Sarkozy's funny convo. re: Avigdor Lieberman

Saw this bit about a conversation between French Pres. Nicolas Sarkozy and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu in a NY Times article today and laughed out loud. I wish more reporting was this humorous. I also wish more reporters had access to fly-on-the-wall stories like this one.

When Mr. Lieberman visited France recently, Mr. Sarkozy declined to meet with him, although he routinely received Ms. Livni, who was foreign minister in the last government.

According to the newspaper Yediot Aharonot, Mr. Sarkozy told Mr. Netanyahu that he should remake his government so that he, Ms. Livni and the defense minister, Ehud Barak, could produce historic breakthroughs for Middle East peace. He was reported to have said, “I’ve always received Israeli foreign ministers. I met with Tzipi Livni in the Élysée Palace, but with that one I simply can’t meet. I’m telling you, you need to get rid of that man. Get him out of the government and bring in Livni. With her and with Barak you can make history.”

The paper said Mr. Netanyahu replied: “No need to exaggerate. Lieberman is a very nice person, and in private conversations he speaks differently.”

Mr. Sarkozy was reported to have replied, “In private conversations, Jean-Marie Le Pen is also a nice person.”

Mr. Sarkozy is said to have added of Mr. Lieberman, “Sometimes when I hear what he says I have the urge to pull out my hair.” He placed his hands on his head and grabbed hold of his hair.

Hugo Chavez supports CIA conspiracy theory re: Iranian elections

The French daily Le Monde ended an article today about the reestablishment of diplomatic ties between the U.S. and Venezuela with a statement about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's support for the idea that the protests throughout Iran are the result of CIA meddling. The quote from the article is here:

"Mercredi, M. Chavez a réitéré son soutien à la réélection contestée du président Mahmoud Ahmadinejad et accusé la CIA de soutenir les manifestations en Iran."

In English: "Wednesday, Mr. Chavez reiterated his support for the contested reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and accused the CIA of supporting the demonstrations in Iran."

While it doesn't seem outlandish to me to think that the CIA might be thrilled about what's going on in the streets of Iran right now, it does strike me as absurd to assume that any foreign intelligence agency could so successfully mobilize a large and thoroughly modern population to confront authority. How utterly ironic that the man who loves to dress up like Ché Guevara and who buddies up to Fidel Castro would speak out against what is clearly a people's movement in Iran against an autocratic, militaristic and theocratic regime. The irony is compounded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's warnings that any movement against the revolutionary government — which is to say, the governmental system that has ruled Iran since the successful 1979 Islamic revolution — will be met with crushing force.

Herein lies the problem with revolutionary movements and the people who rise to power on their wings — the principle of revolution that enables major social, political, and economic transformation inevitably becomes a threat to the original revolutionaries. Once safely installed in power, former revolutionaries — history shows — are loathe to support the same revolutionary spirit in their subjects, much as they may claim otherwise. Former revolutionaries all too often become strong-fisted autocrats, often bearded, though not always.

But the problem for Iran's current rulers and men like Hugo Chavez is that the concept of "revolution" — while convenient for mobilizing the masses in the short term — will perpetually destabilize subsequent governments if those governments tend toward autocracy, especially when it becomes part of the ideology of a people. A revolutionary people will never tolerate the stagnancy of autocracy for long. The revolution — as the word itself implies — will come full circle.

And perhaps this is why Hugo Chavez, the so-called revolutionary, fears the apparent revolution against the Islamic revolution in Iran. This is perhaps why Hugo Chavez blames the CIA and supports President Ahmadinejad — he knows that the very revolutionary ethos he subscribes to and claims to represent will become a danger to him in the future.

And for all of Mr. Chavez's scathing talk about the Great Gringo, he never mentions the fact that his country is the third largest exporter of crude oil to the United States. Mr. Chavez nationalized the oil industry in Venezuela, and now his central government reaps profits from the U.S. addiction to gasoline. How many of his "revolutionary" socialist redistribution of wealth programs would be possible without oil revenue?

Sadr City bomb does not bode well.

