Showing posts with label Jerusalem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jerusalem. Show all posts

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Pesach 2014 - Board Games Day and Kosher Pesach Burgers

What can you do in Israel over Pesach?  Everyone is on vacation, the roads are packed with travelling Israelis and the weather is usually beautiful.  So it's a great time to go the Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee), the beach (the Mediterranean Sea or the Red (Reed) Sea.  Many Israelis use this vacation period for trips abroad, since kids are off from school for close to three weeks.  Many soldiers even get a bit of break from the army...

There are many festivals across the country - music festivals, camping and all kinds of other cultural events.

One of the things that we have been doing is spending one day of Hol Hamoed on Pesach and on Sukkot at an all day board games day in Jerusalem.  We wind up with about 25-30 people, all of whom bring a bunch of their favourite board games - and we play all day.  The event is co-sponsored by the Jerusalem Strategy Games Club and the Ra'anana Board Games Group.  It is an opportunity to meet some new people, learn a bunch of new games and play some games at a fairly competitive level.

The event was in Jerusalem, which meant a lengthy drive from Ra'anana.  Even leaving late it in the morning (to avoid rush hour), we wound up facing some outrageously slow traffic.  It took us close to three hours to get from Ra'anana to Jerusalem, despite using Google Maps and watching for live updates as to the best available route.
Terra Mystica - in Action

Once there, we (my son and I) ran a five person game of Terra Mystica.  This is a fairly recent (2012) board game that has been tremendously popular since its release among avid board game players.  There are lots of pieces, a fairly lengthy rule book and a moderately long set up time.  But the game is lots of fun for those who like European style strategy games. Some of the players loved it and some were less enthusiastic. One of the interesting aspects of the game is that it features 14 unique teams (races) each with their own special abilities.  So the game is asymmetrical, which makes it different each time.

I also tried playing Belfort and Carson City, both of which were fun.

For dinner, the group members ordered hamburgers from Black Burgers in Jerusalem.  The burgers came on buns - and were Kosher for Passover - and Kitniyot free....They were actually quite good (the burgers, I mean...).  The buns...well...it's Passover after all.  Black Burgers has locations all over Israel, but very few are Kosher - aside from the Jerusalem location.  So being in Jerusalem, we took advantage and ordered the 220 g Schwarzenegger Burger - the latest house specialty.  They cook it however you might like to order it - so we were able to enjoy some perfectly cooked medium to medium rare burgers and then returned to game playing on a full stomach.  It is quite something that so many restaurants in Israel take the trouble to convert over their kitchens and open up for the 4 days of Hol Hamoed.  

Good food, fun games and a competitive group - even if the commute to Jerusalem was exhaustingly long.

Getting a bit tired of Pesach food already and we still have 4 days to go....

Chag Sameach to all!


Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Kerry's Peace Proposals - Status of Current Negotiations

It is often said by mediators that a good deal between two sides is one which leaves each side equally unhappy.  That is the essence of a negotiated settlement where two parties have diametrically opposing demands and are trying to find a peaceful way to resolve their differences.  Indications are that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is trying to find a way to come to some of these middle ground positions in an effort to present a plan to Israel and the Palestinians that has some chance of acceptance.

Certainly, there is no shortage of naysayers on either side of the conflict.  Israeli cabinet ministers Naftali Bennett and Ze'ev Elkin have been pushing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to walk away from the talks and reject Kerry's imminent proposals.  Similarly, officials on the Palestinian side of the table, including PLO Secretary Yasser Abed Rabbo have indicated that Kerry's proposals will not be acceptable to any Palestinians. 

At the same time, there are a number of high ranking Israeli cabinet ministers, including Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid who maintain that a deal that is acceptable to Israel is within reach.  Any such deal, from the Israeli side, could necessitate a change in the current Israeli government.  Given statements made by Minister Naftali Bennett, he and his party would leave the government rather than agree to the type of peace plan being presented by Kerry.  On the other hand, there is significant skepticism in Israel that the Palestinians will accept this type of deal, even if Kerry can get the Israelis to agree.  Moreover, Israelis have real concerns as to whether the current Palestinian leadership could deliver the type of "peace" contemplated by the agreement.  Statements by various Palestinian officials seem to suggest that this type of deal will not be good enough and the Palestinians will reject a U.S. brokered proposal, yet again..  But that remains to be seen.

