One Year Later

Rabbi Gabi Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka, were murdered a year ago during the terrorist attack in Mumbai, India. Here is Chabad’s tribute to them.

Leading, Lagging Indicators

The U.S. unemployment rate has inched closer to ten percent, but as one analyst notes, there are signs that the worst might be over soon:

The continued moderation in the pace of job losses does offer some encouragement on the state of the U.S. labor market. Nevertheless, with the soft economic backdrop, we are likely to see further job losses in the coming months as U.S. businesses continue to adjust their payrolls in the face of weak demand, which will likely limit the extent to which consumer spending can be depended upon to power the eventual recovery. It is important to note, however, that the labor market is generally a lagging indicator of economic activity…

What do all of these numbers mean? Well, let’s first remind ourselves of the severity of the current recession:

The ease of the slope of the line denoting the current recession along with the decrease in the rate of unemployment increase mean one simple fact: The economy is still getting worse, but it is doing so at an increasingly-slower rate. Barring any unforeseen problems (or miracles), this hints that the recession its approaching its nadir. We are almost halfway there.

If that sounds terribly optimistic, keep in mind that unemployment is a lagging indicator. Labor is the first cost that employers cut when a recession looms, and it is the last cost that companies incur when a recovery begins. The reason is simple: Labor is frequently the most-expensive capital that a business has, so people are the first fat to be trimmed and the last to be added. (This is bad news for families, but this is how a free market works.)

Now, let’s look at a leading indicator:

The manufacturing sector has, at least for the moment, returned to pre-recession levels. Good news, right? Well, only partially. Factories are producing more goods, but someone has to buy them. Right now, the American consumer is still saving rather than spending money to ease the debt bubble. This does not bode well for an economy that is two-thirds dependent on people buying stuff — otherwise termed “consumer spending.”

In the meantime, Israel and Japan have been the first countries to emerge from their respective recessions. France and Germany, Europe’s two-largest economies, followed suit. China and India never fell into recessions, although their rates of growth declined.

What can Americans make of this? Well, people who work in export-driven industries should be happy. U.S. manufacturing is increasing as consumers in many parts of the world are finally able to buy. A weakening dollar will help. But the vast majority of the American economy — consumer spending and the service industries — will be slow to recover.

Whose Land is Whose?

RISHON LEZION, Israel — Haim Watzman looks at the philosophical assumptions that underpin anti-Zionism and how they relate to the philosophy of land-ownership:

[Phillips] Brooks argues that the land on which the state of Israel was created belonged to the Palestinians. Therefore, it is stolen. Therefore, Israel is founded on a crime. Therefore there is no difference between the land Israel took in 1948 and in 1967; it’s all stolen and held illegitimately and the Jews should return whence they came.

Now, that might sound like a voice of conscience to the unthinking. But if you think it through, it’s based on a concept of originalism that makes no sense in the real world. In other words, for Brooks’ logic to work, there has to be some particular point in history in which the world’s territory was divided up fairly between different nations. Then bad nations started conquering peaceful ones to gain territory. Peace and justice can be regained if everyone goes back to where they came from.

But of course there was no such point in history. Brooks’ position also leads to logical absurdities. Where is the average Englishman, with his hopeless amalgamation of Celtic, Roman Saxon, Danish, and Norman French languages and gene pools, supposed to go? Should all the Arabs return to Arabia? Should India’s Aryan stock return to central Asia? What nation rightfully owns Malta? Istanbul? Honolulu?

Watzman is correct. The first mistake that anti-Zionists make is to claim that a country named Palestine and inhabited by an Arab people collectively named Palestinians existed prior to Israel’s statehood in 1948 — or even before the post-First World War mandate held by Great Britain after it gained control of the region from the crumbling Ottoman Empire. (This fallacy is frequently taught in countries in the Middle East and elsewhere in which school cirriculums are decided by depostic governments.)

In reality, the region known as Palestine was controlled by the Ottomans prior to 1918; various pieces of land were owned by people including Arab, absentee landlords; Jews who had either emigrated or lived there for centuries; Arab farmers and nomads; and various Christian and Islamic communities. Significant portions of land were vacant, arid desert. It was a mix of communities. Moreover, the Arabs who lived there — whether Muslim or Christian — were not known as Palestinians until many, many decades later. A man in Gaza City had little in common with someone in Ramallah; they were surely not united by any sense of a common, national identity beyond their Arab ethnicity and perhaps their religion.

The main mistake, however, is when anti-Zionists insist that all land — wherever it may be — should go back to their “original owners.” As Watzman notes, this is incredibly naive. Those anti-Semites on the American left probably feel that the United States was responsible for the massacre of native Americans and the settling of their land. Of course, they are correct — but I do not see anyone volunteering to return to Europe. Many racists on the American right who despise minorities likely come from Ireland and southern Europe countries — but their ancestors, when they first came to the United States, were denigrated by the Anglo-Saxons who forebearers had originally populated America.

My point is that no one has an inherent right to be anywhere. Humanity left Africa for the Middle East. From there, people spread to India, central Asia, and eastern Europe. Then China, southeast Asia, Australia, Russia, and western Europe. Then northeastern Asia and later North and South America. All of human history is filled with people settling, invading, and defending land.

The only things that separate the modern, Western world from barbarianism with respect to land-ownership are 1.) civil society; 2.) the rule of law; and 3.) the idea of national sovereignty. The only reasons that a person “owns” the ground inside a white, picket fence  is the fact that he has a piece of paper saying so — along with a collective agreement within society to respect the document and a system of courts that will uphold its validity. Moreover, the idea stemming from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 that newly-defined nation-states have sovereign borders and the right of jurisdiction in all internal affairs somewhat lessened primitive and medieval disputes over land.

However, these three points are only common agreements based in philosophy and pragmatism; they are not inherent in existence itself. In places where a civil society, the rule of law, and national sovereignty are either absent or in need of a firmer foundation — such as in both Israel and any forthcoming State of Palestine — then the Law of the Jungle rules.

Israel is ridden with political, social, and religious divisions (see here, here, and here) that have prevented any formation of a civil society for decades. The sovereignty of both Israel and any future Palestine are still up in the air as a result of disputed borders and occasional violence. Both the Israeli and Palestinian governments are rife with corruption.

What both ancient, world history and the modern, Middle East show is that the modern idea of land ownership rests on a shaky foundation that can be easily overtaken by current events. At the most basic level, the rightful owner of a piece of land might just be the answer to one question: Who can obtain and defend it the best?

Haggling

The Art of Manliness offers some good advice on haggling in non-Western countries. See here. After living in Israel, as well as visiting Egypt and India, I’d like to think that I’m developing a flair for it myself.

Geography is Destiny

Robert Kaplan, writing in Foreign Policy, writes that geography has always laid the foundations for conflict throughout the world in the past and present. The article is your assigned reading for today.

Gabi and Rivka Holtzberg

As you might recall, Rabbi Gabi Holtzberg and his wife, Rivki, were murdered by Islamic terrorists in Mumbai, India. Here are their inspiring life stories.

Letter from Israel: Stories from the Desert I

Twelfth in an ongoing series

RISHON LEZION, Israel — Here are some anecdotes that I thought people might find interesting.

—
The Five People You Meet in Israel

The Hippie — Most likely a young person who just came back to Israel after spending two years traveling in Latin America or India after finishing their post-high-school army service. They have long dreadlocks, an addiction to smoking pot, an acoustic guitar, and a love of Pink Floyd. They tend to work in bars while finishing a college degree in liberal arts one part-time course at a time. They tend to sleep most of the day because they work and then party at night. Common habitat: Living on a kibbutz. Strengths: Making friends. Weakness: Altered states of mind.

The Yuppie — Most likely a secular, cosmopolitan resident of Tel Aviv who dreams of achieving the American Dream — but in Israel. They work in the high-tech sector and are finishing their MBA degrees. They hate religious people and scowl at anyone with a kippah (yarmulke). They would gladly give away all of Jerusalem and half of Israel if it meant that they could earn a million shekels in peace. Common habitat: High-end cafes and restaurants on Shenkin Street in Tel Aviv that serve pork and other non-kosher food. Strengths: Growing the Israeli economy. Weaknesses: A lack of spirituality.