The New York Times reported today that a bomb in a crowded Sadr City market killed at least 60 Iraqis last night. It was, according to the Times, the third bomb in two weeks to cause double-digit casualties in the Shiite areas. The portent of these bombings, as well as recent activity in Falluja — the former hotbed that has been quiet for over a year — is that the American "troop surge" was only successful in as much as it put "cops on every corner." Now that those surge troops are drawing down, and coalition forces are scaling down tactical operations altogether, it is becoming clear that the surge did not rid Iraq of its destabilizing elements — it merely forced them into hiding. They're much less afraid of Iraqi security forces, who share similar equipment and do not benefit from the immense tactical and logistical superiority possessed by the Americans. In the coming weeks, as the Americans begin to pull out of population centers, we will see that the relative calm of the surge years — when there was a cop on every corner — gave us and the Iraqis a false sense of security.

As Alissa Rubin writes, "The bombing on Wednesday occurred just six days before the American forces officially withdraw from Iraqi cities, towns and villages, as required under the Iraqi-American security agreement. In Baghdad, many of the troops have already withdrawn, and whatever preventive effect they had may well be fast evaporating. In their absence, insurgent groups appear to be beginning to test the security system now run almost wholly by Iraqis."

It may be the case that the period of relative calm that resulted from the surge afforded Iraqi security forces the time to hone their skills under their foreign instructors and gain critical real-world training. It may be the case that Iraqi security forces will be able to maintain stability in Iraq even amidst isolated bombings and attacks by destabilizing elements.

Just because "insurgent groups appear to be beginning to test the security system now run almost wholly by Iraqis" doesn't mean that they are capable of causing that security system to fail. But it's going to be a bloody examination. Whether the Iraqi security system passes or fails may not matter politically to those Iraqis who have to suffer through the test.

Tel Aviv by night

Went out in Tel Aviv last weekend just for the night. Stayed up 'til dawn walking the streets, stopping for the occasional beer. Tel Aviv is a very walkable place — there's a long street called Rothschild that has a double-lane bike highway running through the middle, flanked by grass and benches. There are open air kiosk-style restaurants every couple of blocks or so, and people stay out all night. Tel Aviv is a good place to shoot photos — chock full of weird lights, weird buildings, and weird people. It's a good place to be a weirdo.

Tel Aviv is known as a "bubble city." It's a place you can go to escape the tension of Jerusalem. Which is to say, it's a place you can go to escape Israel. Or to escape Palestine, in my case. Tel Aviv's residents give the air of blissful detachment from the hostile, hateful politics and cutthroat geopolitics that make their lives (and my escapist weekends) liveable and colorful. I can't blame them — they're in too deep. Why not enjoy the sea, pretend to anarchist sympathies, crank up to punk rock, and go out for sushi?

Down the street from Tel Aviv is the old Palestinian city of Jaffa, or Yafo in Hebrew. I regret that I wasn't able to photograph Jaffa on this trip. The old citadel juts out into the sea, gleaming under yellow lights in the distance. The storefronts in downtown Jaffa are vaulted arches affixed with cast-iron-latticed windows. It's beautiful, and tragic. Jaffa is still a predominately Arab city, but Jewish Israelis are busy buying up the choicest properties, just like everywhere else.

Tel Aviv was a boondocks when Jaffa was in its prime. Tel Aviv was a Jewish settler outpost when Jaffa was the pearl of the British Empire's holdings in Palestine. Now Tel Aviv is spiked with sky scrapers, filled with bars, bikinis and modern art. There are also drugs, prostitutes, Russian mafiosos. You have to take the good with the bad ...

Jaffa is still sleepy by comparison. It's maintained its tranquil seaside aura amidst all the turbulence and disappointment of the last six decades. Its walls and arches will outlast decades to come, that much is certain.

Japanika: a booming kiosk shushi restaurant on Rothschild St., Tel Aviv


Cool lights on the sidewalk on Rothschild St.


One of Tel Aviv's crumbling anachronisms


Rothschild St.


Poster graffiti, Tel Aviv subterranean




Stencil graffiti in a bar explains the Tel Aviv bubble

Haaretz Daily turns over reporting to Israel's writers and poets

What if Dave Eggers, Don Dellilo, Rita Dove, and Charles Wright were handed the reins of the New York Times for a day? Wouldn't that be cool!

