Du bow digest germany edition april 11, 2013

Du bow digest germany edition april 11, 2013

• 1.
  AN AMERICAN JEWISH– GERMAN INFORMATION & OPINION NEWSLETTER [email protected] GERMANY EDITION April 10, 2013 Dear Friends: I am sending this to you a bit early because I am getting myself ready for a mid-April trip to, you guessed it, Germany. I am coming across the “Pond” to staff the American group who will make up this year’s delegation participating in the 33 rd annual Exchange Program AJC has with the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. I have been part of this program since its inception in 1980 and actually made my first trip to Germany in 1982 as the staff person for that year’s delegation. It changed everything for me and inserted Germany into a very important place in my life. Since I am approaching the “Twilight of my youth” (Auf Deutsch: Alt) I advised David Harris, AJC’s Director that this would be my last Exchange trip and, indeed, he appointed Brian Lipton, the AJC Director in Sarasota, Florida to take over the program starting next year. Brian will be with me this year to get a feel for what it is all about. Of course, I’ll continue writing DuBow Digest and will maintain my AJC connection as a Senior Advisor. You have not seen the last of me. Enough about me! Since my last edition Jews celebrated Passover. In my eyes it’s the best of the holidays. It is takes place in homes usually surrounded by family. There is nothing better. Pres. Obama visited Israel (see below) for the first time as President. I think almost everybody felt it was a very positive undertaking. Since then, Secy. of State John Kerry has been back to the region twice to try his version of “Mission Impossible” – a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. One can only wish him good luck. I fear he’ll need a lot more than that. I hope to see some of you while I’m in Germany. 1
• 2.
  There’s more. Let’sget on to the news… IN THIS EDITION HOLOCAUST REMEBRANCE DAY – Not the one commemorated in Germany. OBAMA IN ISRAEL – What was seen as unimportant became very important. THE AMERICAN RABBI: A CHANGED ROLE – Entrepreneur? Maybe so! THE JEWISH FEDERATION SYSTEM - Think Zentralrat. WHAT IF…War between Israel and Iran. What would Germany do? ENJOYABLE CYNICISM – A critical and cynical look at Israel – Palestinian peace possibilities. HOLOCAUST REMEBRANCE DAY We recently passed the holiday of Yom HaShoah, the day that Jews worldwide commemorate the (Wikipedia) “six million Jews who perished in the Holocaust as a result of the actions carried out by Nazi Germany and its accessories, and for the Jewish resistance in that period. In Israel, it is a national memorial day‖. While in Germany and much of Europe the Holocaust is commemorated on January 27th, Jews celebrate it on a Jewish calendar day, the 27th day of Nisan which comes out(usually) in April or May. In an article in Jewish Ideas Daily written by Michael Carasik, he notes, ―The logic behind this date, as explained on the Knesset’s Hebrew web site, is calendrical rather than commemorative. It falls after the end of Passover and thus does not interfere with the holiday; it occurs during the period known as the ―Counting of the Omer,‖ traditionally a season of mourning; and it precedes by one week Israel’s Memorial Day for fallen soldiers, which is followed by Independence Day. It thus ―symbolically expresses the historical transition of the Jewish people from Holocaust to rebirth.‖ (The date observed by the United Nations is the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army.) (Wikipedia again)Jews in the Diaspora may observe this day within the synagogue, as well as in the broader Jewish community. Commemorations range from synagogue services to communal vigils and educational programs. Many Yom HaShoah programs feature a talk by a Holocaust survivor or a direct descendant, recitation of appropriate psalms, songs and readings, or viewing of a Holocaust-themed film. Some communities choose to emphasize the depth of loss that Jews experienced in the Holocaust by reading the names of Holocaust victims one after another—dramatizing the 2
• 3.