The Zealot — Most likely a newly-religious Israeli or an Orthodox, Jewish immigrant from America who goes to the West Bank, pitches a tent or builds a small house for his family, buys several guns, and shoots at any Palestinian who comes within range. The Israelis believe that the Torah, as they interpret it, is superior to Israeli and international law and refuse to leave their part of the sacred land. The Americans subconsciously want to live a in a fantasy world resembling that of the Wild West. Common habitat: The West Bank (and formerly the Gaza Strip). Strengths: Defense skills. Weaknesses: Insanity.

The Arse — “Arsim” is a slang, derogatory term for Mizrahi Jews (their families originally came from Middle Eastern countries) in Israel. They are viewed as the Israeli equivalent of so-called white trash. They wear a lot of gold jewelry, have little education, and work blue-collar jobs. Their dress and culture resembles that of Arabs than of Ashkenazi Jews (originally from European countries). They are loud and argumentative, even for Israelis. The singing styles of their popular singers resembles that of Arabic music except that it is in Hebrew. Ashkenazi Jews think that the music sounds like a screeching cat that is in the middle of being killed. Common habitant: Dance bars full of bad music. Strengths: Delicious food. Weaknesses: Listening to them in karaoke bars should probably be another circle in Dante’s Hell.

The “Others” — All of the non-Jewish Israelis, who roughly comprise twenty-five percent of the population. Israeli Arabs (Muslims, Christians, and Druze) are always seen as potential terrorists. Russians are viewed as people who faked immigration papers saying they are Jewish in order to move here, or they are seen as mobsters or prostitutes kidnapped from Europe and forced to work for organized crime here. Christians are viewed as the religion that should have the least say in Jerusalem the Middle East because Jews and Muslims far outnumber them, and Israeli Jews usually associate Christians with the Holocaust. Common habitat: All over Israel. Strengths: Proving that Israel can be a vibrant democracy by embracing citizens who are not Jews. Weaknesses: Threatening Israel’s existence as a country that is officially Jewish (and democratic).

—
Sexual Personaes

In a prior letter, I described how blunt and frank Israelis are in regards to sex. Here are just a few of the conversations I have overheard:

Me: Has the band arrived at the bar yet?
Bartender 1 (a guy): No, but you’ll know when they are here because the floor will be wet beneath Shlomit.
Shlomit (the other bartener): Yeah, the bassist is cute!

Girl 1: I haven’t had sex since August!
Guy 1 (her friend): Has your hymen grown back yet?
Girl 1 laughs and pretends to slap Guy 1.

Guy 1: That dress makes you look like a whore!
Girl 1: Yeah, you can slide a credit card down my vagina.

—
Blame it on the Rain

Even the weather in Israel is polarized and extreme. In the United States, it will moderately rain for several hours before the skies clear. But during the rainy season here (roughly December through March), it can sound like the world is ending — and then it will clear rapidly as though nothing had happened. It will rain violently — including loud thunder, large hail, gusty winds, and bright lightning — for ten minutes, and then it will disappear after ten minutes and give way to clear skies. Then, ten minutes later, the storm will start again. And then it will go away. This cycle can repeat for a whole day — or even longer — at a time.

But during the storm times, it can sound frightening. Sometimes I have thought about building an ark.

From April through October or November, it will not rain. At all. Not one drop. Then, on some magical night in the fall, it will start sprinkling. Everyone will run out of their homes, or their bars, or their shops, and stand outside in the street to feel the raindrops. (I call it First Rain, but I do not know if Israelis use the term.) On First Rain last fall, I saw several children rush out of their apartments onto the street to dance in the rain. They started singing in Hebrew, “Rain, rain, every day!” (“Geshem, geshem, kol yom!”). It was one of the cutest things I have ever seen.

—
Fun With Hebrew

Traditional, English translations of the Bible say in Genesis that Adam “knew” Eve. I had always thought that this was only a polite euphemism for ‘had sex with,” but now I understand the reason. In English, the verb “know” has two major uses: 1.) To “know” a fact, like two plus two equals four; and 2.) To be familiar with something, like “I know math.” In Hebrew, each of these uses has a different verb: “yodea” is to know a fact, and “makir” is to be familiar with something. However, “yodea” can also means “to have sexual relations with” in traditional Hebrew. So, in the original Hebrew, Adam did “yodea” his wife Eve. That is where the “knew” in the Bible comes from.

I was hanging out with some friends one time, and one offered me some of the food on his plate. I declined because I did not like what he was eating. In Hebrew, I told him: “I would not like it, I know myself.” Everyone broke out in laughter. I had mistakenly used the verb “yodea” rather than “makir,” so this is what I had literally said: “I would not like it; I know myself sexually.” (I realized later that this use refers to masturbation in Hebrew.) I should have used “makir” so that I would have said: “I am familiar with myself.”

But I laughed with everyone else. When one is learning a new language in a new country, one needs to have a sense of humor. It can be tough.

—
Young Americans

Israelis always ask Americans why they would ever want to live here because many Israelis have never been to the United States (a visa can be hard to get). They think that America is what they see on TV through television shows like “Friends” and “The O.C.” — namely, that life is easy and everyone lives rich, comfortable lives — because the media is their only exposure to the country. To many secular Israelis, the United States seems to be the real Promised Land of milk and honey. (By the way, Israeli television is now showing reruns of “Alf” as well, and I loved that show when I was a child! I get more of the jokes now.)

As a result, Israelis cannot comprehend why anyone would want to leave America for Israel, whether temporarily or permanently. It has been up to me — and other young Americans I have met — to give them a sense of balance. We tell Israelis that few people there are rich, that the propsperity in recent decades had been falsely financed through debt (and that it is now falling apart), and that untold tens of thousands of people have no health insurance because America, unlike Israel, does not have universal health-care. We describe how warm Israelis are compared to the fact that most people in America barely know who their neighbors, let alone hang out with them frequently. We tell people here that the United States can have a dog-eat-dog, everyone-looks-out-for-himself mentality in constrast to the tribal society in Israel. We say that Israelis always have a sense of spirituality about them, even if a particular person is not exactly religious — and we contrast this to the images on MTV (which is available here), whose popular rap and R&B videos degrade women, celebrate greed, and showcase explicit sexuality.

Although Israelis love the idea of America — especially since the United States can seem like Israel’s only friend in the world — they frequently joke about Americans. Israel is a tiny country populated with Jews and non-Jews from nearly every country in the world, so ethnic jokes are common and acceptable. (It is also because impatient, blunt Israelis have no use for political correctness.) Israelis have jokes about everyone: the French (snobs who insist on speaking French even if they know Hebrew), the Russians (all the women are prostitutes, and all the men are mobsters), the British (pretentious, boring people or wild drunks) and, of course, the Arabs (evil, murderous barbarians). Everyone tells me the American jokes. From what Israelis see from Americans here and on television, they believe that all Americans are materialistic, naive, slutty, shallow, stupid, and fat. The “naive” part is most common — many shop owners and taxi drivers try to overcharge me because they think all Americans are “friarim” (suckers). Moreover, Israelis think that any Americans who come here must be religious zealots. (After all, why else would they leave the real Promised Land?) Still, many Israelis do want to go to the United States because they want to become rich.

More than one observer has remarked, interestingly enough, that the Jewish country is full of racists. But Israelis would just tell them to lighten up and have a sense of humor.

—
Not-So-Fast Food

In the United States, fast food is seen as a cheap, fast way to get a meal. In Israel, it is neither fast nor cheap. Israel probably has the world’s worst customer service in general — why should people care when they are paid by the hour and do not get more money for working quickly? — and a typical Value Meal at McDonald’s costs the equivalent of $12. So, to Israelis, fast food is a treat to be enjoyed once in a while or on a special occasion. But it is just as unhealthy here.

—
The American Accent

Israelis are stereotyped — sometimes accurately — as aggressive and direct. I think the Hebrew language has something to do with it. In English, people emphasize different syllables of different words for different reasons. In Hebrew, the last syllable of a word is always emphasized intensely. It sounds as if I were to say in English: “I WANT to GO to the MALL.” The result is that Westerns feel as though Israelis are punching them repeatedly with the very words they use. Whenever Israelis make fun of the American accent, they do one of two things: 1.) They speak Hebrew in a monotone voice because Americans accentuate Hebrew as if they were speaking English; or 2.) They speak Hebrew like a so-called dumb-blond Valley Girl.

