Thursday, July 10, 2008

Happy 4th of July – To America and the Jewish People



So, why should Israelis and Jews all over the world commemorate the date that thirteen American colonies declared their independence, as the United States, from England? It's not just the billions of dollars in aid Israel receives from Uncle Sam every year.


Already hailed as a milestone of essential scholarship, Michael Oren's recent work, Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America and the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, relates some astounding links between the Jewish people and the United States. The Puritans who came to America from Europe, "conceived themselves as the new Jews and the New World as the New Canaan." In an interview, Oren elaborated, "That immediately established a sense of kinship between them and the old Jews and the old Promised Land. Since then, many Protestants in the United States have seen it as their religious and national duty to help fulfill God’s promises to rescue the Jews from exile and repatriate them to their ancestral homeland." Oren also points out that in 1844, the head of New York University’s bible department, George Bush, a direct ancestor of two American presidents of the same name, wrote The Valley of Visions, a bestseller urging the United States to take a leading role in recreating a Jewish state in the land of Israel.

In Old World Europe,attempts at self-government were subject to the whims of monarchs and potentates; the value of human life was not a universal truism. The United States of America was founded on the basis that people are essentially good and capable of self-government, that individuals can make a difference in making the world a better or worse place. Israel and America share a mission to be a beacon of life-affirming values beyond their borders.

America does not have an unblemished record - there have been cases of institutional anti-semitism; Jonathan Pollard still sits in a maximum security prison. However, in its 230 year history, America has overwhelmingly been a blessing to the Jewish people. Jews were welcomed as full citizens in the newborn United States and, in 1790, George Washington addressed the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, as follows.

"May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

Washington proved to be farsighted. Proud Jews, including Senator Joe Lieberman and NY Assemblyman Dov Hilkind, have influenced American politics at every level. Beyond that, Jewish culture has thrived and become a vital part of mainstream American culture.

As the founders in the United States were inspired by the Jewish people, let's hope that Israel can be inspired to live by America's founding principles of good governance. Shelanu proposes individually electing all legislators as sole representatives of their districts. We support a presidential executive system, completely separate from the legislature (Knesset), that places efficient and effective public service above the kind of sectarian patronage that characterizes Israel's ministerial appointments. These mechanisms, complementary and firmly rooted in principles of individual accountability and citizen sovereignty, have proven themselves over time, in the United States as a whole and in governments as small as the state of Rhode Island. They work because they're built on simple, solid principles which reward individual excellence and consider individual citizens to be the most basic unit of political influence.

Order your t-shirts today! See the post from earlier today.

T-Shirt Campaign

This month, we unveil our very first fundraising effort as a non-profit organization with a t-shirt campaign. Provocative and direct, with our icon produced exclusively by Studio Spinner, these shirts were designed to get people thinking and talking. Take a look at the new design on our web site at

http://www.directrepisrael.org/EN/Stuff.shtml

For a donation of NIS 100 ($30), to Shelanu, you will receive our brand new, redesigned t-shirt. Additional t-shirts can be purchased for NIS 50 ($15) apiece. Please specify t-shirts size(s) as well as contact information (including telephone, mailing address, and email address if possible).


Donations may be made by check or by bank transfer.

By check:

Make checks out to "Shelanu, Meitanu, Avureinu" and send to:
Shelanu
c/o Michael Jaffe
17 HaPalmach Street
P.O. Box 1228
Zichron Yaakov, 30900 ISRAEL
With your check, please include a note with t-shirt size(s), telephone, and mailing address information.

By bank transfer:
Bank of Jerusalem (Israeli Bank #054)
Branch #030
Account #300054210
Bank transfers orders: please call or email us with t-shirt size(s), telephone, and mailing address information

How to contact us:
Email: jmichaeljaffe@directrepisrael.org
Phone: From Israel 04-6398160, From outside Israel +972-4-6398160.
Fax: From Israel 153-4-6398160, From outside Israel +972-153-4-6398160.
Skype ID: jmjaffe
(We cannot accept collect calls at this time.)


Where does the money go?

  • Maintenance of our web site
  • Legal and administrative fees of establishing and maintaining a non-profit status
  • Design and production of educational materials about effective democracy
  • Communication costs for publicizing Shelanu
  • Planning and producing upcoming events, including our first nationwide general meeting and educational seminars

As a new organization, we must attain a certification, known as a Form 46, that allows us access to many granting institutions. Shelanu should receive this certification over the course of the year, but only if we start with the preliminary support of individuals like you. If you want to make a difference to make Israel stronger, more secure, and more prosperous, there is no better way than helping to heal her democracy.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

The Highjacking of Sentiment

The Israeli public simply does not know how to speak up for itself. And the stakes are nothing short of existential. The latest outrage is the mass prisoner release of a thousand terrorists including one of the most bloodthirsty and dangerous animals ever to be captured by Israel, Samir Kuntar.

In 1979, Kuntar, accompanied by three other terrorists, shot 28-year-old Danny Haran in the head, killing him in front of his four-year-old daughter, Einat. Kuntar then bludgeoned Einat to death against the rocks on Nahariya's beachfront. Danny's wife, Smadar Haran, was able to hide in a crawl space above the bedroom of their home with her two-year-old daughter, Yael, and a neighbor. Tragically, trying to keep her infant daughter quiet while hiding from the murderers, Smadar accidentally suffocated Yael . Kuntar has spent the last 29 years in Israeli prisons, and has never stopped bragging about his brutal atrocity.

Kuntar and his ilk, walking time bombs of murderous terror, are being given their freedom in exchange for the corpses of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. The message for Hamas? No need to keep Gilad Schalit alive. Israel will pay a premium just to get corpses back. The message for kidnapping? Oh, how it pays! Jewish blood? Cheap. Jewish bones? These will give you influence. These will free your murderers.

It's hard to identify the more contemptible in this episode. 22 cabinet members proved too weak-willed or demagogic to sympathetically but firmly stand up to the families of the kidnapped - and protect the rest of us. Then there is the prime minister, who waited to ascertain which way the political winds blew, who waited for the large majority of the cabinet to make their choices, before voicing his support for the swap. Either way, Ehud Olmert is no leader and has no business making critical decisions that will have repercussions - deadly repercussions - on those who will be kidnapped and those who will be blown apart by missiles. There is no doubt that Hizbullah, Hamas, Fatah, Al-Qaeda, and Iran will be emboldened.

So many of us flew the flags bearing the faces of Goldwasser, Regev, and Schalit on our cars. How many of us thought that our moral support for these kidnapped victims would be exploited and rechanneled into a political sham that rewards terrorism and ultimately puts us all in much greater danger?

To Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, Haim Ramon, Ehud Barak, Shaul Mofaz, Eliyahu Yishai, Ariel Atias, Ruhama Avraham Balila, Ami Ayalon, Minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, Yacov Ben-Izri, Yitzhak Cohen, Avi Dichter, Jacob Edery, Rafi Eitan, Gideon Ezra, Isaac Herzog, Raleb Majadele, Meshulam Nahari, Meir Sheetrit, Shalom Simhon, and Yuli Tamir: You voted to free murderers who declared that they will murder again. You violated every standard of propriety and responsibility to defend this land and its citizens. You are not worthy to make any claim to leadership or to authority. When the next soldier or civilian is kidnapped, it will be your fault as much as any of the actual perpetrators. YOU let them know that their strategy of murder and psychological torment works. You have opted for popularity over duty, political expediency over responsibility. You could not face down the families, the press, the short-sighted. You are abject failures as representatives of our interests and have earned any agony that this decision will cause you.


To the parents and spouses who demanded that Israel pay any price for your peace of mind. You condemned future Israeli lives not for the lives of your loved ones, but for their bones. To gain closure, you became the mouthpieces of their murderers as you relegated other parents and spouses to the same unspeakable hell you have endured. Yes, you were in pain when you did this, you were weak from psychological agony. But you must have known that you were being played. Your part in appeasing the kidnappers has insulted the legacy of your loved ones. Unfortunately, history will remember them as unwilling and passive pawns in this tragic and cowardly action.