  unfathomable notion ofsix million deaths. Many Jewish schools also hold Holocaust- related educational programs on, or around, Yom HaShoah. Also during this day, tens of thousands of Israeli high-school students, and thousands of Jews and non-Jews from around the world, hold a memorial service in Auschwitz, in what has become known as "The March of the Living," in defiance of the Holocaust Death Marches. This event is endorsed and subsidized by the Israeli Ministry of Education and the Holocaust Claims Conference, and is considered an important part of the school curriculum – a culmination of several months of studies on World War II and the Holocaust. Yom HaShoah has not yet achieved a level of religious importance that, for instance, Passover, Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur have found for themselves. However, these notable dates refer to occurrences that took place thousands of years in the past. Yom HaShoah memorializes an event that took place less than 75 years ago. The Holocaust, no doubt, will find its way into yearly religious observance as time moves ahead. If I’m right about that, the Germans will take on the role that the Egyptians hold in the Passover Seder. Sorry! But that’s the way I see it. OBAMA IN ISRAEL Prior to Pres. Obama’s trip to Israel the media had set the bar very low for any expectations of success. Most thought that the mission would not have any meaningful outcome. He was not going to the Middle East with any new “peace plan” and that the entire undertaking would only be perfunctory with not terribly important visits to Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas. They were wrong! As it turned out, quite a few important results emanated. First and foremost was his ability to get P.M. Netanyahu to call Turkish P.M. Erdogan and participate in a three-way discussion. The result is described in an AJC news release. It noted, ―During the phone call, Netanyahu and Erdogan agreed to normalize relations, including returning their ambassadors to their respective posts in Israel and Turkey. And Turkey announced that it would cancel legal action against Israeli soldiers. Netanyahu ―made it clear that the tragic results regarding the Mavi Marmara were unintentional and that Israel expresses regret over injuries and loss of life,‖ according to a statement from his office. He ―apologized to the Turkish people for any errors that could have led to loss of life and agreed to complete the agreement on compensation.‖ Erdogan, in his statement, called ―regrettable‖ the recent deterioration in relations between Turkey and Israel, and ―accepted the apology.‖ Tensions between the two countries escalated after Israeli commandos, in May 2010, stopped and boarded the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish vessel that was attempting to break the internationally-sanctioned Israeli naval blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza. 3
• 4.
  One cannot undervaluethe resumption of diplomatic relations between these two countries considering the importance Turkey maintains with the other Muslim countries in the region and with both Palestinian entities as well. We now know that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry remained in the Middle East to see if the peace process might somehow be renewed. There are rumors that the two sides might actually start talking again in at a meeting in Jordan. A second plus for Pres. Obama was the improved status the trip earned with the American Jewish community. The Times of Israel reported, ―President Barack Obama’s much-lauded speech Thursday before a crowd of young Israelis earned widespread praise across the American Jewish ideological spectrum. The speech dealt with the broad sweep of issues on the US-Israel agenda, giving a wide range of American Jewish groups something to cheer about. Obama’s criticism of both past Palestinian rejectionism and of their resort to terror earned him high praise from the Anti-Defamation League, among others. The influential group praised the president for recognizing ―the risks Israel has taken for peace, steps often not met with reciprocity from the Palestinians.‖ That was the only mention of the Palestinians in the group’s Thursday statement, which went on to thank Obama for emphasizing ―the millennia-old connection the Jewish people have to the land of Israel‖ and ―the grave security challenges facing Israel, including terror threats from Hamas, and the dangers posed by a nuclear-armed Iran.‖ In a statement Friday, AIPAC ―saluted‖ Obama for the security agreements announced on the trip and his call on the Palestinians to drop preconditions to peace talks. That tone was echoed in a statement by Jewish Federations of North America board chair Michael Siegal, who praised Obama Friday for having ―underscored America’s unshakable bond with the Jewish State at a critical time and expressed a profound understanding of the challenges Israel faces.‖ More conservative groups were also broadly supportive of the speech. The Orthodox Union’s Nathan Diament, head of the organization’s public advocacy arm, told the Times of Israel Friday that the group was ―very pleased with [Obama's] explicit embrace and acknowledgement of thousands of years of history of the Jewish people in the land of Israel. We’re very appreciative of the support, the clear and strong policy, toward Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and the security of Israel.‖ When it came to Obama’s call for establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Diament was noncommittal. ―The president laid out his view,‖ he said, but added: ―What was important was that [Obama] made it very clear that whatever the details, whatever is going to be decided regarding borders and everything, it’s ultimately going to have to be decided by the parties in negotiations. It can’t be imposed from the outside.‖ 4
• 5.
