel’s last friend in the world – has called this plan a “provocative action.” Stating that it “runs counter to statements from Israeli leaders that they are committed to peace.”

Israel is losing faith, and fast, with all its friends among the nations (European countries were even harsher in their response to the E1 building plans), and losing support even among American Jews and people who care deeply – such as yours truly – about the Zionist dream of a safe, secure, democratic home for the Jewish People in Israel. A latest survey showed that more than 40 percent of Israelis would leave the country if they only could. The movement to have two passports for every Israeli citizen (you know, just in case) is gaining momentum. In Tel Aviv, the sane, democratic, cultured, liberal, economic bastion of Israel, people are talking about “dancing on the deck of the Titanic.” And next month come new elections, which according to all predictions will make things even worse, and might transform Israel into an almost one-sided, completely right wing state. Time is rapidly running out, and there is an urgent need for a new kind of call for action: Reversing the disastrous policy of “Facts on the Ground.”

Pillars of Fire and Smoke

Pillar One: Israel has the right to defend itself. Of course it does, and the obligation, too. However, no one—at least not in the civilized, democratic part of the world—is denying Israel this right. It goes without saying, even though from PM Netanyahu down the chain of spokesmen and explainers, everybody is repeating this talking point as if it were an original mantra. Israel should defend itself. The question is how (more about it later).

Pillar Two: Hamas’ aim is the destruction of Israel. Yes, it is: in words and in actions. Since its inception, in 1987, and continuing with the jubilation with which its members had welcomed Arafat when he returned from Camp David, where he refused to sign the peace deal with Israel and partners Barak and Clinton, which would have created a viable Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. This organization’s connection to Iran, its refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a viable Jewish state, and its latest bombardment of Israel’s civilian population indiscriminately, to go along with its continuous hateful rhetoric—are all pointing towards one goal: the destruction of Israel.

Pillar Three: Peace is better than war. Yes, it is; but not when it comes to the Middle East, in general, and to Israel and Hamas in particular. Israel had called its operation against Hamas “Pillar of Defense” (though the exact translation from Hebrew should’ve been “Pillar Cloud;” go figure.) And yet, Israel prefers this war to an agreement with the Palestinians on a two-state solution. It prefers settlements and expansion to peace. Israel has a partner for peace, President Abbas; a more moderate, agreeable Palestinian leader it may never find. But both Israel and Hamas are pushing him to a marginal corner with their latest actions. Hamas had started its latest bombardment probably for that reason, to instigate another Intifada, and to prevent Abbas from going to the UN asking for an upgrade to the Palestinian UN status. And Israel willingly went along with it—including the targeted assassination of Ahmed al Jabari, Hamas’ military chief, just as he was engaged in an attempt to bring about a stop to the rocket barrages—finishing the task of giving Hamas the prominence it was seeking so much in the Arab world, and pushing Fatah and its leaders to the sidelines.

Pillar Four: Civilian citizens are always innocent. Not so. They do elect their leaders, don’t they? Certainly in Israel people choose their leaders at the polling stations, but also in Gaza, where the population chose Hamas over Fatah in 2006. And yet, many of them are innocent indeed, especially the young ones. And the old ones, maybe too, like my mother, a Holocaust survivor who again had to experience the threat and horror of war, as she fled the warmth and comfort of her living room in the Tel Aviv and rushed down the stairs to the ground level (no elevator or workable bomb shelter at her building). So yes, as always, there are innocent victims in this war. But, as the old saying goes (more or less), the people of the land deserved their leaders, and carry some of the blame and responsibility, too.

Pillar Five: Death will always come. Yes, it would. And all for what, the living may ask? The parameters and formula for success, for establishing two states living side by side in relative peace are not so complicated. They are achievable. Peace is also achievable. But not where the biblical “eye-for-an-eye” code-of-action has ruled the game for so long, and where it is so much part of the fabric of the human and people’s existence. It is hard to depart from it. So now there is a fragile, enforced ceasefire, which—as I write these words— seems to be holding steady (despite the latest border shooting incident), and that’s very good. Let’s hope the “quiet for quiet” recipe will prevail, and will lead to a real progress towards normalization and peace between the two sides. Still, I’m afraid otherwise. I’m afraid the circle of blood will continue to spin, and the results will always be the same: death and destruction; tears and bloodshed; fire and smoke.