To Roni Bar-On, Ze'ev Boim, and Daniel Friedmann. Thank you for voting against this terrible blunder. You were the few in the cabinet who showed the presence of mind and the integrity that your positions in government demanded. And yet I am convinced that most Israelis realize, as do you, the catastrophe this deal constitutes, to assuage today's morbid grief at the cost of tomorrow's lethal barbarity.

Unfortunately, our system of government as a whole, with its basis in proportional representation, does not respect the concept of serving, and in this case protecting, any general public. It is rooted in the mediocre concept of cynically manipulating interest groups with a prime directive of amassing political power for power's sake.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Definition of "clueless"; see "Livni"

The more the Israeli political elite opens its collective mouth in mock self-criticism, the more it proves how clueless are its members about true democracy. Tzipora Livni's pronouncements at Tel Aviv University last Monday ("Livni: Israel on quick path to anarchy," Jerusalem Post, 23 June 2008) provided a memorable example.

Livni astutely bemoaned the public's "collective feeling that demonstrates a lack of public faith in elected officials." Had she stopped there, she would have merely placed herself in the company of demagogic politicians who state the obvious in order to gain popularity points. But she felt compelled to venture outside the confines of reason by adding her prescription for restoring public faith. "The elected official must get to know his office, to talk with the office workers, to try and create reforms if change is needed."

No, Tzipi. The first step towards restoring the public's faith in its public servants is not making your office a happy place for the grunts. In a democracy, the public's faith is maintained when a clear, honest effort is made to address public concerns. The public is a lot less concerned with your office politics than it is with your accountability and your effectiveness in matters of national policy.

Political corruption and incompetence in our government stem from the disconnect of elected officials from any semblance of a public constituency. For this, we can thank proportional representation and the parliamentary executive system, which are based on the defacto foundations of Israel's governance: sectarian entitlements and party hegemony. Your own political sense, Tzipi, is so compromised that you can't perceive two democratic absolutes: the public has a right to be heard and the Israeli public should have final say over who writes their laws and executes policy.

We can
rehabilitate our democratically-challenged elite by reforming our system of elections and governance with two philosophical foundations: the individual, direct accountability of every elected official to a public constituency and public service in a professional executive bureaucracy. Integrity and merit in public service, not officeplace interpersonal feng shui, restore public faith in elected officials.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Parachutes of Pyrite

A dear friend of the family asked me, "Why doesn't Olmert just take his money and retire to Florida to play golf?"

Well, why should he? From his perspective, the contempt of the people is a cheap price to pay for his acquired wealth and a prestigious position on the world stage. Once he's out, he won't be getting fat envelopes from vested interests and friendly slaps on the back from George Bush. Capitulating under a cloud would cost him the adulation of the European intelligentsia who love to hear him talk about the necessity of a Palestinian state. Also, I think he's holding out for the best golden parachute he can get. At some point, Kadima will probably negotiate a deal with him, letting him resign without prosecution and minimizing the damage he might otherwise do to the party. For the damage he's done to this country, I hope his golden parachute turns out to be pyrite (the geological name for "fool's gold").

It's almost entertaining to watch the next powerball wannabes, including the clueless Tziporah Livni and the bumbling Ehud Barak, carve into Olmert's not-quite-expired political carcass. They exhibited no such indignation when rank opportunism had them hitching their careers to Olmert's briefly shooting star right when he, following Ariel Sharon, raped the Likud and the entire Israeli democratic system. It still amazes me how this parliamentary system tolerated Sharon jettisoning the Likud, rather than the converse, and retaining the reins of executive office. Kadima was born out of the valueless excesses of the nearly-indicted and the power-hungry, and it feels good to see them losing political ground.

Unfortunately, the prospects for real improvement in Israeli politics are not very compelling. Nothing will improve significantly until Israel changes its system of government and elections. As long as the proportional system prevents a mainstream majority from forming, parties will continue to play for power at the expense of national security and integrity and politicians will evade individual accountability. As long as coalition leeches demand payment for holding a government together, a leader with true integrity and grit has little staying power. That reality is what makes Shelanu's mission so vital.

Yesterday, we took another step forward by completing most of the paperwork to establish our account with Bank of Jerusalem.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Sycophants and Scoundrels

It's interesting to contrast the political events and forces at work in the United States and in Israel. In the United States, a three-way slugfest continues among John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton to see who is most presidential, a question that seems to boil down to who can avoid thrusting his feet halfway down his throat. Questions of propriety aren't even being floated at this point. Hillary told a tall tale about a visit to Bosnia; Obama confused his uncle with his great-uncle, who liberated Buchenwald, not Auschwitz. McCain has had his share of gaffes. And, still, these three rivals do their utmost to not only manage their affairs, but to maintain an image of individual propriety.

In Israel, in contrast, the bar is so much lower that it's hard to call both systems "democracy." Israel seems to be more of a "hackocracy." Key members of Kadima, as well as cabinet members, are calling for Ehud Olmert to step down. If that weren't enough, the situation gets even more ridiculous when one Kadima MK, Yoel Hasson, suggests that even if Olmert were to step down, there should not be early elections. Just how far removed is Kadima from serving the public? Pretty far, indeed, when it seeks to shred its contract with the people, its electoral empowerment, while it clings to power.

How the mighty have fallen, one may ask? No. The mighty haven't fallen. The base and craven, empowered by collectivist proportionalism, have just sunk lower.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Letter to Yechiel Leiter

A week ago, I attended a Likud Anglos event to introduce Yechiel Leiter, an up-and-comer in the Likud with some impressive kudos on his resume. He spoke about, among other topics, accountability and quality of governance. After the talk, he was asked about specific reforms. Leiter indicated that he supported a hybrid system such as that suggested by the almost-forgotten Megidor Committee. In reaction to Leiter's comment, I wrote the following letter.

============
Hello, Mr. Leiter.

Your talk in Haifa last Sunday was most informative and interesting. You briefly addressed electoral reform and mentioned your interest in the mixed proportional-plurality system proposed by the Megidor Committee, the body formed by the President's Coimmission on the Examination of the Quality of Democracy in Israel. Note that it took you longer to read the name of the committee than it took for its significance to evaporate in the Israeli mindset. The Megidor Committee's proposal was the product of 70 academic and VIP egos with conflicting interests, some of whom would not even sign off on the final recommendation. "They," or at least the influential among the committee, decided on a hybrid model, to elect half of the Knesset under the current proportional method and the other half through "direct" elections.

As a guest at the opening ceremony at the Presidential residence, I spoke with committee members; their criteria for desirable outcomes of the committee were wide-ranging, to say the least. For some, the preservation of the smaller parties was paramount. For others, the elimination of small party influence was just as important. Some valued administration stability as essential, others diversity of political outlook. Some admired an American focus on individual accountability and initiative; others, the European tradition of collective ethnic representation. Clearly there was pressure to come to some compromise in order for the committtee to function. But what was good for the committee was not the best proposal for the country. I believe the report did not reflect any coherent political theory of governance; it was the product of an operational compromise. The committee members needed something to show for the political capital and prestige invested in its own enterprise, even though a third of the committee members refused to endorse the report. It is also notable that the findings of whole subcommittees, including the subcommittee on the quality of jurisprudence, had its findings omitted from the final report. For these, and other reasons, I would not hang too much authority, or even significance, on the Megidor Committee.

To date, I have not come across a theoretically analyzed, empirically supported explanation of the merits of the committee's proposal. I have searched the web exhaustively for a publicly available explanation regarding the specifics of the proposal. Why 50/50 (or rather 60/60)? What applied principles are being served? Where was the analysis of the electoral mechanism? On what basis did those who produced the report argue that such a mix would preserve the "best" of proportionalism and majoritarianism in action?

A system of representation must be consistent in its principles of application and in its cultural values. Who is being represented? What is the criteria of quality of governance? What functional role is played by the public itself? These are not merely abstract questions; they influence criteria of selection and thereby determine the dynamics and results of every authoritative decision-making process. The influence of the public furthermore affects the commitment of the public to policy outcomes.