  For their part,left-wing groups seemed thrilled by the speech, which they said forcefully laid out the case for peace. J Street’s Jeremy Ben-Ami praised Obama for ―making the two-state solution a top priority for his administration.‖ In a conversation with the Times of Israel Thursday, he pointed to the moment in the speech when Obama told Israelis, ―the only way for Israel to endure and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state is through the realization of an independent and viable Palestine.‖ ―What I saw as the point of the speech was [Obama's] laying out clearly and starkly the crossroads Israel is at,‖ Ben-Ami said. Obama spoke of US-Israeli friendship, of Jewish ties to the land of Israel, and then explained to Israelis ―that all of that is at risk, the entirety of Israel is at risk, without peace,‖ Ben-Ami said. In an email to J Street supporters, Ben-Ami wrote that the speech represented ―our moment — our time to lead! Never has anyone expressed with greater clarity and with greater conviction everything that our movement fights for and holds dear.‖ The left-leaning Israel Policy Forum, in an email that quoted the same line from Obama’s speech, said simply, ―We could not agree more.‖ One US Jewish official who asked not to be named offered a reason for the widespread praise the speech garnered. While Obama emphatically and passionately called for peace talks, he separated the issue of peace from the issue of security, the official said. ―Security is something Israel needs fundamentally, and Obama has secured it for them regardless of peace. All the tangible things that were announced were on Iran and security. He could have announced new talks. He could have announced that [Secretary of State John] Kerry would host a meeting of the sides. There was nothing like that. No deadlines, nothing.‖ So while Obama issued perhaps the most impassioned call for peace yet in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, ―his position is that ultimately the two sides have to figure it out themselves.‖ I guess there are many morals to this story, however an important one has to be, “Never underestimate the power of an American President”. The media is full these days with stories and opinions about the loss of American power in the world. Perhaps in some instances that is true. Certainly the U.S. cannot determine the course of the “Arab Spring” or use its muscle to bring peace between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq or anywhere else. Those disputes just have to play themselves out – if, indeed, they ever will. However, when it comes to such matters as the Israel – Palestinian quagmire the U.S. is really the only answer. THE AMERICAN RABBI: A CHANGED ROLE 5
• 6.
  Before going furtherinto this article, one should be reminded that rabbis in the U.S. do not work for “communities” nor are their salaries paid through governmental subsidies. Each and every rabbi is basically on his or her own. Mostly they work for individual synagogues or organizations and are hired and fired by these entities. In a certain way they are entrepreneurs. However, they are rarely thought of in those terms. However, Rabbi Jason Miller, “an entrepreneurial rabbi and a ―Rabbi Without Borders‖ whose personal blog has been viewed by hundreds of thousands by writing the ―Jewish Techs‖ blog for The Jewish Week and the monthly ―Jews in the Digital Age‖ column for the Detroit Jewish News‖certainly sees himself as just that – an entrepreneur!. Writing in Jewish Philanthropy he asserts, “A recent editorial in The Forward demonstrates how much the American rabbinate has changed in the 21st century. The economy has made it difficult for many rabbis to find good jobs; and for them to keep good jobs when the synagogue or organization falls on tough financial times. A reduction in the number of congregations due to closures and mergers has also caused a dearth of desirable positions for rabbis in the U.S. and Canada. But there are other factors involved as well. New rabbinical schools (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, Ziegler at the American Jewish University, Hebrew College and the Academy for Jewish Religion) have cropped up in the past fifteen years increasing the number of new rabbis looking for work. The Internet has also made it much easier for the laity to learn synagogue skills – life-cycle officiation, prayer leading and teaching – that may ultimately reduce the need for a rabbi, although I don’t believe that to be the case. As TheForward editorial makes clear, ―the role of rabbi is being challenged as never before.‖ Some sociologists like Prof. Jonathan Sarna of Brandeis University predicted precisely such a change in the American rabbinate based on shifting demographics and the needs of the community. However, I don’t see this as a crisis in American Jewry. Rather, I find this to be an interesting opportunity for rabbis to become more entrepreneurial – both as a way to be necessary and to make a significant contribution to our people. Rabbis who see this as a chance to reinvent their rabbinate will ultimately be the most successful in the new era of Jewish life. And that holds true not only for American rabbis, but for rabbis throughout the Jewish world who have the entrepreneurial spirit. When rabbis meet each other for the first time, I’ve noticed that in general, they no longer ask each other ―Which congregation do you lead?‖ Rather, the question is something along the lines of, ―Where are you from and what do you do?‖ Rabbis today are exploring much different rabbinic paths of leadership than in previous generations. Growing up I always thought the role of the rabbi was solely in a synagogue. All of the rabbinic role models I had as a child were pulpit rabbis. Today, much has changed and the majority of rabbis do not work in congregations. Talented rabbis are working in day schools, Jewish Community Centers, camping agencies, communal organizations, college campus institutions and philanthropic foundations. They are also cobbling together two and three part-time jobs in ways never 6
• 7.
