Ouch, Jerusalem

On 13 May 2018 Israel will be celebrating Jerusalem Day. The idea was raised for the first time in June 1967, just a few days after Israeli troops had occupied the eastern half of the city as part of the so-called Six Days’ War of that month. Various rabbis were consulted, pros and cons weighed. Pressing hard in favor of the idea was the religious Right. Up to the outbreak of the war MAFDAL, as the party was known, had been a bourgeois, middle of the road, fairly moderate party. Apart from emphasizing the need for kashrut and opposing summer time (so that practicing people could pray in the morning), it made few waves. Now it was transformed; in particular, its younger members felt themselves filled by a divine command to stick to every inch of occupied territory and settling it as soon as possible with as many Jews as possible.

The details do not really matter. Suffice it to say that the police, the mayor of Jerusalem, and the Government of Israel all opposed the idea of celebrating “united Jerusalem, the City that has been joined together, Israel’s eternal capital,” as the phraseology went and still goes. Partly they did so because they feared unrest among the Palestinians. And partly because they worried about the negative international reaction that might follow. A court battle had to be fought before the authorities allowed the first ceremonies, prayers, marches, dances, etc. to be organized. Even so they were private, not official. This private character they retained until 1998 when the Knesset finally adopted the Day.

I myself lived in Jerusalem for twenty-one years (1964-85). Having decided to leave, I chose, as my new place of residence, Mevasseret (Herald, in Hebrew), Zion, a bedroom community just five miles or so to the west. I did, however continue to work in Jerusalem where the Hebrew University is located. I can therefore fairly say that Jerusalem has helped shape my life. Preparing for Jerusalem Day, and with a mind to those of my readers who, not being Israelis, may be misled by the Niagara of hype by which the city is surrounded, I want to point out a few elementary facts.

First, Jerusalem is the poorest of Israel’s major cities. Located in the hills, about 2,000 feet above sea level, during most of its history it was pretty isolated. So much so that, when Mark Twain visited in 1869, a road capable of carrying wheeled traffic to and from it did not yet exist. Even during my own early years as a student (1964-67) they used to say that the best thing about Jerusalem was the road to Tel Aviv. All this was part cause, part consequence, of the fact that the city never became a major commercial center. Another reason why it is poor is because over two thirds of the population are either Palestinians or Jewish-orthodox. The former are less educated and discriminated against in numerous ways. As a result, their standard of living tends to be very low. Among the latter, a great many prefer praying and begging to doing any kind of work. Between them they drive out the secular Jews. Precisely the highly educated, relatively tolerant, and productive part of the population any modern city needs most if it is to prosper.

Second, the quality of life is low. Housing prices are sky-high, but municipal taxes rates per square foot of building are the highest in the country. Many streets are dirty (the more so because, to protest against every kind of insult, real or imagined, some Jewish orthodox men have made it their specialty to overturn garbage bins and empty their contents into them) and in a poor shape. Traffic is a nightmare; getting from where I live to town, or the other way around, can easily take an hour. For twenty years now a modern railway to link Jerusalem with Tel Aviv, just forty or so miles away has been under construction; however, the day on which it will be completed keeps being postponed. A single-line modern tram system exists, but it does not work on the Shabbat and on (Jewish) religious feast days. Terrorism in the form of bombings, deliberately engineered road accidents, and stabbings is not rare; but for the heavy presence, of police and guards, not only in the streets but at every entrance to every public building, surely there would be more of it.

There is SRT (Sex Reassignment Therapy) which is also called gender viagra sales in india devensec.com reassignment. Impotency can be levitra properien cured if help is sought. If a woman is not sexually active, menopause cause thinning of hair follicles that may ultimately lead to total baldness devensec.com cialis side effects in men. Also, they were associated with other intimate problems such as low sexual drive, poor erection, early http://www.devensec.com/sustain/eidis-updates/IndustrialSymbiosisupdateApril_June2011.pdf viagra online from india ejaculation, low sexual drive or stress. Third, to live in Jerusalem means to be an expert on comparative fanaticism (as the Israeli writer Amos Oz once put it). The three major religions apart, there are dozens upon dozens of sub-religions and sects. Each day at noon, standing on Mount Scopus and listening to the various bells being rung is quite an experience. Again though, don’t be misled. Many members of many religions and sects hate each other’s guts. Nowhere is this fact more in evidence than at the Holy Sepulcher; there, every inch is divided between the four major Christian denominations (Greek-Orthodox, Catholic, Armenians and Copts) and jealously guarded, sometimes with edged weapon in hand. Countless people are utterly convinced that his (or, let’s not forget, her) God is the only true one and that the rest are, in reality, little better than devils. Each feels that he personally is one of God’s soldiers specially appointed to carry out His will. All this makes Jerusalem a rather unpleasant place to live in. For example, occupants of vehicles who enter some Jewish orthodox neighborhoods, even by mistake, risk being bombarded with rocks.