The proportional system measures the relative extent that a collective, a political party, should influence lawmaking and, in a parliamentary system, the execution of policy. It looks upon an election as a determination of political entitlement of separate collectives. MKs are not individually accountable to any specific constituency. They are collectively accountable to the entire nation through the mediating agency of the party. In practical terms, there is no individual accountability as there is no distinguishable constituency.

The constituent plurality system is an individual hiring process played out in public. A constituency of voters constitutes the final determinant as to who is hired to represent, to vote in its interests in the legislature. Political parties have no official standing as arbiters or intermediaries between the public and elected officials. While they facilitate the exposure of candidates to constituents, the last word regarding who will and won't represent or lead still resides with the public.

The difference between the proportional and constituency systems also reflects the perception of the public. The proportional system helps a public of separate political communities avoid having to resolve political priorities and preferences. After an election, factions negotiate and either compete or cooperate. Individual citizens prioritize their vote for either a mainstream or a narrow interest party and the party takes it from there as an empowering intermediary. In essence, the proportional system does not treat the public as a single, diverse entity but rather as a collection of artificially distinct "interests." It dominates the public through an artificial, non-representative status-quo.

The constituency system presumes that the public, while diverse, can still come to a single choice as a public regarding an election outcome. It presumes that individual citizens within the public respect the election outcome as part of a situation in which even if people disagree, they accept that they share a common destiny, that through open debate they can benefit from a heterogenous group wisdom.

In Israel, the proportional system continues to exacerbate differences, to polarize and corrode the conception of the Israeli citizenry as a single public. Interest groups naturally exploit the system for sectarian gains. As long as they are elected under a system that rewards sectarian niches, there is no reason to predict that this will change. Jabotinsky may have said, "It is good to die for your country," but in a democracy that is an incomplete statement. As proportionalism has fractionated the public into franchised narrow interests, the willingness to die for one's country has clearly been affected.

In contrast, the constituency system will shore up and bolster the concept of a shared national identity, a shared destiny. Interest groups will have to find common ground, realizing that they have little chance of influencing a winning candidate if they do not. In electing a single representative for their district, citizens consider the candidate's positions on a multitude of interests, they consider the personality and propriety of the candidate. The positions and qualities of the winning candidate most often serve as a unifying influence on the body of constituents.

Why, then, do many countries practice the propotional system? Some argue that proportionalism offers "otherwise marginalized" interests a source of influence. However, whether "otherwise marginalized" minorities actually benefit is a debatable question, as is the notion that every minute political philosophy deserves formal recognition. Some argue that proportionalism is more "consensual," that more perspectives are considered in decision-making. However, as Israel's experience makes clear, the "consensus" on many issues depends on the amount of political favors narrow interests will extort. True concensus results from the deliberation of parties who have a true vested interest in the matter at hand, not from the mutual favors of otherwise disinterested parties. Individually elected representatives in Israel will be selected for their declared stands on a wide variety of issues on the national agenda.

Much more compelling explanations for the adoption of proportional systems are that they (a) allow sub-communities to influence national policy while maintaining their political isolation, and (b) enable elites to retain their advantaged status in their respective communities within a titularly broader "democracy." For these reasons, Britain exported proportionalism to colonies abroad but opted for constituent pluralities at home. For the former reason, proportionalism is the rule in several European nations characterized by geographic-ethnic divisions. And, for the latter reason, some such "democracies" degenerate into de-facto dictatorships.

What then of the "mixed" or "hybrid" systems proposed by the Megidor Committee and others? They are political "hedges," attempts to satisfy different perspectives with the (rather baseless) hope that the result will be the "best of both worlds." They are also attempts to merge two opposing political philosophies in application.

Compromise is often a necessary and beneficial practice in legislation and policy. However, the compromise of core ideals, especially of opposing ideals, in forming a democratic institution, such as a system of representation and empowerment, can lead to unmitigated disaster. This happened fifteen years ago, when the direct election of the prime minister became conditional on retaining a coalition. Immediately after the public exercised its right to elect its chief executive, the Knesset had the power to nullify it through a no-confidence vote. The PM had direct accountability while those who would sabotage or extort his administration had none. Israeli voters had split their votes, voting large party for PM and small party for Knesset, so the coalition intrigues were further plagued by the narrowest of interests. This was the result of politically "hedging" one applied principle with in incompatible applied principle.

The Megidor Committee proposed 17 districts, each of which would be represented by 2 to 5 MKs. Voters in a district would vote for an individual candidate. In one version that I read, candidates that receive the most votes relative to their competitors would take the available slots in the direct election. Those same votes would be evaluated for the proportionally elected MKs. What if you like a candidate but are not crazy about his party? In this situation, the party still acts as mediator, not as facilitatior.

Let's say, that every voter gets two votes: one for his direct, district choice of representative, the other for his national-proportional choice. What we've done is halve the number of seats going to proportionally elected MKs, thereby reducing the number of smaller party winners. The same top-tier party list members keep their seats. So, when public sentiment goes down, who is going to get the boot? Those who've secured themselves top places on their party lists or the guy who is directly elected? As a group, then, the directly elected are at a huge disadvantage and suffer as political whipping boys within and external to their party. The influence of the individually elected will be hobbled and their ability to fulfill their individual commitments to achieve will be neutralized; and in a hybrid system they will be the first voted out. In this way, the hybrid system leaves the party elites relatively untouched, secure in their seats, ever more able to leverage their political influence as patronage. The only way a direct, constituency system works is when there is a level playing field, a uniform criteria for election and retention, for every single MK.

What does, or what should, electoral reform mean for the Likud? As you noted, an outcome of Ariel Sharon's duplicitous betrayal of his party, including the formation of Kadima, was a purging of the Likud of some less-than-savory influences. The facade of quality has fallen from Kadima's image, not that many of us were taken in from its start. The Likud is in a position of presenting a fresh face, a fresh initiative, with a stronger connection to its revisionist roots. It has an unprecedented opportunity to politically re-brand itself as a party with integrity, motivation, and vision. Part of this vision should be better government. Government made up of individually accountable public servants dedicated to public service. Hybrid proposals simply will not square with commitments to public service. Israelis either immediately understand, or are quick to realize, that the mixed solution is an accommodations to entrenched powers.

Direct representation is not just a solution to "break the bank" in terms of governing efficiency; it's a philosophical commitment to action that leaves no room for preferentially accommodating any entrenched elite or separate collective interest. A Likud that declares this, that takes this stand as a leading voice of governance via individual excellence and accountability, is a Likud that will be recognized for it. At some point, the Israeli people will attach no small value to that recognition.

On Sunday night, you mentioned Gideon Sa'ar. He might remember me from a brief conversation in Ra'anana at another Likud Anglo meeting. He spoke in English on the topic of electoral reform and someone asked him why he was undertaking such a Quixotean task. Perhaps it was some difficulty with English, or the lateness of the hour, or the unexpected question; Saar humbly replied, "I don't know." I lingered afterward to speak with him, as I did with you. I told him that his response was unacceptable. He should always be ready to state, with conviction and pride, that he works at reform because it's his task as a representative legislator to serve his country as his conscience dictates. Rehabilitating Israel's system of government is one of, if not the, most urgent tasks that he must do to serve his public with integrity. He readily agreed. It's about individual excellence and the best way to get it in government is to individually elect for it.

With admiration and hope,
Michael Jaffe
Director, "Shelanu, Me'itanu, Avureinu"

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Democratic Progress and Perversion

It was almost exactly a year ago that I wrote the entry, "How Difficult Can It Be?" describing some of the complications involved in forming an amutah dedicated to our goals of individual accountability and public service among our leaders and representatives. Well, I guess a year of pushing is about how difficult it can be.