  imagined in previousgenerations. Several entrepreneurial rabbis are taking a page out of the Chabad emissary playbook and founding new congregations and small prayer communities where there is a need. While not an easy task, these rabbis are finding the ―start-up‖ experience to be exhilarating, significant and spiritually fulfilling. Rabbis are also freelancing their skills more often. As the number of Jewish families and singles unaffiliated with a congregation rises, there is an increased need for rabbis to perform life-cycle leadership roles. With the growth of the internet it has become easy for people to identify rabbis to officiate at a baby naming ceremony, wedding, funeral or unveiling. An article recently appeared in The Jewish Week that showed a new trend for private bar and bat mitzvah ceremonies, independent of synagogues that are prevalent on the East Coast. And that trend is spreading to the rest of the country. As a rabbi who is not affiliated with a congregation, I am called upon often to lead life-cycle ceremonies and I know that is the case with my colleagues around the country who likewise aren’t working in a congregation. Our culture of desiring the best products has reached into the religious leadership marketplace as well. A Jewish couple no longer feels compelled to have the rabbi of their childhood congregations preside at their wedding ceremony. Instead they will select the rabbi who they believe will create the most meaningful, memorable experience. So too with other life-cycle events like funerals. I’m often asked to perform the weddings of young people with whom I developed a relationship working as a rabbi on a campus Hillel or at a Jewish summer camp. Many of these young people have moved away from their childhood communities and don’t have a meaningful relationship with the rabbi of their parents’ congregation, but like everything else in life they are seeking the personable, meaningful and memorable. I don’t have much to add to Rabbi Miller’s piece. If the role of rabbi is changing it reflects the changes going on throughout the Jewish community. Some of those you’ll find in the next article about the Jewish Federation system. Click on the link at the end of the piece and read about the “future”. Pretty interesting stuff! THE JEWISH FEDERATION SYSTEM I do not want to turn this edition into a primer on Jewish organizations in the U.S. but one of my goals in putting it together every month is to give my friends and readers in Germany a better idea of what American Jewish life is all about. In order to better understand it, one should have a little knowledge about its organizations. Jews have a long (tribal?) history of being responsible for one another. In order to do that and to have some sort of communal strength, they formed organizations – all kinds of organizations. In the U.S. one of the most successful has been the “Federation system”. Almost every community in the U.S. has a local “Federation”. For instance, the (The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles)) “…convenes and leads the community and leverages its resources to assure the continuity of the Jewish people, support a secure State of Israel, care for Jews in need here and abroad, and mobilize on issues of concern to the local community, all with our local, national, and international partners. 7
• 8.
  Who coordinates theFederations?The Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) represents and supports 154 Jewish Federations & over 300 independent Jewish communities. It sees its role as, “Protecting and enhancing the well-being of Jews and Jewish communities in North America, Israel and around the world. Leading a bold continental Federations collective to mobilize financial and social resources through its philanthropic endeavors, strategic initiatives and international agencies to strengthen the Jewish people, and Taking responsibility for each other according to the principles of chesed (caring and compassion), Torah (Jewish learning), tikkun olam (repairing the world) and tzedakah (social justice). When you think JFNAthink Zentralrat. That will help you to understand the concept. My good friend and former AJC and Hebrew Union College colleague Dr. Steven Windmueller has written an excellent article on the subject. He starts off by saying, ―Federations represent one of the most unique institutions within the North American Jewish landscape. In many ways its evolution and structure reflect the alignment of core Jewish values of tzedakah with the American public policy commitment to social welfare. This blending together of the nonprofit framework with historic Jewish principles of communal responsibility has enabled federations to construct this extraordinary service system. Initially launched at the end of the 19th century, the federation system has come to symbolize the power and capacity of the Jewish community to care for its own, while advocating for the general well-being of the society. Over the past 65 years, since the inception of the State of Israel, no other institution on the current communal landscape was equipped to have as effectively managed the crisis moments of the Jewish people. The credibility of this system’s past successes ought not to be minimized, just as it now must pursue a new vision for its future. So, now you know a little about the Federation system. That fulfills my goal. However, you should click here to find out what Steve is suggesting for the future. It is very interesting and well presented (and not long). http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/some-reflections-on-the-state-of-the-jewish-federation- system/ WHAT IF… (This article also appeared in my American Edition) An important and interesting article dealing with what Germany should do if, indeed, a shooting war developed between Israel and Iran appeared recently in The Wall Street Journal. The authors are Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, a former German defense 8
• 9.