I thought the second option was ridiculous until I overheard some American girls who were likely tourists. I was withdrawing money from an ATM when some early-twentysomething women were getting money at the station next to me. They were discussing their plans for the evening, and I am not exaggerating their conversation:

“Like, do you want to go to Tel Aviv? There is this bar that is, like, so cool! The bartender is super hot!”
“No way!”
“Yeah! I wear, like, this slutty top, and he always gives me free chasers [shots]!”
“Yeah, let’s go!
“Cool… oh, my God! I, like, only have fifty shekels left!”
“Well, I can, like, spot you.”
“Thanks, honey! Let’s party!”
The two of them yell, laugh, and go to flag a taxi.

I rarely hear American tourists because I avoid tourist-trap locations, so this type of chatter sounded a little foreign after a year of living in Israel. And then I understood why — in addition to MTV and “The O.C.” — Israelis sometimes have such a low opinion of Americans.

Prior letter: Finding Israel’s Center

A Mother at 70

This is a travesty. When women well beyond natural child-bearing years give birth, the resulting child will be much more prone to birth defects and illness throughout life. Not to mention the fact that he’ll never be able to run or play ball with his parents.

Nature has its rules and limits for a reason. Let’s not interfere with that.

Fear Itself

PETACH TIKVA, Israel — Simon Jenkins, a British pundit, also misses the America of yore:

The attractive feature of the America in which I once lived was its bold self-confidence. To find the survivors of the Bush presidency still cowering in a mental bunker afraid of a bunch of Arabs — and with British ministers for company — strips western democracy of a leadership that should be both heroic and sensible. It is surely an un-American activity.

After living in Israel for almost a year now, I can contrast the American and Israeli approaches to the so-called War on Terror. The former’s response is irrational hysteria while the latter’s reaction is to take rational precautions and live one’s life without unwarranted fear.

Several Palestinian terrorists were caught last week while on their way to bomb the central bus station in Tel Aviv. Most Israelis I knew barely mentioned the event later that day — in fact, most were merely upset at the morning traffic jams that resulted from the increased security on the roads. An Israel friend only told me about the news in passing only after I had mentioned the traffic on the way to work. In fact, I cannot find any archived coverage of the event in The Jerusalem Post or Ha’aretz. The only website I can find with a report — which is linked above — is the extreme, right-wing site WorldNetDaily. To Israelis, this was not even news at all. Israelis, who have a fatalistic streak, have a saying: “Ehyeh beseder (it’ll be okay).” Whatever will happen, will happen. Why worry?

Now, if terrorists had been caught while attempting to bomb a major bus station in New York, I am sure that Mayor Bloomberg would declare martial law akin to what Bruce Willis did in the pre-9/11 film “The Seige” (which, by the way, is now eerie to watch). The U.S. government is not only overreacting in terms of major policy — see, for example, the Patriot Act — it even stretches down to ordinary Americans like myself.

A few years ago, I was returning to the United States from a vacation in Israel, and a Passport Control official in New York said, “You have been to a lot of foreign countries.” (My U.S. passport has visas from Egypt, England, India, and Israel.) I said that I travel frequently on vacation and with my M.B.A. program at college. “What do you do now?” he asked. I said that I worked as a journalist in Boston and that I was studying towards my M.B.A. “Where?” he asked. “Suffolk University,” I replied. After that, he returned my passport and let me go. Now, this was the response that a born-and-raised U.S. citizen received – I can only imagine the treatment that Passport Control gives tourists from the Middle East and southwestern Asia.

But this unwarranted fear even stretches down to ordinary Americans. How many people were — and are — convinced that President-elect Barack Obama is a secret Muslim who will side with “the terrorists”? (Or even the Antichrist!) How many Americans are suspicious of every Muslim they see on the street? How many people are still afraid to fly? A relative of mine in the suburbs in the Midwest once saw a small, gift-wrapped package on her doorstep when she arrived home from work. She was immediately suspicious and worried whether she should open it. After she did, it turned out to be a free sample of some beauty product that a local company was putting on doorsteps.

The primary reason for this fear has been the rhetoric from the U.S. government that is repeated by many pundits, usually conservative ones, in the media. As Jenkins notes, “virtually all comment on the Mumbai massacre has mentioned 9/11 and al-Qaeda.” There is an old saying that ignorance leads to fear — and most Americans are ignorant of the nature of terrorism.

Although nearly all of today’s terrorists are fanatical Muslims, terrorism is not an Islamic threat. Although all of these terrorists receive indirect inspiration from a twisted version of their religion, most of their direct motivations are more realistic and localized. Osama bin Laden was upset that Saudi Arabia allowed the United States to use the country as a base of operations during the first Gulf War. The recent attacks in Mumbai seem to be result of the Indian-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir and the alleged mistreatment of Muslims in India. Terrorism in Iraq — defined as attacks against civilians, not against the U.S. military — is essentially a civil war both between the Sunni and Shi’a sects of Islam as well as between political and tribal factions fighting for power. But why do terrorists use this method of warfare? Well, to be blunt, it is effective.

But the rhetoric from the U.S. government and American media outlets hides this fact. They have turned “the terrorists” into a single, giant, black monster with tentacles that can stretch everywhere — even into suburban America. But this gives way too much credit towards various, individual groups of ragtag zealots hiding in caves and basements thousands of miles away.

Americans, do not be afraid. Live your lives as through 9/11 never occurred. Ehyeh besder.

Terrorism in Mumbai

Stratfor, an international-affairs think tank, foresees hightened tensions following this week’s terrorist attacks in India:

If the Nov. 26 attacks in Mumbai were carried out by Islamist militants as it appears, the Indian government will have little choice, politically speaking, but to blame them on Pakistan. That will in turn spark a crisis between the two nuclear rivals that will draw the United States into the fray.

Although India, logically, will need to respond forcefully to assure the country’s people — voters, in othe words – that such an attack will not happen again, the problem is that Pakistan can do little to stop Islamic fundamentalists within their midst. After all, this is a country that has little authority over the western part of the country that borders Afghanistan — and the place where, most likely, Osama bin Laden is hiding.

This is why it is so dangerous: India must respond, but Pakistan is too weak to stop the extremists. India and the United States have also become closer ever since the War on Terror began (and as a result of globalization). It does not help that several Americans, including a rabbi and his wife, were killed in the attacks. Israel, which also has ties with India and the United States, also had several citizens who died or are currently missing. Israelis, a courageous people who usually fear nothing, have tended to ignore government warnings not to travel to places like Sinai or India at certain times, but now they make think otherwise. The fact that the terrorists targeted Chabad, an Orthodox Jewish group with offices in every location in the world that tries to help Jews in foreign countries and fight local poverty, is a sign that Muslim extremists will even target Jewish targets that pose no conceivable threat at all.

This coming week will reveal what will happen in one of the most unstable parts of the world.

2025

What will the world look like in seventeen years? See here for the U.S. Department of National Intelligence’s answer.

India and the Moon

What happens when a country with a moon-worshipping religion sends a rocket there? See here.

Letter From Israel: The Optimistic Future

Eighth in an ongoing series

RISHON LEZION, Israel – I was mugged twice in the nine years that I lived in Boston. After seeing the reactions of nearby Bostonians at the time and Israelis to whom I have told the stories now, I can understand why Israel is more secure than people realize.

—
Copley Square and East Boston

Boston is usually safe – as long as one is not alone in parts of the Dorchester and Roxbury neighborhoods at night – because it is a college town. Roughly one-fourth of the city is comprised of people between the ages of 18 and 22. People walk around at night, even alone, and everyone normally feels safe.

While I was working at my first journalism job out of college in 2002 as a staff reporter for The Boston Courant, a weekly neighborhood newspaper, I was on my way to the Copley Square subway station to cover a Boston Public Health Commission meeting in the Fenway neighborhood. On the way, I stopped to have a cigarette before walking down the stairs to the station. (Yes, it was a bad habit. Kids, don’t ever start.)

Two young men walked up to me, and I can only describe them as stereotypical ghetto thugs. (I hate to describe them in this manner, but it is necessary to set the scene accurately.) One was a small-but-built guy who wore baggy clothes, and the other was a large, fat guy who needed to lean against a post next to me because he had obviously smoked too much marijuana.