This morning, I called the registrar of NPOs (non-profit organizations) to check on our application. I was pleased to hear that our certification as been approved and the certificate was mailed out this morning. Now the clock is ticking. Time to fine tune our organizational plan, put together our marketing strategy, and "hit the mattresses," as the Corleone footsoldiers said in "The Godfather" when they prepared for battle. To start, that means fundraising.

Last Wednesday, Mordechai Kremnitzer, a fellow of the Israel Democracy Institute, proclaimed something arguably very un-democratic. He stated that referenda, putting key decisions of law and policy to a public vote, "harms democracy." Kremnitzer has clearly lost track of the concept that democracy is defined as government of the people. This means that decisions must be made and that those decisions must account for majority sentiments among the populus.

Perhaps it was the specific topic of the proposed referendum at hand, whether or not to abandon half of Jerusalem and whether or not to abandon the Golan Heights. When it comes to these crucial issues, upon which Kremnitzer's views lean decidedly left, Kremnitzer is not so willing to let the will of the people, the majority reign supreme, not unless he is assured that majority sentiment agrees with him. What goes against Kremnitzer goes against "democracy," vox populi be damned.

Kremnitzer is not the only demagogue who claims to safeguard "democracy" from being tainted by the public. Perversions of democratic values are a growth industry in the Knesset and in the courts. Due process, protections against abuses of power, and true, accountable representation have all been twisted for political gain or sectarian advantage.

We've got a big job to do and we can't afford to fail.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

The veneer of democracy slips again.

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, are its only safe depositories." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781.

If only we had such men as Thomas Jefferson to inspire Israel's political practitioners. Instead, what do we have?

Arrogance. It's what Israel's political elite is serving its public for breakfast, lunch, and supper. Israel's people have become so demoralized,numbed by the neglect and excesses of its public servants. Gestures thought unthinkable in other democracies, gestures which used to be unthinkable in Israel, are now par for the course.

In a Maariv interview, Yehezkel Dror indicated, through a rhetorical question, that advancing the "peace process" with the Palestinians is more important than bringing down the Olmert regime. There was no direct linkage in that sentence with the deliberation of the Winograd Commission. However, given that the executive political echelon was left unscathed, compared to the military, it is difficult to seperate the two. The gaffe exposed the tangible possibility that political partisanship had a significant influence on the outcome of the Winograd report. This is yet another outrage that pushes aside the veneer of "Israeli democracy" and lays bare the anti-democratic machine that controls this country's political process.

Prof. Dror and I actually conversed briefly about two years ago, early on in the effort to get Direct Representation for Israel off the ground. He had written a piece urging the adoption of a presidential executive system in Israel, a goal that is part of Shelanu's credo of individual responsibility and public service excellence. Through email contacts I was got his telephone number and called him. I asked whether he might have any interest in becoming part of Direct Rep's efforts to promote a presidential system. His reply was that he had no interest in any type of public activism; his expertise was exclusively for the benefit of the influential. This resonates closely with statements from his interview in last Monday's Jerusalem Post, including the following.

I'm an elitist. Eighty percent of the critical decisions affecting Israel are shaped by maybe 100 or 200 people, 300. These are my clients.

In all large governing structures, including representative ones, power is concentrated and the average individual has little influence in the formation of policy. In healthy democracies, the spectre of public outrage deters those who would usurp the public's trust and authority. That assumes direct, personal accountability to a voting public. That happens when people vote for individuals, not for parties.

Based on Dror's comments, I can only surmise that his support of a presidential system, or some "quasi-presidential" system, reflects a different philosophy than ours. His perspective is that a presidential system will be more effective and efficient, less encumbered by narrow interests. He thinks that a presidential system "will be better at decision-making."

Well, we agree with that. So, where do we differ? We believe that there is a moral imperative for a presidential system. We believe it is needed to protect the interests of the public, that a presidential system will place individuals, empowered by a majority vote, directly accountable to the citizens. Dror has not stated that he would endorse a system of direct election of a president; given his self-proclaimed elitism, would a majoritarian plebiscite be his first choice?

A power-grabbing elite seems to typify so much of the government. They might claim to be "public servants," but to them the term means "public minder," as if the public is not really fit to decide what's in its best interests, or to choose more directly who will serve them as a single nation. It's a cynical, dishonest reflection of democracy projected through a cracked lens.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

SNAFU in the MQG

The Movement for Quality Government, or MQG, does some very laudable work. They lobby the courts and other government organs to fight against abuses of power and injustices. They've acted in cases where MKs and ministers have misused funds for personal gain. However, a recent action of theirs is very, very misguided and brings into question their commitment to "quality government."

On January 3, the MQG issued a press release announcing its request to the Prime Minister to remove Prof. Daniel Friedmann from his post as Justice Minister. This was a reaction to Friedmann's recent initiative to change the manner in which high court justices are selected.

The Judicial Selection Committee consists of nine members: 3 sitting justices of the supreme court (including the president of the court), 2 cabinet ministers (including the Justice Minister), 2 Mks (one traditionally being an opposition MK), and 2 members of the Israel Bar Association. Five out of these nine are influenced professionally by the high court. Thus, in practical terms, the sitting President of the high court has a huge degree of influence in deciding who is selected to the high court bench. It's a form of self-selection; the court ends up appointing its own peers and successors with virtually no oversight. Many have pointed out that in recent years appointees have shared very similar political outlooks and, as a group, the justices may be adjudicating some cases on the basis of a political bias.

Prof. Friedmann seeks to minimize this bias by reducing the influence of sitting judges regarding who will succeed them. Under his proposal, the selection committee would be the same as before except for two changes: there would be one less high court justice and three additional committee members. The additional committee members would be a former judge, an academician appointed by the PM, and an academician appointed by the Council on Higher Learning. Friedmann also proposed search committees to gather information on prospective high court candidates. Essentially, Friedmann wants the process of selecting high court justices to be more transparent and to enable wider public participation.

MQG's response? “Prof. Friedmann's new proposal to change the manner of choosing judges is another instance of trying to harm the independence and the stature of the high court.” Well, independence to judge is not the same as omnipotence to rule. Once appointed, high court justices are not subjected to performance reviews. They may be forcibly removed if they are convicted of crimes or treason or if they become incapacitated; otherwise, they are guaranteed the post until the age of 70. One of the few ways of curtailing the high court from abusing its power is by denying its members from forming an exclusive, self-selecting club.

Is Prof. Friedmann harming the “stature” of the high court? Many in Israel feel that the court's stature has suffered from a perceived political bias and that the court has used its judicial muscle to “legislate from the bench.” Two major respected figures in American jurisprudence, Justice Robert Bork and Justice Richard Posner, have commented that the “activist” nature of Israel's high court actually has harmed its prestige. The Movement for Quality Government seems to be confusing judicial brawn for judicial brain; brute power to self-select and to commandeer authority beyond its judicial mandate does not engender respect. Restraint from activism and a respect for government "of the people" engenders democratic respect.

The MQG's statement bemoans that, under Friedmann's proposal, “the government will have a near majority presence on the selection committee, creating a situation of politicization in the choice of the judges.” With the stakes involved, there has never been a way to make the process apolitical. Judges are not immune to political bias. Under Aharon Barak, the high court became a central actor in the political arena. Politically activist in nature, it increasingly exercised a self-acquired judicial review of legislation and ventured beyond its domestic judicial mandate, even into issues of cross-border defense and foreign policy.

Friedmann's approach has not been perfect. His call to limit the scope of the court's mandate to internal judicial matters is reasonable; however, his proposal to exclude plea bargains from high court review is dangerously inappropriate. As Yitzhak Klein of the Israel Policy Center indicated, it is wrong to give any appointed official the right to make decisions about citizens' liberties without judicial checks and balances. While he does not go far enough in preventing self-selection on the high court, Friedmann's proposal on this issue is a step in the right direction. Shelanu's take is that sitting justices should have no authoritative standing in the selection of their brethren to the bench.