Fourth, contrary to Israeli propaganda the city has never been united. During the half century since 1967 the population has trebled, more or less, increasing from about 300,000 to almost a million. Many new neighborhoods have been built, and the Old City has been surrounded by new ones populated exclusively by Jews. In addition, quite some Arab villages which were never part of Jerusalem have been annexed to it without anyone consulting the population. They pay taxes but hardly get any municipal services at all. Wherever one goes, it is the Palestinians who occupy the lowest positions. As in construction, schlepping products in the marketplace, cleaning buildings, and so on. To be sure, the residents of East Jerusalem have the right to vote in the municipal elections. However, it is one which very few of them, worried that participation would be interpreted as consent and might be dangerous to boot, have ever exercised. Briefly, social interaction among equals is minimal.

No wonder that the percentage of residents who are happy with their city is among the lowest in the country. And no wonder proportionally more of them leave. I do not want to be misunderstood: parts of Jerusalem are very beautiful indeed. The view of the City from Mount Scopus is breathtaking. The streets bustle with people, both residents and tourists, representing every culture on earth. The number of holy places, packed closely together and surrounded by fascinating Biblical and historical legends, is overwhelming. So much so, in fact, that some tourists are seized by “Jerusalem Syndrome.” It is defined as “a group of mental phenomena involving the presence of either religiously-themed obsessive ideas, delusions or other psychosis-like experiences that are triggered by a visit to the city of Jerusalem.” Many modern facilities—with the Israel Museum at its head—neighborhoods and buildings are also of interest.

On the whole, however, so bad are the problems, ethnic, religious, legal, economic, social, and technical, that I sometimes think it would be best for Jerusalem if all the holy places were demolished, blown up, wiped off the face of the earth. Unfortunately that won’t work either. The one thing one achieves by destroying a holy place is to make it holier still.

As for me, I stay away as much as I can.

Guest Article: More Pussycats

By: Anonymous

Returning from Vienna, where I have been giving some talks and interviews about my recent book, Pussycats, I found the following in my inbox. The author has granted my request and permitted the piece to be posted here. While legal reasons prevent the university in question from being identified by name, the facts have been verified from other sources.

Any other comment is superfluous.

The university is currently going through its second occupation of the year. The first (which as far as I know is continuing) was by a group of students eager to discover “true freedom”. They took over a classroom and began camping there. They covered all windows so no one could see what they were doing inside (although it smelled strongly of pot). The president and her vice-presidents kept meeting with their leaders and kept negotiating agreements that were then repudiated by the occupiers. Then she got a lot of resolutions voted by various instances at the university, all of which were ignored. Then she held a lot of meetings but did absolutely nothing else – even after both she and the chief administrative officer of the university had been slightly injured by the students.

The second occupation started at the end of January when about thirty undocumented immigrants took over two floors of building A, the arts building. They brought in cooking gear and portable beds and began meeting with the press (although the press didn’t show much interest in them). Once again, the president and her vice-presidents negotiated, once again they reached agreements and once again the accords were immediately repudiated. She asked the immigrants to move into the university’s largest auditorium. After initially agreeing, they issued a statement refusing this compromise. Why? Because the auditorium reminded them of the Libyan prisons where they had been held!! Now, I’m the first to complain about our working conditions but that our biggest auditorium, where we hand out honorary degrees, looks like a Libyan prison seems somewhat exaggerated. Or maybe I’m being unfair to Libyan prisons. They also stated that they did not want to move to another building because they wanted residency permits and affordable housing. Do they think the university can supply these? Or that the French government cares enough about this Parisian university being occupied to grant them?

It is good to know that cialis order levitra they can eat food as usual when taking Tadacip, since many people think that in many cases provides a gentler and more loving experience. Entrepreneurs assume that marketing to women is all about discounts and giveaways, but care cialis free consultation and creativity is what really attracts women. This pill must not practice daily as ED considers a kind of sexual disorder not only affects one’s generic viagra buy http://deeprootsmag.org/2013/10/28/prayer-garden-of-memphis-expands-artist-roster/ sexual power but also spoils his love life. It is top second ED medication available in tablets, cialis de prescription jellies and soft tablet. With extension cords all over the place and cooking going on in the hallways, not surprisingly, they blew all the fuses in building A. Then, they graciously agreed to use the auditorium during the day because it had better kitchen facilities. So, not only did the presidential team fail to gain back our classrooms but they also lost us the use of our largest auditorium! Added to that, they offered the gym to the immigrants so they could use the showers. So, what did our leadership then do? They called a lot of meetings and got a lot of resolutions passed – all of which were ignored. And then the heavy snowfall caused all the heating to fail so the president closed the university for two days.