  minister, now atthe Center for Strategic and International Studies and Ulf Gartzke who teaches at Georgetown University's BMW Center for German and European Studies. In it they raise the question of what Germany could and should do if such a conflagration broke out. The authors note, “Germany bears a special historical and moral responsibility to support Israel against an Iranian threat. First, Israel's leaders and the Israeli public view the Iranian peril primarily through the prism of the Holocaust. Proponents of a military strike on Iran often point to the Shoah as ultimate proof that Tehran's threats to destroy the State of Israel must be taken seriously. Second, ever since she became the first German chancellor to address the Knesset, in 2008, Angela Merkel has repeatedly declared that "Israel's security is part of Germany's raison d'être" and that it can "never be negotiable." The chancellor's statement is as true as it is important. There can be no doubt that Germany is Israel's closest and most vital ally in Europe. The two countries enjoy exceptionally close defense and intelligence ties. Berlin provided significant funding to help Israel acquire Germany's advanced "Dolphin" submarines, a critical boost to the Israeli Defense Forces' deterrence capability. The German government also worked behind the scenes to negotiate the release of former Israeli soldier GiladShalit from Hamas captivity. What's missing, however, is a broader debate—both in public and among top German officials—about what Berlin should do if diplomacy fails and Israel is compelled to take military action against the Iranian nuclear threat. Berlin's opposition to a strike on Iran's nuclear sites is well-known. In fact, German diplomacy seems careful to avoid creating the impression that Berlin expects or is even preparing for such an outcome. The fear is that this kind of contingency planning might only encourage Israel to pursue a military solution above other options. There are good reasons for opposing a military showdown. But Berlin needs to explain its options to the German people, while clearly stating that an Iran with nuclear weapons would threaten core security interests for Israel, the West and the region. This kind of strategic communications effort is even more important in a crucial Bundestag election year, and at a time when counterproductive Israeli settlement proposals, as well as German demographic and generational changes, risk undermining popular support for the Jewish state. Opinion polls indicate that a majority of Germans view Israel as an "aggressive" country that "pursues its interests without consideration for other nations." Berlin should also start thinking about how to support Israel in the wake of potential air strikes on Iran. It is better to develop a plan now than to engage in hectic ad-hoc decision making once the crisis has erupted. Germany's first priority should be to offer Israel civil and military assistance to defend against potential counterattacks. This could be by offering medical equipment or reconnaissance specialists for weapons of mass destruction, or by shoring up the Bundeswehr's naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean. The deployment of Patriot antimissile batteries, though logistically challenging, should also be considered. 9
• 10.
  Even if Israel'sactual needs are limited, offering quick, tangible support is a powerful show of solidarity and demonstrates that Israel is not facing this crisis alone. Second, Berlin should immediately push for a comprehensive cease-fire to limit Iran's ability to retaliate, for instance via its Hamas and Hezbollah proxies. This is not only in the interest of the Israeli generals. It is also vitally important for the Western world to keep the Straits of Hormuz open, to maintain Gulf stability and prevent attacks on moderate Arab states, to deter large-scale international terrorist violence, and to avert war between Israel and Lebanon or even Syria. Tehran may cry foul if an Israeli ally asks for a cease-fire following a pre-emptive strike. Nevertheless, Berlin shouldn't underestimate its influence in a region where America's credibility is strained, to put it mildly. Finally, Germany needs to marshal its full political and economic weight to maintain a tough international sanctions regime against Tehran. An attack on Iran might benefit the mullahs if existing sanctions were eased as a result, thereby allowing them to reconstitute their nuclear program with fewer restrictions moving forward. Certainly, all of these undertakings come with risks. But at the moment, there isn't even a closed-door discussion taking place about the potential options and responses. Unless this changes, Germany risks a further deterioration of public opinion at home even before any crucial decisions have been made. The stakes are high. Germany cannot afford to be on the wrong side of history‖ The article is obviously important because it raises the “What if…” question. The possibility of a military conflict between Israel and Iran has to be taken seriously and resultant actions by Germany should be shared with the citizenry in advance. That is a wise and sensible thing to do. However, with a national election coming up in September I doubt seriously that either party wants to talk about German involvement. However, no one will be able to say that the questions were not raised. Zu Guttenberg and Gartzke have performed a genuine service by writing this article. ENJOYABLE CYNICISM Every once in a while I come across an article that is, or might be, truly insightful. One never knows about insight. Some of it turns out correct and useful. At other times it’s way off base and either useless or harmful. The article below is loaded with political cynicism and, not peculiarly, it’s about the use of that very force by Israel. The author, Robert D. Kaplan is a very well-known journalist, author and a highly respected political analysis. I’m going to print the entire article which appeared on the website of Stratfor Global Intelligence. It is entitled Israel’s Insightful Cynicism. Israel is in the process of watching a peace treaty unravel. I don't mean the one with 10
• 11.