What are some of the key issues?

1.  Recognition of Israel as a Jewish State and Resolution of the Palestinian Refugee Issue.

In a sense, these issues are very closely related.  From an Israeli perspective, the UN partition plan in 1948 contemplated a two state solution - one state for the Jewish people and one state for the Palestinian people.  There can be little historical dispute that the Palestinians rejected the plan and declared war on Israel.  Over the course of that war, some areas were seized by Jordan and Egypt that would have been parts of the Palestinian state.  Other areas were captured by Israel and many Palestinians fled those areas.  Yet between 1948 and 1967, the Palestinian and pan-Arab animus was still directed at Israel with the goal of eliminating Israel's existence.  Such was the Arab rhetoric leading up to the 1967 war and the 1973 war - and for many years afterwards.  It is still the rhetoric of Hamas.   

The reason that Israel has insisted on recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" as part of a peace deal is to signify that both sides accept a two state solution as a permanent peace deal.  It is not a stepping stone towards greater conflict.  Israel would recognize a Palestinian state with all of the trappings that a state might have, subject to security considerations.  The Palestinians would be expected to do the same and would agree to Israel's right to exist.  

What does a two state solution really mean?  It means that each side gives up its dream, goal or aspiration of taking over all of the territory held by the other side.  It also means that each side solves its own refugee problems within the borders of its territory.  For the Palestinians, this type of deal should leave them free to bring every single Palestinian refugee, from across the world, to the nascent Palestinian state, if they so choose.  Should that not be the purpose of a two state resolution?  Since 1948, Israel has absorbed millions of refugees, including Jews who were no longer welcome in Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Iran and other Arab countries.  The Palestinians will need to do the same and absorb the Palestinian refugees in their new state.

Most Palestinians have continued to demand the "right to return" to Israel.  This insistence is nothing more than a rejection of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and the expression of an intention to override Israel demographically.  It is, quite simply, for Israel, a non-starter.   If, as some suggest, Palestinians continue to insist that a large number of Palestinians be permitted to return to Israel rather than the new Palestinian state, this would be a deal breaker, in my view.

2.  Status of Jerusalem

Under the U.N. partition plan, Jerusalem was going to become an "International City."  It was never envisioned as part of the Palestinian state and certainly not its capital.  Between 1948 and 1967, much of Jerusalem was held by the Jordanians, with little push by the Palestinians to declare it the capital of Palestine.  In 1967, Israel recaptured parts of Jerusalem, including the old city and ultimately annexed most of the city.  Regardless of what some countries in the world might formally maintain, Jerusalem is not "occupied territory" as defined under the Geneva conventions. It was not legally held by Jordan nor was its status clearly defined. Since Israel has controlled Jerusalem, from 1967, the holy cites have been fully accessible to the different religious groups that claim access to them.  The Muslim Waqf has controlled the Al Aqsa Mosque and Christian holy cites have been overseen by Christian authorities. This contrasts with the picture that existed in Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, during which time Jews were barred from attending the Jewish religious cites in old Jerusalem.

One of the key Palestinian demands is that East Jerusalem, including the Old City, become the capital of the new Palestinian state.  Once again, this is something that is simply not going to happen any time soon.  There would be no political will in Israel for dividing Jerusalem and certainly no appetite for Israel to relinquish the one place in the world that is holy to the Jewish people.  So Secretary of State Kerry has proposed using suburbs of Jerusalem, including Kafr Aqab or Abu Dis and calling those suburbs "Greater Jerusalem" or some other terminology so that "Jerusalem" can still be listed as the Palestinian capital.  While this would be unpalatable to many on both sides, it may be a reasonable resolution of the issue, especially when combined with the fact that Palestinians would continue to control the Muslim religious sites in Jerusalem as they do today, even though the Dome of the Rock sits on the very spot that was once the Holy Temple.