The first guy stood right in front of my and stared into my eyes. “What do you have in your pockets?” he demanded in a rough, menacing voice. I froze, partly out of surprise and partly out of fear. I reached into my pocket and pulled out the pack of cigarettes. “That’s all,” I said with a shrug. He grabbed it out of my hands, and the two thugs walked away. I was glad that I had intentionally not mentioned my wallet and mobile phone.

The thing I remember most about this experience is that it happened at rush hour. There were dozens of people within a few hundred feet, and no one said or did anything. After the two guys walked away, I looked around because people were looking in my direction. Everyone nearby lowered his head and turned away when we made eye contact.

Two years later, I found myself alone on the Fourth of July because I had just flown back from visiting my family in Illinois. My friends were out of town, so I went to a neighborhood pub in East Boston to celebrate. I was walking home when two men, seemingly out of the blue, grabbed me from behind, held me by the shoulders, and placed a knife across the front of my neck. I offered my wallet and cell phone, which they took and then ran away. As I stumbled home (my legs felt half-paralyzed out of shock), I saw that a small group of people were lounging on their front porch not very far away. They had done nothing to help. In addition, I was obviously shaken and possibly stumbling, but they did not even ask whether I was all right.

—
A Single Community

In several of my prior letters, I described the strong civil society that has developed in Israel as a result of Jewish tradition and tribal identification, along with the history of the communal farms named kibbutzim and the desire to unify in the face of numerous, perceived threats. I fully realized this while telling the two prior stories to my Israeli friends.

Israelis are shocked and horrified to hear that no one helped me while I was being mugged (or possibly something worse). They told me that, in Israel, if someone were being attacked on the street, every single
person nearby would run over to help – and most likely, to be blunt, kick the crap out of the bad guy. Everyone looks out for everyone else. (It also helps that nearly all Israelis have some degree of army training as a result of the mandatory military service after high school here. As I heard it put once somewhere, an Israeli has more courage in his finger than most people have in their entire bodies.)

In addition, violent crime is also extremely rare in Israel. In the eight months that I have lived here, I have yet to see a news report on a random mugging, murder, or rape. Despite what people in the West see on the news, Israel is extremely safe. Terrorism has been extremely rare for years, and more people die in traffic accidents each year than the number who have been killed in all wars and terrorist attacks combined. Most violence is either related to the Russian mafia, traffic accidents, or drunken brawls in bars. No one, for example, ever breaks into a random house and kills or rapes the person inside. Everyone walks around at night, even alone. On some level, everyone looks out for everyone. Statistically, Israel is safer than most major American cities – the chance of being killed in a suicide bombing might be one in ten thousand while the chance of being murdered in many parts of the United States might be one in five thousand.

In major American cities, a person can feel alone even though he lives among millions of people. This never happens in Israel. People are care about everyone (unless they work in customer service). It is hard to describe the level of open affection in interpersonal relations in Israel to someone who has never been here, but I will try.

People are warm and friendly to a degree that I have never seen anywhere else. During conversations, people touch and hug each other all the time. Everyone (even men) embraces and kisses on the cheek when they meet someone – sometimes even if it is for the first time. Just the other night, a good male friend of mine gave me a hug from behind and a kiss on the shoulder when he saw me sitting at a local pub. Whenever someone is eating at a restaurant or somewhere in public, nearly everyone who passes by – whether he is a friend or stranger – will tell him, “Behteyahvon!” This is the Hebrew phrase that roughly translates to “Bon appetite!”

At first these differences are uncomfortable to people who, like me, grew up in the United States, where people have larger amounts of private, personal space between each other and people, especially men, are less affectionate in public (or at all). But after one becomes used to the cultural differences, it becomes very heartwarming and endearing.

While I wrote about some discouraging trends in modern Israeli society in my prior letter, it is still true that people here are generally friendly and warm (most of the time). After all, Israelis tend to believe, to varying degrees, that they only have each other in the entire world.

The primary reason that I am optimistic about Israel’s future is that I have seen and understood the Israeli mindset. The close, civil society here brought Israel through threats of extermination in the wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973, as well as through two intifadas and sixty years of a turbulent existence. Israelis can get through anything – even the political, social, and religious differences described in my prior letters – because they know that they will always have each other.

Still, many of the specific problems I have mentioned seem to be improving, especially when one compares Israel today to decades ago.

—
Brighter than it Seems

– Israel is much more secure. Although Israeli and American conservatives always claim that Israel is constantly facing threats to its very existence, this is no longer true. If Israel had lost any of the wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973, the country would likely have been invaded and destroyed by the surrounding Arab countries. (Many Israelis began digging their own graves in 1967, and rabbis started reciting Psalms in the Israeli legislature.)

However, everything has changed with most of countries that border Israel. The Jewish state is at peace with Egypt and Jordan. Iraq is no longer a threat since the United States toppled Saddam Hussein. Saudi Arabia is pursuing a peace plan to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Lebanon is occupied with its own internal battle with Hizbollah. Despite Syria’s connection to Iran, the country is having peace talks with Israel. Syria’s military alone is no match for the Jewish state.

Israel does face threats from Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hizbollah in southern Lebanon. However, these terrorist groups do not threaten Israel’s existence. Rockets fired into southwestern and northern Israel do kill a few people and cause minor damage in those places, but they cannot destroy the country. Since Israel built the controversial separation barrier between Israel proper and the West Bank, the number of suicide bombings has fallen to practically zero. (Suicide bombings, although horrific, cannot destroy a country either.)

– Iran will not nuke Israel. The Jewish state would face an existential threat from Iranian nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic extremists in the country’s government. But Israel will never let that become a possibility. The Jewish state destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981 and (allegedly) Syria’s in 2007. Israel, with or without U.S. assistance, will do the same to Iran. This country does not — and cannot — take threats lightly.

– Everyone knows how to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Except for Israeli and Palestinian extremists, nearly all people agree that a peace plan will have the following: an Israeli withdrawal from all or most of the West Bank, a division of Jerusalem, and a cessation of terrorist attacks. The problem is with implementation: Minor, ultra-Orthodox political parties in Israeli governing coalitions veto any of these withdrawals, and the Palestinians have been fighting a low-grade civil war amongst themselves between the Fatah and Hamas political parties.

However, the fact that the vast majority of Israelis now recognize what a peace plan must entail is a good start. As the conflict continues year after year, more and more Israelis and Palestinians will start to move towards the center. No one, no matter how much of an ideologue, wants to live in a pressure-cooker forever. In the end, practical reality usually trumps impractical idealism.

– Israeli society is becoming less fractured. As I wrote in a prior letter, there has been much social strife and division between Ashkenazi Jews (people with a European-Jewish culture), Mizrahi Jews (people with a Middle East-Jewish culture), and non-Jewish Israelis like Russians and Arabs. But this is slowly dissipating.

Israel is a small country, so everyone interacts with everyone all of the time. So people from these different communities frequently fall in love and have children. Now, for example, I have friends here who are half-Polish and half-Moroccan, half-Indian and half-American, and half-Iraqi and half-Romanian. The terms “Ashkenazi” and “Mizrahi” are increasingly obsolete.

When non-Jewish Russians moved to Israel following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s through a loophole in immigration law, they faced much discrimination. But their children, now in their teens and early twenties, are as Israeli as Jewish Israelis. The first language of these non-Jews is Hebrew, not Russian. Their personalities are very Israeli, not Russian. As a result, they are just as Israeli as secular, Israeli Jews, and they fit into society very easily.

Although it will always be difficult for Arab Israelis to feel at home in a Jewish state, I think they are slowly moving in that direction. For example, I once saw a group of Arabs sitting in a hospital while I was visiting a friend’s family member there. Surprisingly enough, they were speaking Hebrew amongst themselves. This can only be a good sign.