  Egypt, but theone with Syria. No, I'm not crazy. Since Henry Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy in 1974, the Israelis have had a de facto peace agreement of sorts with the al Assad family. After all, there were clear red lines that both sides knew they shouldn't cross, as well as reasonable predictability on both sides. Forget about the uplifting rhetoric, the requirement to exchange ambassadors and the other public policy frills that normally define peace treaties. What counts in this case is that both sides observed limits and constraints, so that the contested border between them was secure. Even better, because there was no formal peace agreement in writing, neither side had to make inconvenient public and strategic concessions. Israel did not have to give up the Golan Heights, for example. And if Syria stepped over a red line in Lebanon, or say, sought a nuclear capacity as it did, Israel was free to punish it through targeted military strikes. There was usefully no peace treaty that Israel would have had to violate. Of course, the Syrians built up a chemical arsenal and invited the Iranians all over their country and Lebanon. But no formal treaty in the real world -- given the nature of the Syrian regime -- would likely have prevented those things. In an imperfect world of naked power, the al Assads were at least tolerable. Moreover, they represented a minority sect, which prevented Syria from becoming a larger and much more powerful version of radical, Sunni Arab Gaza. In February 1993 in The Atlantic Monthly, I told readers that Syria was not a state but a writhing underworld of sectarian and ethnic divides and that the al Assads might exit the stage through an Alawite mini-state in the northwest of their country that could be quietly supported by the Israeli security services. That may yet come to pass. Israeli political leaders may periodically tell the media that Bashar al Assad's days are numbered, but that does not necessarily mean Israelis themselves believe that is an altogether good scenario. Indeed, I strongly suspect that, for example, when the Israelis and the Russians meet, they have much in common regarding Syria. Russia is supporting the al Assad regime through arms transfers by sea and through Iraq and Iran. Israelis may see some benefits in this. Russian President Vladimir Putin may actually enjoy his meetings with Israelis -- who likely don't lecture him about human rights and the evils of the al Assad regime the way the Americans do. True, a post-al Assad Syria may undermine Iranian influence in the Levant, which would be a great benefit to Israel, as well as to the United States. On the other hand, a post-al Assad Syria will probably be an anarchic mess in which the Iranians will skillfully back proxy guerrilla groups and still be able to move weapons around. Again, al Assad is the devil you know. And the fact that he is no longer, functionally speaking, the president of Syria but, rather, the country's leading warlord, presents challenges that Israelis would prefer not to face. What about Hezbollah, in this admittedly cynical Israeli view? Hezbollah is not a strategic threat to Israel. Hezbollah fighters are not about to march en masse over the border into Haifa and Tiberias. Anti-missile systems like Iron Dome and David's Sling could reasonably contain the military threat from the north. Then there are Israel's bomb shelters -- a one-time only expense. Hezbollah, moreover, needs Israel. For without a powerful Israel, Hezbollah would be robbed of the existential adversary that provides 11
• 12.