3.   The Settlements, the Border and Security

The United States has proposed a formula involving an approximate total amount of land for each side, equal to the 1967 borders.  The idea of "land swaps" would mean that Israel would keep the largest major settlement blocs while giving up other areas to the Palestinians.  There are certainly many on both sides who oppose this proposal entirely.

Many Palestinians have demanded that Israel withdraw, entirely, from all land that Israel has held since 1967. This would include major residential blocs, some of which were inhabited by Jews before 1948 (such as parts of Gush Etzion).  Some Israelis have demanded that Israel retain the vast majority of the West Bank and refuse to agree to turn over any territory, whatsoever.  Neither side is likely to get everything it is after in a negotiated settlement.

Media reports suggest that the settlement issue would be resolved through a number of approaches.  Under Kerry's proposals, which have not yet been formally announced, Israel would keep or annex the largest settlement blocs, but it would also agree to evacuate some areas of the West Bank on which there are now Israeli settlements.  Palestinians would receive other territory, with the total territory under Palestinian control for the new state the approximate equivalent of the 1967 borders.

The real challenge is security here, particularly security for Israel and even for Jordan.  Israel can ill afford, from a security perspective, to agree to the establishment of another fundamentalist terror-sponsored regime on its borders.  After Israel evacuated Gaza, the Gazan people promptly elected the rejectionist, terrorist group Hamas as its leadership.  Shortly afterwards, Hamas began lobbing rockets at Israel.  A repetition of this, in a different area, would be entirely unacceptable to Israel and would threaten Israel existentially.  Kerry's plans have apparently floated various approaches to address this security concern including a continuing, but gradually lessening Israeli presence in the Palestinian state or some type of U.S. presence.  This could present one of the greatest challenges for Israel and one of the biggest leaps of faith that Israel would have to make to agree to a deal.

Israel has a very small margin of error here the wrong decision or concession on security issues could be suicidal.  That is not to say that this is the plan of the current Palestinian leadership.  But looking at events in Syria, Egypt and other Arab countries in the Middle East, it is reasonable for Israel to insist on security measures that will be honoured and verifiable, irrespective of the type of Palestinian government that might get elected.  Some of these precautionary security terms are likely to be unacceptable to the Palestinians and that is where Kerry is working with both sides to try to find some way to reach a deal.

Conclusion

There are, of course, numerous other issues.  After all, many books have been written about this issue, from various historical, political and other vantage points.  I have reviewed some of them elsewhere on this blog.

The real question is what is going to happen now - and will anything come of this.  Most Israelis apparently remain unconvinced that a deal will be possible, according to recent Israeli surveys reported on by YNet News and Haaretz.  Many Palestinians have signified that they would view this type of deal as a "sell-out" and would reject it entirely.  So it is far from clear that there will be any kind of resolution.  Nevertheless, here are a few possibilities:

1.       Israel could agree to the deal, whether unconditionally or with some reservations.  In order to do this, it  appears that Israel's government would change, at least somewhat.  It is likely that Bennett would leave the government and that Labour, under the leadership of its recently elected new leader Yitzhak Herzog would join.  It is unclear whether some or all of the "Yisrael Beitenu" MKs would leave the government and if they were to leave, whether Netanyahu could still cobble together a majority that would support the deal.  If a Netanyahu-led government were to support the deal, my sense is that a deal could also win support in an Israel-wide referendum, even if the margin of victory was slim.

2.  Israel could agree to the deal, as above, but the Palestinians could reject it, either in connection with the ongoing talks or as part of some form of referendum.  This is probably the outcome that most Israelis anticipate, although there are signs that Abbas may be prepared to agree to a proposed deal, even if he does so conditionally or with some reservations.  It is unclear what the Palestinians will do if these talks fail.  They may look to the world community to try and exert economic pressure on Israel by advocating boycotts and divestment.  Some countries in the world have already been susceptible to these overtures.  Or they may declare a third intifada.  Either of these approaches would likely be disastrous for both Israel and the Palestinians and would probably set back a peaceful resolution by another twenty or thirty years, at least.