– The influence of the ultra-Orthodox might be decreasing. As I wrote in a prior letter, religion in Israel is extremely polarized. Everyone is either completely secular or wholly Orthodox, and even the Orthodox world is divided:

    • Modern Orthodox (also called National Orthodox in Israel) Jews live in the modern world while remaining completely observant. They are also the primary inspiration behind the settlement movement in the West Bank.
    • Charedi (also called Ultra-Orthodox) Jews live in isolated neighborhoods and block out the outside world while rejecting any modernization of Judaism. While they do not recognize the State of Israel, they still rely on government subsidies instead of working to pay for their children, and they control most of the official religious establishment. (I discussed them in my first letter.)
    • Hasidic Jews who are very mystical and believe that their founding rabbi is the Messiah, even though he happens to be dead.

The ultra-Orthodox movement has been very harmful to Israel. They receive little secular education, they do not serve in the military, they work very little, they have numerous children (sometimes ten or more), and they survive on taxpayer dollars (er, shekels). Their rabbis in government positions are increasingly discriminatory against all other forms of Judaism, even other types of Orthodox Judaism. In charedi neighborhoods, people will throw stones at you if you drive through there on Shabbat or do anything else that violates Orthodox Jewish law.

But the pendulum might be starting to swing in the other direction. Incoming Prime Minister Tzipi Livni might be able to form a governing coalition that does not, for once, include Shas, the most powerful ultra-Orthodox political party. The finance minister passed a budget over charedi objections this year that did not increase the amount of money ultra-Orthodox families receive each month to pay for their children. Moreover, the charedi communities are not self-sustaining. Many of them have relied on wealthy parents and grandparents, but those funds are disappearing as the older generation passes away and the money is spent. Once the ultra-Orthodox community starts to lose influence, then Israel can start to move towards the center religiously.

– The economy is gaining strength. Israel is largely a desert that is devoid of natural resources, so the country has had to rely mainly on one asset: Israeli brains. As a result, the country has become a worldwide leader in fields like high-tech and biotechnology that is on the same level as Silicon Valley and Bangalore, India. Israel is a country that is succeeding in a globalized world.

As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman once theorized, no two countries that have a McDonald’s have ever gone to war with each other.* The reasoning is that countries need to have a large middle class to have fast food establishments, and a place with a stable middle class wages war less often. (When people have more stuff, they are less willing to risk losing it through conflict. People are more willing to fight if they have nothing to lose.)

Well, Israel has many McDonald’s and Burger Kings. As a result of Israel’s growing economy, the country is generally becoming richer (although the gap between the rich and poor is also rising). Since the middle class is growing in Israel, it is likely that the public will generally be more willing to make necessary sacrifices for peace. This is also why it is important for the international community – and Israel – to help improve the Palestinian economy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as well. If there were many McDonald’s in Gaza, perhaps the Palestinians there would be less likely to support Hamas.

—
Signing Off, For Now

Well, this seems like an appropriate place to end my series, at least for now. I will be flying to the United States soon for a few weeks, and I’ll be back in Israel in November. It will be interesting to see what will happen over the next several months.

* The recent war between Russia and Georgia may be an exception.

Addendum: In response to this essay, a friend in Boston e-mailed me to say that the city is becoming more violent — people are now assulted in broad daylight in Downtown Crossing. This is very sad.

Prior letter: No Way Out (or, Stuck in the 1970s)

Haggling at the Pyramids

CAIRO — When I recently visited Egypt for the first time, I told everyone I met that I was an American from Boston. It was not a lie, but it was not the complete truth. Perhaps I was being paranoid, but I did not want to say that I was a Jew and an Israeli as well. (I said that I was from Boston because few Middle Easterners know southern Illinois, where I was raised.)

I received one major reaction, which I expected. Everyone thought I was rich, and everyone wanted my money. (Well, truth be told, even poor Americans are rich compared to most Egyptians.) I have gotten used to haggling ever since I moved to Israel in January, but I had never seen anything as aggressive as what I saw at the Pyramids and a belly dancing club. It was on the same level as the children I saw in India who followed me around for twenty minutes, trying to sell me a wooden, coiled snake and constantly lowering the price every few minutes.

I was touring the Pyramids with three friends, and a dozen or so Egyptians came to us over the few hours that we were there. They offered us cheap trinkets, rides on camels, and fake Arab clothing. Usually I ignore people like this, but I did want the tourist experience: I wanted to get some souvenirs and pictures of me on a camel.

One man walked up to me, grabbed my hand, and led me to his camel, which was standing ten feet away. Without saying a word, he made the camel sit, and he gestured for me to get on top of the animal. He put a turbin on my head and gave me a staff to hold, and then he asked, in broken English, for my camera so he could take a picture. I gave it to him.

After I was finished, I started to get off the camel. The whole thing took about two minutes.

“Please give me fifty U.S. dollars!” he said. I gestured for him to wait while I disembarked. I almost laughed in his face. I gave him thirty Egyptian pounds, about six dollars, and he looked very dismayed.

“No dollars?” he asked, somewhat irritated.

“No,” I said in Arabic. “Egyptian pounds.”

“Can you give me thirty more pounds for the camel?” he asked.

“Camels don’t need money,” I said with a shrug as I began to talk away.

“Okay, okay,” he said as he caught up with me. “Twenty is okay.”

“Enough,” I told him in Arabic. “No.” And I left.

Then, a short while later, I was walking through another part of the site when a teenage boy approached me and, without a word, he started adjusting the fake, white, Arab headdress that I was wearing after I had bought it from some random souvenir seller.

“I am not giving you any money,” I told him sternly.

“It’s okay, it’s okay,” he said. After he was done “fixing” the headdress, he walked in front of me and beamed.

“Now you look like Egyptian, not Arab,” he said. (Perhaps he thought Americans are too ignorant to know that Egyptians are Arabs.) He grabbed my hand and started guiding me towards his camel.

“No,” I told him in Arabic. “I told you I am not giving you any money.”

He pointed to the headdress. “Please, sir, can you give me fifty dollars?”

“No.”

“How about euros? Can you give me euros?”

“No.”

“Okay, my friend, I will take twenty Egyptian pounds.”

“No,” I said another time. “Enough. I told you: no money!”

He looked down and pointed towards my pocket. “You have money there, I see it!”

“No.”

Then he pointed towards a pack of cigarettes that I had in my other pocket. “Can I have a cigarette?”

“No.”

As I walked away, I saw out of the corner of my eye that he was extremely angry. I could empathize. I had only been walking in the Egyptian desert for an hour, and I felt pretty uncomfortable. And I’m fairly used to the Middle East by now.

Still,  I was getting so flustered by each haggler that I wanted to yell at them in Hebrew because that language is similar to Arabic. But I figured it would not be a good idea. So I remained a polite American and declined in English.

Seeing the Future

Once again, Thomas Friedman gets it right:

There has been much debate in this campaign about which of our enemies the next U.S. president should deign to talk to. The real story, the next president may discover, though, is how few countries are waiting around for us to call. It is hard to remember a time when more shifts in the global balance of power are happening at once — with so few in America’s favor.

The world is rapidly changing from a unipolar world to a multipolar one. Other countries are rising while the United States is stagnating or even falling. The economies of China and India are skyrocketing upwards, while America teeters on the brink of a recession. In a world in which demand for resources is rising while supply is falling, the countries that can provide oil, natural gas, and coal — like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Brazil, and Russia — will become much more powerful until alternative energies are found. Money is power, and these countries will continue to become wealthier as the prices of these resources continue to rise. (Remember the law of supply and demand?) Once the countries in the European Union can reform their economies, that region will also rise to become an economic power that can rival or surpass the United States.

Again, I must ask: Which presidential candidate is going to be blunt and honest with the American people? Which candidate is going to address — and propose solutions to — the fundamental problems that are plaguing the United States? The upcoming presidential election should be about more than silly lapel pins.

Pricing and Marketing

RISHON LEZION, Israel — Goldman Sachs senior investment analyst Abby Joseph Cohen has some advice for the country:

“Israel should focus on the creation of an economy based on the quality of the products it manufactures and not on their low price,” said [Cohen] at the Israel President’s Conference hosted by President Shimon Peres today…

“Israel should base its economy in a way to preserve a stable and growing economy. The model of low pricing is not suitable for Israel. The economic model that suits Israel is a model that mainly produces high-quality products. Investors see Israel as a magnet for investment because of the success of its start-ups. Investment has quadrupled in recent years.”