Regarding the judicial selection committee, the Movement for Quality Government should reacquaint itself with its self-proclaimed goal. Enhancing the quality of government is best served with mechanisms that competitively select for excellence on the one hand and check the abuse of power on the other. The judiciary is a government branch and requires the oversight of checks and balances every bit as much as the legislative and executive branches. For high court judges to have the power to select their own peers and successors, the pinnacle of the powerful judicial branch, without effective oversight, is clearly not "government of the people." It assumes that supreme court justices themselves are apolitical and immune to political influences; this is a dangerously naive assumption. The corrupting influence of absolute power applies to high court justices as well. Ignoring this imperils democratic values because it invites abuses of power; a tyranny of the judiciary tyranny nonetheless. The Movement for Quality Government should consider these words of Thomas Jefferson, written in the twilight of a life filled with brilliant achievements in the cause of democracy, including his authorship of the Declaration of Independence.

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, Oct 31, 1823

If we make it difficult to remove high court justices, we must be extremely careful whom we empower to decide on their selection. The judicial selection process must become more transparent and better checked.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Damning the majority... again

Yesterday, I sat in, again, on the Constituion, Justice, and Law Committee. The topic of the session was how the Knesset passes the budget. The first proposal stated, "A proposed law will pass, when dealing with budgetary issues, with at least 50 votes among Knesset Members." In other words, a simple majority is not sufficient. There could be 49 votes in favor, zero votes opposed and 71 abstentions, and the budget would not pass. From the other extreme, as worded, the 50 votes in favor of a budget proposal would pass even with an opposition of 70, as the proposal does not mention the word "majority." When I asked whether this last point was a possibility, committee chair Menachem Ben-Sasson referred me to small print in the footnotes of the bill, which states, "this majority is necessary in the first reading, the second reading, and the third reading..." A key question... Is the concept of majority not central enough, in principle and in practice, to the passage of laws the it should not be clearly specified in something so crucial as a protocol for budgetary legislation? Ben-Sasson instructed his legislative law aide to look into the matter.

This is another instance in which the concept of majority rule is either neglected or perverted. In the United States, both houses of Congress pass budget bills on the basis of simple majority. For one thing, it is unlikely that a significant number of U.S. legislators would not weigh in and vote on a budget proposal. Their constituents would not be very forgiving. So, what is the significance of the proviso of a majority consisting of at least 50 MKs? In the parliamentary coalition system that is the shame and the bane of Israeli governance, the threshold guarantees that narrow interests would be courted in order for the party with executive power to pass a budget. In the current system, minority interests and the opposition parties don't even have to coordinate a "nay" vote to defeat a budget they deem unacceptable. The implication, once again, is the very "European" Israeli perspective of not considering the national population as a single, diverse "public," but rather as separate interest groups, whose fractionating influence continues to prevent the development of a mainstream, public political majority.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

When Good People Get It Wrong

Sarah Honig is one of my very, very favorite columnists... anywhere. When it comes to pinning the the pinheads who, through greed or sheer incompetence, place our security at risk and violate our democracy, nobody does it as eloquently as Sarah. So, when I read her column in the Jerusalem Post almost two weeks ago ( Another Tack: I am the state, 18 October 2007), I felt surprised and disappointed. She described the movement towards a constituency system as essentially a naive, falsely-euphoric "quick-fix" approach.

Nobody I know who works towards instituting a majoritarian system here has any illusions of how quick it might be changed, or how it might fix all of our problems. This isn't like some magic tonic that lets us be "just like America." Those of us pushing for a constituency system have a very basic belief in some intrinsic values:
  • the individual accountability to the public that is possible only when one is directly elected
  • the tradition of real debate and shared destiny, across social divides. that occurs in majoritarian systems
  • the priority of public service - to a single, national public - over the sectarian patronization institutionalized by proportionalism
  • that an individual voter should have the last word to express his preference for who, specifically, will influence law and policy in his name; that no vote is transferable by anyone other than the voter himself.
  • that minorities must not be able to force a majority to act against that majority's own interests.

These are values that not only guide a system of governance, they transform and characterize a nation. It's a question of commitment to the principle that we must make national decisions as a single nation. Those who do not want to be part of that nation will just have to make an adjustment, either by participating and thereby throwing in their lot with the mainstream, trying to influence from within by appealing to the majority, or by disenfranchising themselves and removing themselves from the process of influencing policy. Proportional systems enable some factions, and their MKs, to openly manipulate our political system without committing to its national well-being. This alone should make Sarah an enthusiastic advocate of a constituency system.

Sarah hinted that Israeli corruption in gerrymandering would result in single-party hegemony. Well, we live under a hegemony right now: the hegemony of a sacred status quo among the power elite that has no association in the public. Yes, gerrymandering is a constant challenge in constituency systems, however there are political mechanisms in constituency systems that can address this issue.

The question is, what motivates the public to demand and produce political excellence? What system produces and benefits patriots who serve a true national vision? Not the proportional system, with its built-in sectarian entitlements; the majoritarian system does, because it pushes the public to form a mainstream majority.

Sarah's blames Israelis for just voting poorly. We Israelis, who vote for parties like Gil (the pensioners' party), or the Green Party, or other parties with narrow interest, just don't take voting seriously. She fails to consider that our proportional-parliamentary system, with its post-election horsetrading, makes it impossible for voters for major parties to actually know whom or what they are supporting with their votes. A person's vote becomes a fungible resource of a party central committee, which acts as the citizen's proxy. The Israeli voter is vulnerable to trendy whims because such a system will not reward individual excellence or integrity. Coalitions effectively end up making liars out of each elected leadership. Tragically, the only parties that can be relied upon to stick to their election promises tooth-and-nail are those narrow-interest parties.

Elections are a major part of a democracy's sensory-cognitive center, the mechanism that provides a living vertebrate with reliable sensory information and efficient response functions. It should be clear to all of us, especially Sarah, that our system makes us politically aphasic; we are unable to translate our national will into a choice that can be reliably perceived or expressed. Give us a system in which individuals commit their names and careers to campaign platforms, one that actually empowers the winners to execute on those promises, and we Israelis will make good decisions. It's not the people, Sarah, it's the system.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

My letter to today's Jerusalem Post

A letter of mine, clarifying my perspective regarding the direct election of the Prime Minister in the 1990s, was published in today's Jerusalem Post. You can read it at the following web address.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411413619&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer

It reads as follows.

For real reform

Sir, - Kudos to Gil Hoffman for his recent pieces on electoral reform efforts ("Power to the people" (September 7) and its follow-up on Shelanu ("New electoral reform," September 10). Articles like these should remind us, especially those who feel alienated and helpless in Israel's quagmire of poor governance, that the source of political power in any democracy is the public. Citizen activism can make a crucial difference.

I would like to clarify one issue on the reporting of my perspective: While I do believe that the direct election of every Knesset member is vital, I don't claim that its absence primarily caused the direct election of the prime minister to fail. That effort at reform was acutely flawed because of a different combination of incompatible principles in action.

Individual accountability and executive discretionary authority, facilitated by the direct election of the prime minister, were trumped by a coalition system of executive power-sharing meant to deny that very same discretion to the prime minister. Once Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak were directly elected by the public, the Knesset could circumvent the public's choice by bringing down the government in a vote of no-confidence at any time thereafter, upon a coalition's weakening. This constant threat forced these PMs to prioritize coalition demands over the public interest and campaign promises. As non-separate entities with shared personnel and management, either the legislative branch hobbled the functioning of the executive branch, or vice versa.

A presidential executive system, effectively separating the legislative from the executive branch, would go a long way toward rectifying this problematic situation. It should be an integral part in a comprehensive change, including the direct election of legislators, to rehabilitate our system of government into one that truly serves the interests of the Israeli public.

MICHAEL JAFFE
Director, Shelanu
Zichron Ya'akov

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Jerusalem Post Follows Up on.... US!!