Election Connection: America & Israel

America will vote November 6th, electing a President as well senators and congressmen. Israel has decided to do likewise, and not three months after the American elections, January 22 to be exact, Israelis will vote to elect a new Knesset, and with it a new (or old) Prime Minister and a new Government. On the face of it, it seems as if there is no connection whatsoever between the two elections. After all, in the American democracy, elections for a new president are always held every four years, at a set date, and the president-elect has four year to take care of business. In Israel, though, with the old British Parliamentary election system in place, more or less, a Prime Minster and a government are almost never able to survive the full four years in power. They either fall, and are forced to declare new elections, or chose to do so on their own volition, as Mr. Netanyahu has done this time. And so, it seems, there is no connection.

And yet there is. To begin with, here in America, there was much talk about the relationship between the two countries, each candidate claiming to be a better, stronger supporter of Israel. Mitt Romney even went a step further earlier on in the campaign, declaring that should he be elected president, he would move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Such declarations, so often being made by various American candidates prior to elections, would soon be forgotten should—and this blog, with certain reservations, does endorse the reelection of Mr. Obama—he would be elected president. Even in the last debate, both candidates fought mightily to prove who visited Israel more often; who will defend Israel more vigorously should it be attacked, and so on. One late night TV show host even mocked especially this obsession with Israel. On the radio, on the other hand, I heard representatives of bigger, important countries, complain mightily about the fact that their countries, and their relations with the USA, were not even mentioned once. So there you have it.

It should be noted here, also, that these claims and pandering are mistakenly believed to be directed towards the Jewish vote. This is hardly the case. Not only Jewish voters represent hardly 2% of the total voting population, but also in spite of all the rhetoric and false assertions about Jewish voters deserting Obama, this is not the case. The majority of Jewish voters are still strong supporters of the Democratic Party and its candidates. But the American public at large, who understands so little of the intricate complexities of the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian issue, traditionally supports Israel without reservation. And of course, the Evangelical and religious right does so automatically. It is to this large group of voters that those proclamations and vows of support are mostly directed.

Earlier in the campaign, it did seem quite obvious that Israel PM Mr. Netanyahu was trying to muddle in the American politics, and trying to influence its voters to give their support to Mr. Romney. He did so almost unabashedly, receiving criticizing mostly in Israel though, and causing a rift with his right hand and supporter on all things Iran, Defense Minister Ehud Barak. So fierce was the criticism leveled at him that it might have been a contributing factor in his decision to call for new, early elections. Mr. Netanyahu, who looks invincible at this moment, do believe he would be reelected Prime Minister, but with broader, stronger coalition. And then, together with what he is hoping would be a new American president, i.e. his old buddy Mitt from MIT—Netanyahu’s disdain and sour relationship with Obama never a secret—it would be much easier for him to manipulate America into launching an immediate attack on Iran.

In Israel, where people are following the American election very closely, it is now being reveled that some 90% of money contributed to the main parties and candidates’ campaigns, is coming from the USA. In other words, money from America is influencing the outcome of the election in Israel. And here, of course, we have to mention another character in this political drama. I.e., our old friend Mr. Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who is pouring the millions of dollars he has made in Las Vegas and elsewhere where people are gambling their money away first into Mr. Gingrich’s campaign in the Primaries, and now into Romany’s campaign. As noted earlier in a blogpost here—August, on “Israel Today”—he is the owner of the now most poplar Israeli newspaper, the aforementioned Israel Today, which he gives free to the public weekdays. This paper, nicknamed “Bibi’s Paper” by Israelis, supports every word and every action Mr. Netanyahu takes. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that his influence on the outcome of the Israeli election would be tremendous.

The coming Israeli elections deserve and probably will get a separate article here. But as for this one, it does seem sometimes that the two nations, so far apart on the map, are so tied to each other politically, and culturally I might add, that the old joke in Israel—about Israel being the fifty-first star on the American flag—might as well be the reality. Declaring Israel an American state, or a self-governing commonwealth in union with the U.S., the way Puerto Rico is, might help all sides. Who knows, it may even hasten a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Indeed, in the last debate the moderator asked the candidates: If Israel would be attacked, would you go to war to defend it as if it were an attack on America? Both candidates, in different word usage, answered unconditionally in the affirmative. The Israeli people would welcome, and expect these answers very much. And likewise, it seems, the American public at large. So let’s declare Israel an American state, and be done with it.