In response the immigrants organized a banquet in front of the library to announce their refusal to leave. The president then sent in the commission for hygiene and security to meet with them. However, their leaders claimed that a member of the commission was actually a police officer in disguise. The whole thing descended into violence with pushing, shoving and some punching. But the immigrants remained and continued occupying the building. They installed beds in some classrooms,  which have become dorms while another room is a canteen. They even brought in a sofa so they could have an area to relax. By this time the immigrants had grown to about 80 and their supporters were talking of establishing a permanent refuge at the university.

The presidential team contacted a number of charities. One came in and gave the immigrants medical check-ups while the refugees refused to meet with another, a charity for the homeless, People from one charity I talked to said they would not get involved because in many ways things resembled a hostage situation: the university is of course being held hostage but so, in a way, are the refugees: most of them don’t speak French and blindly follow their leaders who work with people at the university who have a political agenda. Other charities have come to the same conclusion.

So the president and her V-Ps decided to get tough and sent a somewhat threatening letter to the immigrants. The latter responded by going from classroom to classroom at the university asking for money. The president and her V-Ps did nothing.

Meanwhile, the immigrants brought in huge wooden crates, filled with used clothes, that they stock in the stairwells, (blocking the exits, of course). They also blast music during class times (which are still going on on the first floor). The occupiers also broke the locks on one of the side entrances of the university and installed their own (which is clearly illegal). So now they are the only ones able to use that entrance. They also forced the locks on doors to other classrooms. In response the president sent pictures of the broken doors to all members of the university. Then grafitti appeared in the area with anti-Semitic slogans and comments like “Death to all whites”. The presidential team took pictures of these and sent them to all members of the university.

In the current political climate no one wants to deal with the issue of immigration and no one cares about universities. Even the press doesn’t consider the situation worth a news article. This says a lot about the state of French universities and partly explains why, in spite of internationally respected staff, they are so low in the league tables. The government could care less about universities and they are being allowed to fall to pieces.

Fifty Years Have Passed

The coming Monday, June 5th, will mark the fiftieth anniversary of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. The one, let me remind you, which led to the Israeli occupation of the Sinai, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank (East Jerusalem included). That is why I thought the time had come to take a second look at it. In doing so, my starting point will be a book, Defending Israel: A Controversial Plan towards Peace, which I published in 2004. What did I get right, and where did I go wrong? Does the central thesis, namely that, seen from a security point of view Israel could easily afford to withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank, still hold?

The background to the book was formed by the Second Palestinian Uprising, or Intifada. Starting in October 2000 and lasting until 2005, the Uprising was carried out mainly by suicide bombings, claiming the lives of 1,137 Israelis as well as 6,371 Palestinians before it was finally quashed, with considerable brutality it must be said, by then Prime Minister Ariel. Sharon. The number of injured is unknown, but must have been much larger still. In addition, tens of thousands of Palestinians saw the inside of Israeli jails where some of them still remain. The economic damage to Israel was estimated at about 15 percent of GDP; that inflicted on the Palestinians, at perhaps 40 percent. Going abroad during that time, I could not help noticing how, at Israel’s only international airport, there were often more security personnel than passengers.

The way I saw it in 2004, and still see it now, the advent of ballistic missiles has greatly reduced the relevance of territory and, with it, the value of the “strategic depth” long seen by Israel as the main reason for holding on to the occupied territories. In any case, the age of large-scale Arab-Israeli conventional warfare was clearly over. Not only because the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan held; but because, as both the 1956 and 1967 wars had shown, should Egypt’s military try to confront Israel in the Sinai then all they would be doing would be to put their necks into a noose. Should Egypt lose a war in the Sinai, then it would lose. Should it win, then it might face nuclear retaliation. Israel is believed to have as many as 100 warheads and delivery vehicles to match. By targeting the Aswan Dam, the people in Jerusalem have it within their power to turn Egypt into a radioactive lake within rather less than an hour of the decision being made.

Having been heavily defeated in the first Gulf War, Iraq was out of the picture and remains so today. This left Syria which, however, was much too weak to take on Israel on its own and has become even weaker since. At that time as now very few Arabs lived on the Golan Heights, explaining why its occupation by Israel never met strong resistance or drew much international attention. Consequently holding on to it was, and remains, relatively easy and need not preoccupy us here.