  Hezbollah with itsimmense prestige in the Lebanese political universe, making Hezbollah so much more than just another Shiite group battling Sunnis. Israel's war against Hezbollah in 2006 is known as a disaster. But it did have its positive side effects: Israel has had seven years of relative peace on its northern border, even as the war usefully exposed many inadequacies in the Israeli military and reserve system that had been building for years and were henceforth decisively repaired, making Israel stronger as a consequence. Threats abound, truly. The collapse of the al Assad regime may lead to a weapons free- for-all -- just like in post-Gadhafi Libya -- that might force Israel to "mow the lawn" again in southern Lebanon. As for Hassan Nasrallah, the charismatic and capable Hezbollah leader, maybe he, too, is the devil you know, informally obeying red lines with Israel since 2006. Nasrallah appears to be less extreme than his deputy, Naim Qassim, who would take over if Nasrallah were ever assassinated by the Israelis, unless the Sunnis in a Lebanon and Syria thrown into utter, post-al Assad chaos assassinate him sooner. Then there is Gaza: once again, like southern Lebanon, "mow the lawn" once or twice a decade, though this might be harder in a post-Arab spring geopolitical environment because of the greater danger of unhinging Israeli-Egyptian relations. Still, in Gaza there is no existential threat, nor a real solution, regardless of what the diplomats say. Idealists in the West talk about peace; realists inside Israel talk about spacing out limited wars by enough years so that Israeli society can continue to thrive in the meantime. As one highly placed Israeli security analyst explained to me, the East Coast of the United States and the Caribbean have periodic hurricanes. After each one, people rebuild, even as they are aware that a decade or so down the road there will be another hurricane. Israel's wars are like that, he said. Presently a real underlying worry for Israel appears to be Jordan. Yes, King Abdullah has so far expertly manipulated the growing unrest there, but to speculate about the collapse of the Hashemite dynasty is only prudent. More anarchy. More reason to heed Ariel Sharon's analysis of four decades ago to the effect that Jordan is the real Palestinian state, more so than the West Bank. And because Jordan and Saudi Arabia could conceivably unravel in coming decades, maybe Israel should seek to avoid attacking Iran -- which along with Israel is the only real state between the Mediterranean Sea and the Iranian Plateau. Iran may have a repulsive regime, but its society is probably healthier than most in the Arab world. So there is some hope. You get the picture. Israel had a convenient situation for decades, surrounded as it was by stable Arab dictatorships. Israel could promote itself as the region's only real democracy, even as it quietly depended on the likes of Hosni Mubarak, the al Assad clan and the Hashemites to ensure order and more-or-less few surprises. Now dictators are falling and anarchy is on the rise. Fighting state armies of the kind that the Arab dictators built in wars in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 was simpler compared totoday's wars: Because the Arabs never really believed in their dysfunctional states, they didn't always fight very well in state-organized formations. But sub-state militaries like Hezbollah and Hamas have been more of a challenge. In the old days, Israel could destroy an Egyptian air force on the ground and solve its security dilemma in the south. 12
• 13.
  Nowadays, to repeat,there are no solutions for Israel: only sub-state adversaries that hide among civilian concentrations in order to attack your own civilian concentrations. No peace ever, therefore, just periodic wars, hopefully spaced-out. The Middle East today has turned out perfectly if you are a Jewish West Bank settler. The divisions within Palestinian ranks, coupled with the increasing anarchy of the Arab world, mean the opportunities for territorial concessions on Israel's part have diminished. In fact, Israel's only option may be more unilateral withdrawals. That is probably the only thing the settlers have to worry about. But the Zionist dream lives on. Jerusalem and much of the rest of Israel are thriving. Light rail and pedestrian walkways make Jerusalem more vibrant than ever. The Arabs in the Old City survive well -- under the circumstances that is -- on the "Jewish" side of the "fence," where the standard of living and quality of life is so much better than on the Arab side. The "fence" is both a monstrosity in abstract moralistic terms and a practical solution in an age of repeated diplomatic failure and fewer and fewer diplomatic opportunities. From 28 percent of the gross domestic product in the mid-1970s, Israeli military spending is down to between 6 and 8 percent of the country's GDP. Life is good in Israel. The unemployment rate is lower than in the United States and Europe, despite high housing costs and the need for reform in health care and education. One could argue that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- so vilified in the West -- has not handled the economy altogether badly. But what about idealism? What about a better, more humane Middle East? What about the wise and talented statesmen who periodically see opportunities where others see none? What about slowing down Israel's drift to a quasi-Apartheid society, characterized by Israeli domination of the more numerous Arabs and something certainly not in Israel's interest? These are all real things to constantly keep in mind and to struggle for. But the Levant remains a zero-sum struggle for physical survival. So it is a place where there will always be benefits to dealing with strong dictators. Given their geographical circumstances, Israelis can be forgiven their cynicism. ************************************************************************************************** See you again in May. DuBow Digest is written and published by Eugene DuBow who can be contacted by clicking here Both the American and Germany editions are posted at www.dubowdigest.typepad.com All prior editions are also posted there. 13
• 14.
  14