After I sent a quick email to Jerusalem Post reporter Gil Hoffman, (who penned last Friday's piece on political reform, "Power to the people,") Gil called me on the phone and interviewed me. That interview was reported in today's Jerusalem Post in an article called, "New electoral reform movement Shelanu launches plan to directly elect 120 MKs." You can read it at the following web address.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392576615&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer

The article was short and to the point. While he was a bit fuzzy about my views on the the direct election of the prime minister, I am very grateful for the opportunity he's given me. Now, I really have to get that amutah (non-profit organization) application finished and submitted!

Friday, September 07, 2007

In Today's Jerusalem Post

Today's Jerusalem Post included an article in the "In Focus" magazine section, titled "Power to the people," dealing with currents and undercurrents of electoral reform. You can read it at the following address:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392551714&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer

Among other things, the article describes the work of the people at CEPAC. CEPAC is the Citizens' Empowerment Public Action Committee. CEPAC advocates, among other reforms, the direct election of 60 MKs (half the Knesset) in 60 single-representative districts. The CEPAC web site's "Background and Goals" page, at http://www.cepac.org.il/Site/Site_ViewPage.asp?id=3, states

"Ideally we would like all 120 M.K.'s elected by district (perhaps a future goal) but realistically we feel that the 60-60 split has the best chance of being adopted."

Just because an alternative is easier to achieve in the short term doesn't mean it is the better alternative. CEPAC has good intentions and good people working for it; I know and respect their leaders. However, compromising on vital principals of governance in order to achieve quicker results is not a winning strategy. Such a compromise may nullify any potential gains in public service that these good people are working so hard to achieve. It's worth waiting a while longer, working a little harder, to get it right. It's worth being stubborn.

We, at Shelanu, don't think that the public should have to compromise on principles of true representation. We certainly don't owe senior members of the major parties guaranteed job security as MKs. We believe that all members of Knesset should be elected by the same criteria. We believe that the public should have the last and only say in how it wants to be served, in which form of representative democracy. We believe that the public can bring about the changes it wants if it well organized around focused, principled goals.

We have good reason to believe that such partial compromises will not result in progress towards our goal of the direct election of all Knesset members. When the influence of directly elected MKs is diluted, such that they constitute only half of the Knesset, narrow interests and corrupting influences have a good chance of derailing legislation in the public interest. In the past, we saw an important reform, the direct and separate election of the prime minister, become tainted and then abandoned because of a tragic "compromise" of its applied principle; the cause of government reform was set back over a decade.

Real reforms don't occur very often. If we're going to make the effort to reshape Israel's political culture, there is no point in aiming for the mediocre, no point in gratefully accepting what today's failed legislators are willing to offer. An unsatisfied employer does not let a mediocre employee decide how to run the business. It is time to get serious about reform, time to decide what we, the People, want and pursue it. It doesn't take a PhD to understand the principles of good governance. It does take steadfast determination to achieve worthwhile change.

Saturday, September 01, 2007

Party for Sale

The travesty that is Israeli democracy has hit a new low in absurdity. On Tuesday, Ehud Barak announced that the Labor party would not be leaving the government coalition. Might this have something to do with any feeling of solidarity between Labor and Kadima? Is this a case of uncharacteristically galant political non-partisanship towards addressing national issues? Apparently not.

Barak explained that the Labor party must stay in the government because it is too broke to run in an election. "We cannot win an election as a charity case," Barak told Labor's executive committee. Under his leadership, Barak promised that the finanacial situation would be rectified, "and after that face the political challenge ahead..." While campaigning for the leadership of Labor, Barak promised that he would inititate early elections upon release of the Winograd Committee Report on last summer's Lebanon War.

Two troublesome and inescapable conclusions arise from Barak's financial justification. First, never has it been so clear that political principles are for sale in Israel. That Israelis tolerate it, and individuals still vote for parties with leaders that flaunt it, is good reason to worry about Israel's public political culture. Second, there is an easily imagined possibility that Barak plans to exact financial advantages from his position of leverage in the coalition. Might public tax money end up paying for the financial rehabilitation of the Labor party?

Not only is Labor's bank account empty, so are its ethical principles and the promises of its leadership. This isn't Labor's problem alone, though. In this political system, with proportionalism denying the direct influence of the public in the selection of representatives and leaders, the game is musical chairs. Do whatever you can to maintain your seat; how you do it is unimportant. Lots of Israeli voters want to vote for "a winner;" what many don't realize is that by electing the party leadership choice, they are usually electing mediocrity. So, while they might be voting for proportionally elected "winners," the resulting mediocre, corrupt, inept public service the voters eventually receive makes them, and all of us really, losers.

Friday, June 08, 2007

Back in Sderot: A Day With Lev Echad

Last Wednesday, I returned to Sderot to volunteer with Lev Echad. It was an experience that I highly recommend to anyone and everyone who can make the trip down. Unlike my trip the week before, I didn't think of this trip as a fact-finding, dangerous excursion to the city where Kassams fall almost daily. I went to help the people of Sderot.

I arrived at Lev Echad's compound at around one in the afternoon. A short while later, I was briefed about what to do if a condition red was sounded. When outside, find a wall that faces east and crouch against it. If you're near any family dwelling, don't knock, just enter and find a shelter or fortified doorway. The idea of entering a home uninvited can be strange or uncomfortable for an outsider to contemplate. For the locals and volunteers who have been in Sderot for a week or more, the practice is second nature.

My first assignment of the day was to respond to a request by a 20 year-old woman to help her mother, who suffered from extreme anxiety, to seek help. We arrived at the address around two in the afternoon. My partner, a yeshivah student, was reluctant to knock on the door as it was siesta time. Knowing when the call came in, I insisted. The mother opened the door and made it clear that we were most welcome to enter. She set up some refreshments for us despite our protestations; we were there for her. Sderot's people are so happy and grateful to have others visit them. They are grateful to see others stand beside them to face the fallout of the government's lack of moral clarity, to face the inability of so-called leaders to deal decisively with outright, deadly attacks.

Her daughter joined us shortly and after about twenty minutes her husband arrived from his job in the municipality. Sitting in the salon, talking about family and the situation in the country, the mother seemed at ease. However, when the topic of going outside came up, she seemed to clench in from the center of her chest. We spoke about her anxiety. For weeks, she had not left the house, had not shopped for food or worked.

We discussed our views on the source of Israel's apparent national paralysis in dealing with its problems, the disconnection between the people and those ineffectively chosen to ineffectively govern. While discussing this topic, a condition red was sounded and we huddled under a reinforced doorway. We left about a half-hour later.

My next assignment found me on the other side of Sderot about two hours later. That evening, an information session was organized to showcase government officials and policy makers. A mother of five children needed a babysitter so that she might attend. The hour we were supposed to spend there turned into two. The children were absolutely delightful. A two year old played for a while and then went to sleep. The other children were happy to watch a DVD. We talked for a little while about what it was like to go to the park.

When the mother came back home, she spoke about how the government officials said nothing of importance. The main message was that the rockets would continue. Get used to it. It was simultaneously a disgrace and an outrage.

The mother drove us back to the Lev Echad compound, where volunteers were preparing for the nightly march throughout Sderot. Once underway, the volunteers waved flags and bear torches, singing and dancing from one neighborhood to the next. They sang Hebrew songs, psalms, and "Sderot, we love you." People would come to the windows. Some would come down from their apartments to sing and dance along. There were embraces as volunteers and citizens became reacquainted from earlier assignments. In parking lots, we passed cars with shattered windshields and holes peppered throughout their steel bodies, damaged by Kassams. We walked along roadbeds gouged and scarred from shrapnel.

The parade lasted over two hours. By the time the volunteers arrived at the school where they slept it was almost eleven in the evening. We were then informed that Elya had arranged for a bus to take us to the beach at Ashkelon for a midnight swim. So, at half past midnight, I was swimming in the Mediterranean with a bunch of pre-army and post-army kids, some younger than Tamar. We could see the lights of Gaza. Swimming about fifty yards from the shore, I felt I was swimming in a photographic negative of a world.