The price that a business lists for a product or service is not only relevant towards revenue; it is also an integral part of marketing. If a product has an extremely low price, overall sales will increase, but people will perceive the quality of the product to be low. If a product has an extremely high price, sales will decrease, but people will believe the product to be superior. (If a person buys a $1,000 bottle of wine, he will believe that the wine is inherently better — even if he knows nothing about wine — than a $20 bottle.)

Israel faces an economic delimma: Should it follow the China and India’s lead by marketing itself as a country whose labor costs are low, or should it bill itself as a country that produces high-quality (though expensive) products, particularly in the high-tech industry?

Cohen is correct. Israel should choose the latter option. As Israel grows, its cost of labor will be unable to compete with other countries that are less developed. Wages and inflation are increasing in China and India, so global companies will likely outsource to other countries that are even less developed in the future. As the dollar continues to fall against the shekel, U.S. companies will earn less and less profit (in dollars) by outsourcing to Israel. (The only exception is in a niche market: I know several outsourcing companies here that employ native speakers of English — and pay them absurdly low wages — to work in sales and other areas for client businesses in the United States.)

The high-tech industry is Israel’s core competency and unique product quality – the country is on the same level as Silicon Valley and Bangalore, India. Israel needs to leverage this fact. If Israel produces high-quality goods at higher prices, then wages will increase here as a result. When wages increase, people will spend more money in Israel — and that will bolster the rest of the economy as a whole.

Telling the Truth

RISHON LEZION, Israel – Thomas Friedman, as usual, hits the nail on the head:

We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes…

We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.

Who will tell the people? We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.

Friedman gets it. But will Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or Barack Obama get it?

I live in a country where most people dry their clothes on clotheslines. To use only as much energy as is necessary, I flip a swith to heat the water a half-hour before I take a shower and then turn it off immediately afterwards. (Every bathroom has these.) Toilets have two different levers to flush, so people use only as much water as needed. People drive small cars, not SUVs. The country is investing in many different forms of alternative energy (primarily solar). People live more simply; they don’t need the biggest house, the latest fashions, or the newest mobile phone.

Developing countries are revamping their entire infrastructures while America’s is falling apart. High schools in the United States cannot compete with those in Europe and Asia. China and India are transforming their economies while America’s is unraveling. (That is what happens when a country’s primary form of economic growth is a result of consumer spending and people going into debt.) The United States increasingly borrows from other countries (including China) to finance its growing debt. It is now the United States’ turn to learn from other countries.

The American people voted Jimmy Carter out of office after he told them some uncomfortable truths. I don’t think they would make the same mistake again.

Letter from Israel: What is Israel, Anyway?

Second in an ongoing series

JERUSALEM — There’s an old joke among Israeli Jews: it’s easier to pray for the ingathering of the exiles than to live with them.

Israel, like the United States, is a nation of immigrants. If an Israeli is not an immigrant himself, then most likely his parents or grandparents came from places as varied as Germany, Russia, Morocco, Iran, and New York. Modern Hebrew is known as the only language that children teach to their parents – children born here are naturally fluent, but their parents usually know it as a second or third language.

But there is a crucial difference between Israel and the United States. Neighborhoods, cities, and regions in America are usually comprised of one or two ethnic groups. The southwest is increasingly a Hispanic area. Boston has historically been Irish and Italian. Many people in my hometown in southern Illinois are German.

However, Israel is an extremely small country compared to America; it is roughly the size of New Jersey. As a result, every city, neighborhood, and apartment building is a mix of people from all over the world. Everyone must try to live together in a tight environment, but they do not always succeed. Each ethnic group has its own worldview, culture and religion, and these mentalities often conflict. If you ask five Israelis for their opinions, you will get six answers.

But before I explain the conflicts in Israeli society, I need to set the stage by drawing a picture of the different ethnic groups in Israel and how they came here.

—
Israeli Jews

After Judea was destroyed by the ancient Roman Empire in 70 C.E., the surviving Jews were forced into exile. Some went to Europe. Some went to Spain, northern Africa, and neighboring Arab countries. Some stayed in the Middle East. Over the subsequent centuries, each Jewish community developed its own cultural, ethnic, and religious flavor.

The Jews of Europe became known as Ashkenazi Jews, they developed the Yiddish language, and they tended to resemble other Europeans in appearance over the centuries as a result of intermarriage and conversion. They know European (and later American) history and culture, and they have Western mentalities. Ashkenazi Jews developed many diverse types of Judaism: Haredi Judaism (the ultra-Orthodox Judaism described in my last letter), mystical Hasidic Judaism, and non-Orthodox types of Judaism like Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism. In the nineteenth century, Ashkenazi Jews founded the secular, Zionist movement that aimed to re-establish the State of Israel someday. Of course, the most significant event in European Jewish history was the Holocaust: Roughly one-third of the Jews in Europe died.

The Jews who fled to Spain following the destruction of Judea became known as Sephardi Jews. For centuries, Spain was divided between Islam and Christianity, and Jews were usually caught in the middle. In the late 1400s, the Christian king of Spain finally defeated the Muslims and united the country. However, there was a side effect. In 1492, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella gave all Jews and Muslims a choice between three options: leave the country, convert to Christianity, or die. (Columbus was not the only person to leave that year.) A sizable number of Jews did convert, but most left Spain to settle in Jewish communities in various places throughout the Arab world. A few resettled in the South America and other countries as well.

The Jews who moved to neighboring Arab countries after the destruction of Judea became known as Mizrahi Jews. For centuries they lived among Muslims in relative peace. A little-known fact: Jews, in general, were historically treated better in Arab countries than in Christian Europe until the twentieth century. (Spain was not the only country in Europe by far to expel Jews.) Mizrahi Jews are Arabs in culture but Jews in religion: their food, their mentalities, their dress, and their physical appearances can be virtually indistinguishable from those of Arabs. Their first language became Arabic. Most Sephardi Jews eventually moved to Arab countries, so the terms “Sephardi” and “Mizrahi” are now interchangeable in Israel.

There are two other Jewish communities that have moved to Israel in the past several years: black Jews from Ethiopia and Indian Jews from India. The communities had claimed that they were descendents from the ancient lost tribes of Israel, and DNA testing confirmed that they are descended from Jews in the Middle East. Most of these communities have decided to move to Israel.

—
Other Israelis

Roughly twenty-five to thirty percent of Israel’s population is not Jewish: primarily, they are Muslim and Christian Arabs, as well as non-Jews from Russia. Each of these groups has a story to tell.

The largest minority group in Israel is the Arabs. When Israel was founded in 1948, some of the Arabs in the region known as Palestine fled to neighboring countries (and, in some instances, the Israeli army forced them to leave at gunpoint). Others stayed in their towns, which were eventually located inside Israel once the borders were drawn. Israeli Arabs are full citizens under the law – Arabic is the second official language of Israel, and an Arab political party sits in the legislature. Arabs, however, do face constant discrimination and suspicion from other Israelis who consider them to be a fifth column. (One exception: Arab residents of East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed from Jordan after the war in 1967, are permanent residents, but they are not citizens. They are free to travel and work inside Israel, but they cannot vote.) Some Israeli Arabs have committed terrorist acts over the years, but the vast majority of them just want to live their lives peacefully.

When the State of Israel was re-founded in 1948, the country’s founders wanted to encourage Jews from all over the world to move here. Under the law, any Jew who requests Israeli citizenship can receive it. However, the law also permits anyone who is at least one-quarter Jewish to receive automatic citizenship as well – even if he is not Jewish himself. (In other words, anyone with just one Jewish grandparent can become an Israeli citizen.) The reason: Adolf Hitler aimed to kill anyone who had at least one Jewish grandparent – even if he was not Jewish himself.

However, this part of the law drastically changed Israeli culture after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Once people were allowed to leave Russia, many non-Jewish Russians immigrated to Israel simply because they happened to have a Jewish grandparent and a desire for a better life. Now, as a result, Israel is partially comprised of a large number of Russians who are not Jews, who do not care about Judaism, and who barely speak Hebrew. In fact, at least one Russian-Israeli teenager even founded a neo-Nazi group in Israel recently and assaulted a few religious Jews in an Israeli city. (He was quickly arrested.) As a result, the government may change the law and close the loophole that allows non-Jews to become citizens, and Israel’s leaders are also facing calls to deport the teenager and strip him of his citizenship.