In what was surely the most daring move in a remarkable career, Sharon, against howls of opposition, built a fence around the Gaza Strip, demolished the Israeli settlements there, and pulled out. It cost him his life, but he effectively put an end to attempts by suicide bombers to enter Israel proper. To be sure terrorism, now in the form of underground tunnels and rockets, did not come to a sudden end. As if to prove the fact that the role of territory was declining, the rockets in particular gained in range and power, causing much trouble. This kind of terrorism was only brought to an end during the second half of 2014 when a massive Israeli military operation (“Protective Edge”) inflicted many casualties and enormous destruction. Since then an equilibrium, albeit an uneasy one, has prevailed in southern Israel. As is shown, among other things, by a tremendous real estate boom in that part of the world.

This in turn suggests that, had Israel launched the operation in question a few years earlier, it might have spared both itself and the other side considerable grief and trouble. Looking on the withdrawal from Gaza from the perspective of 2017, it appears to have been a great success. It rid Israel of some two million unwilling Palestinians, leaving them to govern themselves as best they can and forcing their leadership into what, in practice, is some sort of accommodation.

ED can be result of several factors for ex depression, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, high cholesterol, obesity, prostate cancer treatment, viagra online no prescription devensec.com spinal cord injury etc. The pill should be taken orally with a glass full of water cheap viagra tablet devensec.com as it helps in faster dissolving and results. If one feels allergic after taking the medicine, they should visit a hospital cialis without prescription uk to get medical attention. Not in India, you can find wonderful them buy levitra without prescription throughout the world through several online providers. During the Second Intifada a beginning was made in constructing a wall around the West Bank as well. A measure, incidentally, which this author of had proposed, in public, as early as 1993. But two reasons have prevented its completion. First, through East Jerusalem, which Israel claims for itself, passes the only highway connecting the two “bulges” that forms the West Bank, making it all but impossible to seal off. Second, the Jewish settlers in the Bank, supported by a considerable part of the Israeli government and public, fear that, should the wall be completed, it would herald at least a partial withdrawal from that region as well. And with good reason; doing so was something both Sharon and his successor, Ehud Olmert, actively contemplated.

Whether, had Sharon not died in harness and Olmert not been forced to resign, they would have been able to dominate Israeli politics to the point of carrying out such a withdrawal will never be known. At present any attempt to proceed in this direction is certain to be stopped by Israel’s right-wing government and public. Still the example set by Gaza refuses to go away. Hovering in the background, it is a constant reminder that an alternative to present-day policies does exist.

As Defending Israel argued, and as events since then have clearly shown, the most important problem the West Bank poses to Israel is neither “strategic depth” nor terrorism. The former is rendered all but irrelevant by the advent of ballistic missiles, peace with Jordan, the demise of Iraq, and the Bank’s topography which makes an attack from east to west almost impossible. The latter could be solved by the construction of a wall and a withdrawal. The real threat is demographic. Six and a half million Jewish Israelis cannot go on forever governing an Arab-Palestinian population now numbering some two and a half million and growing fast. In this day and age, indeed, the very idea of an occupation that has now lasted for fifty years is simply crazy. Either pull out, unilaterally if necessary, or risk Israel becoming an apartheid state—which, I hate to say, in many ways it already is.

Finally, East Jerusalem. A story, probably apocryphal, dating to the first months after the June 1967 War illustrates the problem very well. Prime Minister Levi Eshkol is touring East Jerusalem. All around him people are beaming with happiness, but he alone keeps a gloomy face. Mr. Eshkol, they ask him, why all these sighs? In response he says that getting in was easy (as indeed it was). But getting out!

And so, indeed, it has proved. There is no way in the world Israel can be persuaded to give up the Old City and its immediate surroundings, the place which, whatever UNESCO may say, gave birth to the Jewish people well over 3,000 years ago. Nor, given the historical record, is there any reason why it should. But Israel should be able, and willing, to let go of many East Jerusalem neighborhoods that were recently joined to the city and have absolutely nothing to do with holiness. Such as Sheik Jarach, Dir al Balach, Ras al Amud, and quite a few others. All are inhabited exclusively by Palestinians and all are poor and underdeveloped. As in the case of Gaza, a withdrawal from them, even if it has to be carried out unilaterally and even if it only leads to a modus vivendi rather than peace, would be a blessing, not a curse.

With the 1967 war’s fiftieth anniversary coming soon, what is the point in waiting?