When I came out of the water, Elya had just gotten the chance to swim. As we passed, he asked me, "What do you think of them?" "Very impressive," I replied. These young people, and all who came down to support Sderot, these people understood what is important, what is crucial. When I lamented that more people weren't volunteering and visiting Sderot that Wednesday, Elya informed me that it was a light turnout relative to the norm. On weekends, numerous busloads of people, some privately arranged, some through yeshivahs and communities, came to spend Shabbat with the people of Sderot. Lev Echad arranges to house them and feed them.

We arrived back at the school at two-thirty, pre-dawn. After waking several hours later, I had one assignment: to help a mother convince her eight year old daughter to go to school. It turned out that the daughter was not overly-anxious, she was exhausted. She had slept only two hours the night before, which was normal for her. She had health problems and the rockets aggravated her sleeping patterns. We sat with mother and daughter for a while and returned to the compound.

I hope to return to Sderot in the coming weeks, spending two or three days at a time helping out. It's good work, good people, both volunteers and Sderot citizens. It's not only about the responsibilities to one's country and countrymen. It's about the the feeling of reconciling who we are as Jews and free people facing down barbarism.

Lev Echad is doing great work. If there is a drawback, it is that Lev Echad does what it does so well that the government might not feel the need and responsibility to do all that it should in relieving Sderot and eliminating the threat from Gaza. So, while Sderot is justifiably grateful to Lev Echad, I hope their indignation towards their government of mediocrity remains strong and vociferous. Until we have a system that rewards achievement and punishes failure, this outrage of a neglected public must not abate.

You can contact Lev Echad at 054-7587462/3.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Sderot: Afternoon in a Ghost Town

It's hard to imagine that the town of Sderot, bordering the northeast tip of Gaza, is only an hour's drive south of cosmopolitan Tel Aviv, forty-five minutes if you avoid rush hour and liberally interpret speed limits. It's like driving from Manhattan to Atlantic Beach, Miami to Hallandale, Malibu to Pasadena. For the past seven years, the people of Sderot, and anyone unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, have lived under the shadow of Kassam rocket attacks. I imagine that if rockets fell on any of these places, the entire population within a two hundred mile radius would be in an uproar. Six years of Kassams in Sderot has not seemed to spark much in Tel Aviv.

Last Monday, I made the trip from Zichron Yaakov, officially the "north" of the country, in a little under two hours. Towards the end of the drive, right before turning east on route 34, I saw the zeppelin-shaped reconnaissance balloon hovering over the southern edge of the city of Ashkelon. The balloon carries a sophisticated array of cameras and sensory equipment. Looking at it swaying in the wind, it seemed simultaneously ominous and flimsy, a ridiculous-looking, blow-up sentry that is an integral part of what protects us.


I arrived shortly after one in the afternoon. Few cars were in transit on the town's streets. I needed directions to get to the office of Noam Bedein, who runs the Sderot Media Center, which provides foreign journalists with background information and news about the continuous assault on Sderot. After spending ten minutes mentally reviewing the internet-sourced road directions, I parked and walked up the street looking for a local to guide me. After a few moments, I flagged a passing car. Before answering my requsst for directions, the driver briefed me on what to do if and when a "Tzeva Adom," a "red alert," sounded. I asked when the last one had sounded and he looked at me incredulously. Ten minutes earlier, just as I had entered the town limits. I made a mental note to keep the car stereo turned low or off. The announcement of a tzeva adom signals an imminent Kassam explosion, within 20 seconds. I later learned that most Kassams are launched in the morning hours between six and nine, and then at twilight, between seven and ten in the evening. This is done to coincide with Israel's broadcast television news cycle.

Kassam rockets are unpredictable, lethal projectiles capable of travelling up to 10km, around 6 miles. They can carry up to 10kg (22 lb.) of explosive payload. A major portion of this payload is devastating anti-personnel shrapnel: nails, bolts, and other packed bits of sharp metal intended to pierce skin, muscle, bone, and vital organs. These are not weapons intended to damage property or infrastructure; they are meant to injure, kill, and maim civilians. Kassams are meant to terrorize and after seven years of almost daily bombardment, many people in Sderot are indeed terrorized. Children are afraid to go to school and adults fear going outside to go to work.

Israeli defense officials categorize Kassams as "more a psychological rather than physical threat." Though Kassams alone will not physically harm the great majority of citizens in Sderot, their capacity for physical devastation and death is not subject to debate. At least eleven Israelis have lost their lives to Kassam rockets.

What is debatable is whether Israel's artificially-proportionally elected government is performing its mandate of responsibility for safeguarding Israel's citizens. The government of Ehud Olmert has promised a firm response to the Kassams, however even after the latest deaths most talk is of reinforcing structures in Sderot. Mayor Eli Moyal is quick to point out that injuries and deaths from Kassams occur outside. Moyal and his constituents want their national government to eliminate the threat of Kassams period. This means stopping the terrorists who launch the rockets. Unfortunately, there is no way of stopping the terrorists without insulting the politically correct sensibilities of Ehud Olmert's coalition partners, without contradicting the government's commitment to "disengagement."

I arrived at the Sderot Media Center, located at 12 Rakefet Street, nestled in a Dutch style subdivision of private houses. The enterprise was established eight months ago by Noam Bedein, a 24 year-old Ben-Gurion University student who hasn't been to classes much lately, thanks to his work in Sderot and the university student union strike. After serving in the IDF on the Lebanese border, Noam spent a year backpacking Asia. A budding photographer, Noam's prints of bamboo Thai countryside, snowcapped Tibetan peaks, Buddhist monks walking with tigers, and Sderot adorn his living room. If there is a thread that connects them, perhaps it's the beauty and savagery that exist in the real world, beyond the margins of our collective attention. In the near future, he will exhibit photographs and drawings on a more immediate subject, the terror and fear etched in the faces of the citizens of Sderot. Noam and his coworkers try to keep attention riveted on Sderot and provide essential details to help describe what, almost anywhere else, would be an unthinkable situation. An otherwise peaceful town absorbs daily rocket attacks from a clearly identified neighboring territory. The attacks are sanctioned by the neighboring local government, while the sovereign government of this peaceful town refrains from decisive response.



Noam updated me on the two red alerts in Sderot and the nine other Kassams, launched from residential areas in Gaza, that landed elsewhere in Israel's Western Negev that morning. Then Noam guided me on a Kassam-centered tour of Sderot. Our first stop was a home that took a direct hit last Saturday night. A rocket punched a hole in a wall at ground level and peppered shrapnel across a second floor bedroom wall, destroying the room's window. This is typical of Kassams, which usually diperse shrapnel in a reverse umbrella pattern. Fortunately, the twelve year old who normally sleeps in the room was elsewhere in the house at the time of impact.

Shula and David, whose front door walkway was covered in shattered glass, bits of masonry, and other debris, warmly welcomed Noam and me into their home. On our heels, a busload of foreign journalists were shepherded inside by Aryeh Green, director of MediaCentral, a journalist liaison service business in Jerusalem. Shula displayed shrapnel and bits of the rocket tube that remained after the police and army personnel removed most of the rocket's mass. Shula mentioned that neighbors up the street were hit earlier in the month. According to Noam, just about every neighborhood has been hit, sometimes causing property damage and sometimes ripping up the street. Structural repairs are made almost immediately.

After about twenty minutes, a car arrived to take Shula, David, and their sons to a hotel until the structural damage is repaired. Shula and David did not want to leave Sderot, unlike the 65% of Sderot residents who, according to Noam Bedein, have accepted offers at one time or another to leave the town for a short respite. At this point, some estimate that roughtly 20% of Sderot's residents are staying elsewhere.


Noam took me to the center of the commercial area, where a Kassam killed a woman on a street ten days ago. A meter wide crater and a small bouquet of flowers mark the spot; shrapnel gouges can be seen on the buildings on both sides of the street. Many of the businesses are shuttered. We bought felafel from a man named "Prosper," who stated that some looting had taken place. He also remarked how Kassam payloads have become more explosive and damaging over time. His block has suffered several Kassam hits over the years. Noam shows me a row of stores that have been rebuilt. In between the shops are walls that extend a bit into the sidewalk, making the stores look like large cubicles. The compartmentalized design is intended to minimize the shrapnel spread at the point of impact.