—
Forming a Country

Following the destruction of Judea in 70 C.E., a few Jews had always lived in the region known as Palestine. Many Arabs lived here as well. Ashkenazi Jews began moving from Europe to Palestine in the nineteenth century, and many Holocaust survivors later moved to Israel in the 1940s and 1950s. Shortly after Israel was founded in 1948, many neighboring Arab countries expelled the Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews who had been living in their countries, and they eventually moved to the Jewish State. Israel also had to use military operations to airlift several Jewish communities out of some hostile, Arab countries. Eventually, Jews from Ethiopia and India moved to Israel. After the victorious Six-Day War in 1967, many affluent American and European Jews moved to Israel. Tens of thousands of non-Jewish Russians arrived in the 1990s.

Take all of these communities, place them in an extremely small pot, and stir quickly. That’s the recipe for Israel. But how can one create a functioning country – not to mention a civil society – out of such diversity?

This is another difference between Israel and the United States. America has largely been successful in assimilating its immigrants over the years because the United States is a country that was founded not on religion or ethnicity, but on ideas – specifically, the ideas that are described in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. A person’s ethnicity and religion do not matter – a person can believe in these ideas regardless of whether he is white or Hispanic, Christian or Muslim.

But modern Israel was founded on Judaism, an idea that is an ethnicity and a religion. What this mean for citizens who are not Jews? What does a Russian Christian, a Muslim Arab, and a European Jew all have in common besides the fact that they hold an Israeli passport? What is the status of non-Jews in a Jewish state? What unites all Israelis regardless of ethnicity and culture? These are questions that have yet to be answered.

Still, Jews in Israel are extremely divided even among themselves. Ashkenazi Jews from Europe are generally wealthier and better educated than Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, and this difference resembles the racial divide in America because Ashkenzi Jews have lighter skin tones than other Jews here. Ashkenazi Jews frequently work white-collar jobs at Israel’s top high-tech firms; Arabs and Sephardi Jews tend to work blue-collar jobs in food service and as day laborers.

The divide between Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews presents itself most significantly in a metaphorical question: Is Israel a European or Middle Eastern country? Is it East or West?

The Zionist founders of Israel were European Jews, and the country has developed a parliamentary democracy that resembles those in most European countries. Israel has friendlier relations with Europe than with other countries in the Middle East. The country’s soccer team plays in the European league (and not the Asian one). Israel’s high-tech companies frequently work with Silicon Valley in America.

However, a majority of Israeli Jews are now Sephardi Jews because that community tends to have more children. More people now eat various Middle Eastern foods including falafel, shawarma, and couscous rather than the foods favored by Ashkenazi Jews like latkes (potato pancakes) and matzah ball soup. At the risk of sounding stereotypical, most Israeli Jews culturally act more like Middle Easterners than Europeans: they yell, haggle, debate, and banter all of the time. Israelis are a very emotive people: to paraphrase New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a calm discussion between two Israelis sounds like four Americans having a livid argument. It’s hard to put into words, but my readers who have traveled to the Middle East should know what I mean.

Still, the ethnic and cultural divide between Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews is nothing compared to the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But that’s the complex topic for my next letter.

Prior letter: The Ultra-Orthodox; Next letter: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The New Wars of Religion

The Economist, in its current issue, has published a series of articles on religion and conflict in today’s world. Here is the first article. The series is your required reading for the day.

Mr. Scott Goes to Washington

WASHINGTON, D.C. — I just spent the last five days in the nation’s capital with my Executive M.B.A. class from Suffolk University. We attended a business and public policy seminar that was organized by The Washington Campus, a consortium of several universities throughout the United States.

We explored issues including the political process, lobbying, budgetary policy, campaigns, trade and international policy. I agreed that all discussions were “on background,” so I cannot identify the specific officials with whom we spoke. But I can discuss what we learned — and it was a great deal.

Before I leave for Israel tomorrow, I wanted to share some of my experiences with my readers. I thought that I had already possessed an extensive knowledge of national politics, but I admit that I was wrong.

Congress as a Microcosm of America

If you think that Congress is comprised simply of Democrats and Republicans who form “Blue” and “Red” teams, you would be wrong. This impression, I’ll admit, is largely formed by the media — and it is incorrect. The media, when reporting on politics, focus on conflict because that is what sells newspapers.

However, the reality is much more complicated. The first priority of all politicians is to be re-elected, and that forces each congressman or senator to represent the views of his constituents as accurately as possible. Party identification, in many respects, is less of a priority — and representitives from similar disticts who are members of different political parties are more likely to vote similarly than differently.

A congressman from Manhattan will reflect socially liberal and an fiscally conservative views regardless of his party affiliation – because that is what his district wants. A Republican from Oregon will be more likely to in favor of environmental protections than a Democrat from the Detroit, one of America’s industrial centers. A senator from North Carolina will vote against tobacco taxes and regulations because that is what his constituents favor — and not because of contributions from tobacco lobbyists. (More on this later.)

However, things are not as idealistic as they seem. As we learned in a Congressional campaign simulator, there are competing choices and priorities that constantly face our elected representitives. Say a senator is a Republican. The Republican Party wants the senator to vote for a certain project even though that project will hurt the senator’s state. What should he do?

The easy answer, of course, is that the senator should buck the party leadership and vote to defend his state. However, if the senator does this on every issue, then he will alienate his party and never have the opportunity to pass other legislation that will benefit his state. If the senator constantly votes with the party and ignores his state, then he will surely lose at election time. So the senator must balance these competing priorities.

Still, Congress usually tends to reflect the United States. We have social liberals from the northeast, libertarians from the west, social conservatives from the south, and economic liberals from the midwest. We have elected officials that represent people of every race, religion, ethnicity and political view. And all of these competing worldviews and standpoints conflict during each and every vote. The end result, at least ideally, is that the final vote reflects the will of a majority of the American people.

Lobbyists as Good Guys?

Following the numerous scandals that have occurred in Washington, D.C. over the past decades (see here for a list), the American public understandably views lobbyists as a poison that is killing our democratic process. But is that a distorted picture? We listened to lobbyists as they defended themselves.

Yes, there are lobbyists for corporations and political viewpoints, and a common question from “ordinary Americans” is: “Who represents me?” The answer, as we learned, is “probably several lobbyists.” For example, I am a graduate student, a Jewish person, a marketing professional, and a (well, former) journalist. There are lobbyists for each of these concerns, and the same likely holds true for every single person in the United States. Every single person, organization, company, issue and affiliation has at least one lobbyist representing — or perhaps even advocating for or opposing – him in front of Congress. So the lobbyist industry, like Congress itself, are a microcosm of the diverse United States.

Secondly, lobbyists say that they provide valuable information to the legislative and executive branches of government. Government officials are very busy, and neither they nor their staffs have the time to research complex issues comprehensively. An individual lobbying firm, however, devotes itself to a single issue entirely. So they have a wealth of information and analysis to give to elected representitives that they can use to make decisions. In this view, who would you rather have recommend an environmental policy: an elected official who knows nothing about water pollution or a lobbying firm that studies that issue?

Thirdly, the effect of campaign contributions is largely overstated. Yes, lobbyists give money to politicians. But most people assume that this is an attempt to get a congressman to change a vote. In reality, lobbyists give money to politicians who already support their views in the first place. The money follows the ideas, not the other way around. Besides, as one lobbyist told us, these firms have an interest in acting ethically. No one wants to go to jail, and a lobbyist will lose his job the moment his ethics are called into question.

Signing Statements

A former Bush administration official who had worked on legislative issues discussed the operations of the White House, but I was more interested in his views on signing statements (when a president refuses to enforce certain laws passed by Congress or decides to interpret them in a different way). Here was the (admittedly biased) question I posed:

What is the Constitutional justification for the Executive Branch disregarding or altering Acts of Congress? Is it not the Judicial Branch — and not the Executive — that has the sole authority to interpret Acts of Congress?

The official, of course, did not give a direct and concise answer to my specific questions. He said that both the Legislative and Executive Branches will push for laws that support their preferred policies, and that this issue will ultimately be decided by the courts.

Iraq and the Middle East

We had the opportunity to discuss the war in Iraq with three different people. The first was a congressman who has traveled throughout the Middle East and reported to the White House on his observations. In one instance, this congressman said he reported to President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with other senior officials.