That's exactly what Haartez Daily did for Tuesday's reporting — they replaced their normal reporting staff with Israel's top writers and poets for a day, and they published the results today in the "Writers' Haaretz." I'm not sure the content is noticeably different ... but it was a cool gesture anyway!

Ehud Barak acknowledges reality, begrudgingly

The following quote is from a June 10 Haaretz story about Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's "conversation between two speeches," i.e. President Obama's speech in Cairo to the Muslim world and Israeli PM Netanyahu's upcoming response:

"Barak spoke Tuesday night to the Council for Peace and Security, in an auditorium full of veterans of the Israel Defense Forces, the Shin Bet security service and the Mossad - or as one journalist described it, 'generations of defense officials. These people led us from disaster to disaster.'

"Barak told the audience what he certainly managed to tell Netanyahu: It would be a mistake for Israel to be the one preventing Obama from trying to bring a peace agreement to the Middle East. Whether Netanyahu listened to him and was convinced, we will know only on Sunday"

Isn't this a unique and much-needed way of looking honestly at military and intelligence leadership, seeing them as the "people [who lead] us from disaster to disaster" instead of the heros who deliver us from peril and ensure our future security by way of the gun?

There is a well-worn phrase in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories — "Israel is not a nation with an army, but an army with a nation." The Israel Defense Forces, the Mossad, and Shin Bet have fielded Israel's senior political leadership since the founding of the state, not surprising given that all Israeli Jews and Druze are required to serve on active duty (men serve three years, women serve two) and as reservists until middle age. Orthodox can opt out.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak himself comes from the senior ranks of the IDF. He led troops in the first Lebanon War. He rose to the rank of general. Former PM Menachim Begin got his start with an organization called Irgun, a thorn in the side of the British occupation and a terror to Palestinians. PM Yitzhak Rabin — who presided over the Oslo Accords in the 90s before being assassinated by a settler extremist — also fought the British occupation before becoming an IDF general and leading Israel in the Six Day War. Current PM Benjamin Netanyahu — a hard-line and completely anti-conciliatory leader, whose vocal resistance to "agreements" between the Israeli state and the Palestinians is matched only by Hamas' resistance to such agreements — served as an IDF officer in an elite reconnaisance unit. Opposition leader and Kadima Party leader Tzipi Livni, who served the last government as Foreign Minister and spearheaded the winter offensive in Gaza, served as a lieutenant in the IDF before going on to a long and successful career with the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency. Tzipi Livni is seen as a moderate, perhaps even a leftist. Can you imagine a "moderate spy" rubbing shoulders with former senior military leadership in the U.S. Senate?

Having a separation of military/intelligence leadership and civilian leadership in government may not be as critical as a separation of church and state (a score on which the Israeli government also receives poor marks), but it is nonetheless important that the military and intelligence communities do not dictate domestic and foreign policy. In Israel, it seems as if the military directs all affairs, internal and external, and without regard for a peaceful vision of the future. And why would we expect officers (especially former generals) and top spies to look critically at the long-term effects of their overmilitarized policies? For them, military action — or laying the groundwork and forging the alliances for military action — is the only solution to Israel's complex problems with its neighbors.

We have seen what has happened in the U.S. everytime Congress has gotten too close to the Pentagon. In our time, we have not heeded Republican President and Five Star General (also Supreme Allied Commander during WWII, how's that for a title) Dwight Eisenhower's warning against the "Military-Industrial Complex." In his original speech, he was going to call that beast the Military-Congressional-Industrial Complex. The most recent results of our failure to heed his warning can be seen in Iraq and in the bank accounts of Halliburton — it was the promise of renewable multi-billion dollar no-bid defense contracts, and the complicity of Congress in granting them, that pushed us into the debacle in which we know find ourselves.

While General David Petraeus can be credited with offering realistic suggestions for working our way out of the hole into which we've dug ourselves, some of his predecessors can be faulted with putting us in the hole in the first place. General Tommy Franks, for one, who signed on eagerly to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan for a short war involving hi-tech Stryker Brigades and small unit tactics that would make a large military presence and a long-term occupation unnecessary (both things were considered doubtful by General Eric Shinseki, who was not among the pre-Iraq "yes men," and who — as Chief of Staff of the Army — warned the Senate Armed Forces Committee in 2002 that the invasion and occupation of Iraq would take several years and over 400,000 troops).