Noam guided me past several schools. According to his investigations, none of the schools are completely fortified against rocket attacks. There are however some very peculiar measures taken to at least partially protect the schoolchildren. One school has part of its gabled roof covered in an additional layer of latticed steel. Another has the entire building shaded by a sloping cover whose design reminded me of the some post-apocalyptic sci-fi movies.


We drove past a house where a Kassam had slammed into a third story corner balcony and torn a gaping hole in a side wall. A crack ran from the newly ventilated adjoining bedroom to the opposite side of the house. Noam informed me that a commanding officer of the nearby United Nations peacekeeping force likens Kassams to "firecrackers."


Next, we visited Sderot's police station, where the mangled remains of Kassams are stored in the rear parking lot. Over the past two weeks, 250 deployed missiles have found their way to the scrap heap. You can tell some of the older Kassams by the rust coating the fuselage. All are marked with phosphorescent chalk indicating the date and neighborhood of impact. Some have messages written in Hebrew from their manufacturers. "Al-Quds," Arabic for Jerusalem, is written on one. The fuselage tubes are fashioned from the poles of street signs. The Palestinian Authority apparently views the manufacture of anti-personnel weaponry as a function of civil infrastructure. Before we left, Noam and I tried to find the remains of the rocket that had killed Oshri Oz the day before.

Throughout the afternoon, as we drove through neighborhood after neighborhood, I saw teenagers walking in pairs. Some of the girls dressed in long skirts and sleeves, some in jeans and tank tops. Some of the boys wore kippot, some did not. All were carrying annotated street maps. These were the volunteers of "Lev Echad," Hebrew for "One Heart," a group that has tried to ease the humanitarian fallout of various recent tribulations in Israel. They helped the residents of Kiryat Shmona during rocket barrages last spring and summer. They helped the evicted residents of Gush Katif two years ago. After I finished looking at the spent Kassams at the police station, I visited the offices of Lev Echad. Some volunteers allowed me to take their pictures. Most did not, on instructions from the organizers, who say that they do not yet want to make publicity an issue for the volunteers to deal with.

Lev Echad volunteers were checking homes throughout Sderot for people who needed special help; mothers with young children, families handicapped dependents, elderly or handicapped persons who needed someone to shop for food, otherwise healthy people who succumbed to hysteria and the unrelenting emotional trauma of sirens and explosions. Every evening, Lev Echad stages a parade with flagbearers marching through Sderot, proud, optimistic, defiant of the savagery emanating from the border four kilometers southwest.


In the office courtyard, I noticed a group of volunteers old enough to be the parents of the teenagers and post-army twenty-somethings who made up the vast majority of Lev Echad. These were members of a community service organization from Beit She'an called, "Bonei Kehilah," Hebrew for "Community Builders."

I decided to put off my return trip north for a couple of hours to help with Lev Echad's efforts to follow up on individuals and families who had requested help. I was paired with twenty year-old Gilad, who was spending two days, out of his weeklong army furlough from army service, volunteering in Sderot. Meeting Gilad reminded me that it is individuals, not committees, who move the earth. We visited families, who were happy to have Lev Echad volunteers ask about them.

Gilad dropped me off at my car shortly after seven in the evening and I left Sderot shortly before Lev Echad's parade. Two Kassams landed in or near Sderot an hour or so after I left. Not far north of Sderot, I passed the hastily constructed housing project for evicted ex-Gush Katif residents in Nitzanim. I thought of the insult of added to the injury of these families. These Israeli patriots had lived for decades, much of the time in peace with their Arab neighbors, cultivating the land with citrus and vegetable crops of the highest quality. They were forcibly uprooted in order to let the Palestinians prove that they could govern Gaza peacefully. Now, they live within earshot of the missiles falling so close by. They know that Hamas and Al-Aqsa brigades are using the land in and around Gush Katif, their former homes, to stage deadly rocket attacks.


Why did I go down to Sderot and what does it have to do with Direct Representation? I needed to see what was real. The same bubble of self-delusion that lets many of us believe that Israel's democracy is sound also lulls us into thinking that Sderot is someone else's problem. If we do not act, speak out, or even bear witness as individuals, then we, as a society, will achieve and fix nothing. Direct Representation for Israel proposes the selection of our leaders and representatives as individuals; individuals chosen by the public because they are of the public and will work for the public. Individuals whose sense of moral clarity would not allow Sderot to suffer under Kassams for one month, let alone seven years. I found hope and moral clarity in some very special individuals in Sderot. People like Gilad and the other Lev Echad volunteers, who won't let citizens in Sderot suffer neglect. People like Noam Bedein, who won't let the world ignore Sderot. I spoke one-to-one to some about the need to assert individual responsibility as a political foundation, to institutionalize this in the way we choose our representatives and leader. For the most part, I found a receptive audience.

You can contact Lev Echad at 054-7587462/3.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

How Difficult Can it Be?

As the Hebrew saying goes, "all beginnings are difficult." This rings true with nascent national movements, especially movements aspiring to real change in Israel. For months, we've been planning to form a recognized amutah (non-profit organization) with tax-exempt status, a step that would enable us to operate with tax exempt cash flow and for donors to receive tax deductible credit. This has not been a trivial undertaking and here's why.

In a 1990 Israeli legal precedent, an organization called "Constitution for Israel" failed to attain tax-exempt non-profit status from the Ministry of the Finance. According to Israeli tax law, tax exempt status can be conferred on four types of organizations: local municipalities, Mifal HaPayis (national lottery), retirement investment funds, and "public institutions." "Public institutions" are dedicated solely to "public purposes," and "public purposes" are defined by tax law as those related to "religion, culture, education, science, health, nourishment, sport, and other causes approved by the finance minister as public purposes."

Constitution for Israel sued the Finance Ministry, however the Supreme Court ruled in support of the then finance minister. "Constitution for Israel," the court opined, was not an institution with "only" cultural and/or educational purposes, not an organization "whose assets and income were used only for the attainment of public goals." According to the court, "Constitution for Israel" also wanted to influence legislation promoting a written constitution for the state of Israel. In other words, Constitution for Israel's public purposes became impure because the political realm was engaged in the service of those same purposes.

The Aharon Barak Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the finance minister was acting with any sort of political bias. No political bias? Many non-profit, public-minded institutions extend their mandates to influence political outcomes, which in turn serve the values of these organizations. The Israel Cancer Society has rightly lobbied and influenced legislation when it comes to tobacco and smoking restrictions. Religious organizations, including yeshivot, become involved with political initiatives when policy affects religious life. Constitution for Israel, however, sought to promote a process that would more clearly define the court's authority and its power in relation to other branches of government. Indeed, the selective denial of tax exempt status to organizations with public purposes could be viewed as a prime example of self-serving political bias. It exemplifies why our political system is a national embarrassment.

Practically speaking, most non-government non-profit organizations require tax-deductible status in order to recruit funding. The Israeli Supreme Court has effectively limited citizens who form the public from choosing, with their wallets, what they think is important for the public. The continued influence of that precedent underscores the gaping absence of public service norms; applied values which our organization seeks to instate. It also indicates the depth of the challenge that we must take on.

We are being advised by legal and accounting professionals to navigate the application processes with the non-profit registrar and the Ministry of Finance. This is a difficult time for us, but we are moving forward. The educational, cultural designation is, in fact, quite appropriate to our organization's mandate and goals. We have maintained, all along, that our goal is to revitalize a culture of citizen participation and empowerment as a bottom-up, grass roots initiative; that the route to real change runs via the Israeli public.

We will meet the challenges ahead of us and continue to organize whatever the immediate bureaucratic outcomes.

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

How our system helps our enemies

In today's Jerusalem Post, you can find a prime example of why those trying to destroy Israel from within favor the current proportional system over a majoritarian one.

In "Dismantle Israel's tyranny of the majority