A classmate of mine asked the congressman to describe the White House’s reaction to his thoughts. The congressmen said he was unable to give specific details out of respect for the frankness of the exchanges, but he did add that White House officials seem to be more interested in hearing evidence that confirms their policy proposals rather than listening to an objective analysis. The congressman predicted that the White House would soon withdraw troops from stable parts of Iraq, like the Kurdish region in the north, but he could not predict any other developments.

I asked the congressman to summarize and then opine on the Bush administration’s policy on Syria, Hamas and Hizbollah — all of which pose a threat to Israel this summer. The congressman’s view was that the White House does not really have a policy on these concerns because Iraq is the all-encompassing issue.

Later, on another day, we had a panel discussion (and debate) between Democratic and Republican operative on the issues of the day. I asked the first (again, biased) question:

The primary justification for the war in Iraq was that Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction posed a severe, imminent threat to the United States. This was the reasoning under which Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq, and all other justifications came later. As we all know now, Iraq posed no threat to the United States. So, I have two questions:

1. Is not the only logical conclusion, then, that our soldiers are dying for a mistake?

2. Why do you think we invaded Iraq?

The Democratic operative, perhaps surprisingly, stated that she supported the war in Iraq, as did most Democrats. But I was more interested in the Republican’s response. His initial response was that al-Qaeda is in Iraq and that the country “is a front in the War on Terror.” I quickly corrected him by stating that neither was true prior to the United States’ invasion. Then, the operative made a logical point: if the United States withdraws from Iraq, then al-Qaeda will spin that as a victory and use it to inspire other extremists and terrorists. He is correct, and this is why Iraq is such a difficult issue: We should never have invaded, but we cannot leave now. (I used to support a full withdrawal, but now I’m not sure.) So what do we do?

Neither operative, of course, answered my second question. I’m not sure anyone outside of President Bush’s inner circle knows the true answer.

“Democrat” and “Democratic”

A pet peeve of mine, mainly from a linguistics standpoint, has been the increasing tendancy of Republicans over the past decade to refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Party” even though it is grammatically incorrect. I think it’s a cheap shot to score a few political points.

We met with the chief of staff to a longtime Republican senator to discuss the role his position serves in government. (Essentially, he’s the COO – he carries out all decisions made by the politician and runs the office.) But I wanted to ask whether this political tactic was indeed invented by Newt Gingrich. The chief of staff stated that Gingrich is not organized enough to institute such a change. (I doubt that.) Rather, one Republican misspoke in the past, and the Democrats were so annoyed that the GOP simply continued to call the party by the wrong name because the reaction on the left was so hilarious to them. I’m skeptical.

The Future Economy

Frequent readers of my blog know that I’m apprehensive about the future economic vitality of the United States. (See here and here and here.) When we listened to a speaker from the Federal Reserve and a former one from the Treasury Department, I asked them for their opinion.

The Federal Reserve official said he could not comment because the bank was currently studying those issues. But he did stay that the prior and current chairmen have routinely warned Congress and the White House about the dangers of the federal government’s mounting debt. The former Treasury official said that my fears were accurate and that it would be up to my generation to lobby the government to make major changes before it was too late. I don’t think I need to comment further.

The former Treasury official did provide the quote of the week in response to budget data put out by presidential administrations: “I wouldn’t believe them if their tounges were notarized.” It is so hard to analyze such a complex economic entity as the United States that nothing is entirely accurate. Moreover, politicians are under intense pressure to make the economy look good.

We did learn that the Federal Reserve faces a stark choice when it comes to raising and lowering interest rates: a high interest rate generally stops inflation while slowing economic growth while a low interest rate does the opposite. The question is when to do what. Throughout the world, central banks seem to be favoring a tight monetary policy — that is, a higher priority is placed on stopping inflation than on fostering economic growth. A slow economy is less bad than high inflation. However, some inflationary factors are largely outside the scope of the government. We’ll see what happens.

—

Well, this is my last post before I leave for Israel tomorrow. I could write forever about The Washington Campus experience, but I need to pack. I’ll see you in Tel Aviv.

Four Years of Oil Left?

Is “Peak Oil” going to occur within four years? Read this.

Londonistan Calling?

In the new issue of Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens discusses radical Islam in Britain. See here. Hitchens is also interviewed about the article here.

Odds and Ends

• Joshua Stacher and Samer Shehata think that the United States should talk to the Muslim Brotherhood, an opposition Egyptian political and social organization that is banned by the government. Once Hosni Mubarak is gone, the U.S. may have no choice but to deal with them as the governing party.
• Deval Patrick may have the greatest amount of power within his state than any governor in the United States, Dave Denison writes. Will this be good for Massachusetts?
• When the Baby Boomers retire, they will want to sell their houses. But who will buy them? There aren’t enough Generation Xers who can purchase all of them. Plus, Generation Y will be unable to afford homes because of their debt-laden lives and the high cost of housing. My guess is that prices will remain increase slightly at best – or possibly remain level or even fall if supply is larger than demand.
• Samuel Zell, who made billions in real estate, says he sees “inefficient markets” in the newspaper industry and may be able to fix the ones he may purchase. Good luck.
• James Scurlock says that Americans are “maxed out” from hard times, easy credit and predatory lenders.
• Shashi Tharoor has given up on trying to get Americans to like cricket. I’ve tried — but I always go back to baseball. The home opener for the Red Sox is in fifteen days.
• Do American voters want star power more than experience in their presidential candidates?

Correction or Recession?

As anyone with a portfolio knows, the Chinese stock market tumbled nearly ten percent last week. In response, worldwide markets fell as well.

Now everyone is playing the prediction game: Will the markets of China, India and other emerging markets implode because they are overhyped and overpriced? Is this a repeat of the “dot-com” crash? Will the U.S. economy enter into a recession?

My two cents: no, not at all, and perhaps.

The Chinese stock market is trading at a price/earnings ratio of close to 40. A moderate range for stocks is between 15 and 20. So the market had been due for a significant — and normal –correction. China Mobile, one example of a widely owned stock, fell from $51 to $43 — yet it’s still priced at 23 times earnings. Further declines, but smaller ones, are likely. India, as the Economist recently noted, will also slow slightly to combat rising inflation.

But these declines do not resemble the “dot-com” era at all. In the late 1990s, investors poured money into companies that had an idea and a website even though they were not earning any profits. As a result, stock prices skyrocketed — and then collapsed.

However, companies in China, India and elsewhere are growing increasingly successful and are reaping larger and larger profits. Their growth rates are leaving the United States behind. The foundations and financials of most companies are solid. In the long-term, the stocks will general continue to rise.

So, no, long-term investors should have nothing to fear. The Chinese and Indian markets will not plummet and take the United States with them. Still, America does have other reasons to worry about an impending slowdown or recession: We need to get our finances in order.

The Decline of the American Superpower

The United States will likely lose its status as the world’s sole superpower in the forthcoming years because the country is losing its dominance in two of the three traditional types of power: military and economic (the third form is cultural).

The U.S. military has become bogged down in Iraq, and its operations in Afghanistan have been less than successful. Moreover, the country has lost its appetite for expensive foreign entanglements. Military recruitment is declining, and those on active duty or in the reserves have had already served multiple tours of duty.

The U.S. economy is losing its status as the economic powerhouse of the world. This country is a mature economy, and the GDP growth rates of emerging markets — China, India, Russia, South Africa, Brazil, among others — are now double or triple ours. Chinese consumers now purchase more goods from around the world than Americans. Within decades or even years, the euro may replace the dollar as the dominant currency.

Power, of course, abhors a vacuum. And others are lining up to take a share of America’s status in the world. Russia makes grumbling noises and threatens to cut off Europe’s oil supplies. Europe is circling the wagons by becoming the European Union. Iran is trying to become the dominant Muslim power in the Middle East (rather than Egypt, Iraq or Saudi Arabia). China wants to establish friendly relations with the Middle East because the country needs their oil to maintain its skyrocketing growth. Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, is becoming good friends with Fidel Castro.

The bad part about being the sole superpower is that you have many enemies. And if those enemies unite against you, then you may have a problem. We’re going from a unipolar world to something else entirely — and no one can be certain what that will be.