In Israel, the military carries even more political weight than in the U.S. — defense and security are everything to the Israeli state. Generals and intelligence officers have led Israel from "disaster to disaster," and they have led the Jewish people in the land of Palestine from an occupied people with a tenuous claim on the land to an occupying people whose claim on the land remains tenuous sixty years after "independence." Israel has never gained acceptance or stability in the region because of its ferocity toward Palestinian Arabs and its unwillingness to compromise. Zionist ambitions to control Judea and Samaria — a.k.a. the West Bank — preclude sustainable peace, contribute to militancy and extremism among Palestinians, and cause a completely unneccessary environment of fear and hate on all sides of the separation fence(s).

Israelis need to set aside "politics as usual" — which seem to depend almost entirely on the issue of foreign threats and how to deal with them — and ask themselves what they want from the future. They need to be honest with themselves. Do they want a future in which their children can live without fear, without hate? Or do they want a future in which their children will grow up into the same environment of distrust and perpetual threat that Israel has known since its founding? If they want the latter — and I can't see how they would — then they should continue on their current course, though to do so will be to foreshorten the life of the state of Israel, because such a top-heavy, overmilitarized national project will tumble under its own weight. If they want the former, the time is now to take measures and make compromises to pave the path of peace.

Get out of the settlements. Quit strangling the flow of life in the Occupied Palestinian Territories with checkpoints, fences, and incursions — those practices don't make Israel safer; they cause misery and breed hate. Put the military in its place — an important place, but at a safe distance from the civilian planning and decision-making apparatus.

Ehud Barak should be praised for acknowledging that Israel must not stand in the way of the West's efforts to negotiate peace in the region. President Obama said in Cairo that a sustainable peace between Israel and Palestine would benefit the United States, Israel, and Palestine. I think we can add the world at large.

Jerusalem, Old City: Orthodox on Shavuot

Friday, May 29, was a Jewish holiday called Shavuot. I went to the Old City to watch the Orthodox Jews pour in through the Damascus gate on their way to pray at the Western Wall, sometimes jogging — clutching their big fur hats to their heads, strollers rattling across cobblestones — to get to the Wall before sunset. I didn't know until now what the Shavuot holiday signifies. I just Googled it and found out that it marks the day when God handed the Torah over to Moses at Mt. Sinai.

I would have known last Friday, on Shavuot, when I asked four or five Orthodox to explain the significance of Shavuot to me. Each successive person looked at me with a look of disdain or discomfort, or some mixture of both. No one would answer me, or even respond to my "Shalom," and the dozen or so people that I made eye contact with and smiled at looked straight through me, as if I weren't even there. Maybe there's a prohibition against smiling on Shavuot — when the Orthodox observe Sabbath conditions — or maybe they were reluctant to speak to me for fear of embarrassment or because of poor English language skills. Whatever the case, the experience caused me to wonder if the Orthodox behave similarly to more secular Jewish Israelis, or if the silent treatment is reserved for foreigners and Arabs. Do they not condescend to acknowledge my presence because they are God's chosen people, and I am not one of them?

I walked home in the quickly cooling air of early evening. I stopped to take a picture of some Arab kids playing soccer in a park lit by electric lamps. A few of them came up to talk to me. We talked about all sorts of simple things — food, geography, soccer (mentioning Barcelona is a quick way to make friends, even if you, like me, know nothing about soccer), etc. Then I said I had to go, and as I started to walk away, I heard a kid yelling "Cous ukhtek, cous imek." Your sister's pussy, your mother's pussy. Two common insults hurled at me for no reason that I could understand, other than the fact that the kid probably thought it would be funny to make fun of me loudly in a language I couldn't understand. But I did understand, and I made him aware of the fact that I understood. I asked him why he would say such a thing.

Instead of apologizing, he threw a rock at me.

A Palestinian woman sells parsley next to the Damascus Gate as Orthodox Jews pour in on Shavuot


Foot traffic inside the Damascus Gate as Orthodox Jews make their way to the Western Wall


The Orthodox have large families, rivaling the Arab "population bomb" with their reproduction rates.


Orthodox men speculate on what's causing the blockage at the Damascus Gate.




Oranges and apples inside an Israeli soldier's helmet at the Damascus Gate.