3.  The Palestinians could agree to the deal, as above, with some reservations or unconditionally.  However, Bennett could then cause the collapse of the government and Netanyahu could prove unable (or unwilling) to put together a coalition that would support the deal.  This could result in new elections in Israel or it could bring about a new right wing government that includes the religious parties and that has no interest in any type of peace deal.  In this scenario, (i.e. if the Netanyahu government were to fall) my guess would be that we would see a new election fairly quickly, though I am not about to predict the results.  It seems to me unlikely that Netanyahu would cling to power by cobbling together a far right -wing government.  I think he would be more inclined to hold an election. 

Stepping back from all of this, there are many reasons for pessimism and it seems unlikely that we will see an Israel-Palestinian peace deal any time soon. There are so many complicated issues, so much "bad blood," and so much hatred.  Yet, as I have told some of my friends, we are living in an age which has seen the collapse of the U.S.S.R; a peaceful resolution of the dispute in Ireland; the end to South African Apartheid; and many other world changes that people would have believed to be possible in our lifetime.  So maybe, just maybe, a peace deal between Israel, the Palestinians and the neighbouring Arab states will be another one of those historical moments.

It seems to me that both sides need this type of deal if they truly wish to avoid sentencing their children and grandchildren to generations more of bloody conflict.


Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Menachem Begin Heritage Center

Former Israeli P.M., Menachem Begin
Where to take important guests who are visiting Israel during rainy season?  Well - we decided to head over to the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem.  We had read some very good reviews of the museum and we were not disappointed.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was a fascinating historical figure.  His biography is filled with tremendous accomplishments.  From his imprisonment in Europe for having been a Z|ionist to his leadership of the Irgun group in pre-Israel Palestine, Begin faced countless life and death challenges.  After the establishment of the State of Israel, he served in the Knesset in the opposition for close to 30 years before becoming Prime Minister of Israel in 1977.  He is best known throughout the world for signing a peace treaty with Egypt under the leadership of Anwar Sadat.  He is also known for authorizing the Israeli destruction of Iraq's Osaka nuclear reactor in 1982.  But the musem also deals, quite fairly, with Begin's unravelling, following the 1982 Israel-Lebanon War.

On entering the museum, guests are provided with headphones so that they can tour the museum in languages other than Hebrew.  The Center tour is divided into sections of Begin's life.  It includes videos, photographs, articles and other media forms.  We made sure to phone in advance and book an English language tour (our guests were English speakers).  We were put with a group of about 30 others for the 1 1/2 hour tour.

Throughout the first part of the presentation, I wondered if the museum would deal with some of the more controversial aspects of Begin's life.  After all, hearing the story of Begin's early years, from his struggles in Europe to his immigration to Israel and his leadership of the Irgun group, one cannot help but be impressed by the history of a real Jewish hero. 

This theme continued throughout the years of Begin's service in the opposition in the Knesset (Israel's parliament) and even through his first governmental mandate. 

But the Center does not shy away from the 1982 Israel-Lebanon War, the Sabra-Shatilla Massacre by the Christian Phalangists and the subsequent inquiry into the Begin Government's role in permitting or failing to prevent that massacre.  The Center, by tracing Begin's speeches and commentaries, also raises some very central questions about Begin's belief in the "territorial integrity" of the Land of Israel.  Some of the commentaries suggest that Begin used the Egyptian Peace Treaty as a means of retaining control, for Israel, over Judea, Shomron (the "West Bank"), Gaza and the Golan Heights.  You can't help but wonder whether an alternative arrangement, a broader peace deal, would have served Israel better - or whether such a deal would have even been possible at the time.

The fallout over the Israel-Lebanon war, the large number of Israeli soldiers killed in the war, the failure of the army to accomplish its war aims and the controversy over events in Lebanon all led to the demise of the Begin government and to Begin's retreat from public life into a state of recluse. 

Like with many other Jewish historical figures, including our Biblical ancestors, we are reminded that human beings, even great ones, often make mistakes.

We all enjoyed the tour of this museum and left with plenty of material for discussion - and maybe even heated argument...

Fortunately, following the tour, we weren't too far from downtown Jerusalem, so we were able to stop off at one of our favourite Shawarma places, Moshiko, before heading back to Ra'anana.