Journalists, their Expert Opnions and Apologies

  Haaretz journalist, Ari Shavit, admits and apologizes for a mistake, a wrong one. Several years ago he wrote that Israel should retreat from Golan. Now, looking at what is happening in Syria, he believes he was wrong. His mistake,then and now, has not been his view, but in the fact that Haaretz is a sort of mini Stalinist Pravda, where everything is absolutely known, provided the journalist reads and rereads the Short History of the Bolshevik Party by Comrade Stalin.

One cannot find the "apology" of Ari Shavit in the English edition of Haaretz, because it does not fit the Nakhba, or Palestinian disaster, narrative.

The future is a complex unknown state of affairs. Nobody can know with certainty what will happen tomorrow; greatest military leaders of the world, certainly their heads of intelligence could attest to  that. Not only they. The wisest of men, King Salomon, was unable to predict the sectarianism of his kingdom and its division. Rabbi Akiva, one of the pillars of Judaism, did not estimate accurately the power of the Roman Empire. Pericles failed in defending Athens.

In June 1967 in a crucial meeting of Israel Cabinet of War, the vote on attack was 50/50. Levi Eshkol, the Prime Minister, voted for the attack. He had and additional casting vote but decided not to use it. "Perhaps I'm wrong. We can wait few more days." In the evening he spoke to the nation on the radio. He wanted to record his speech, but Haggai Pinsker, the broadcaster who accompanied him, said "Come on, you a professional. We will do it live." Even the wise could not resist flattery. Speaking on the radio Eshkol stuttered for a second, the public saw in it a weakness and was outraged. Eshkol had no choice but to appoint the former Chief of Staff, Moshe Dayan to the post of Minister of Defense.  Israel won the war not because Dayan did anything spectacular during few days, but because Eshkol built and prepared the Army. However in the eyes of journalists and the public Dayan became a semi-God.

Years later in 1973 it became evident that Dayan was the worst Minister of Defense Israel ever had. He lost his head, wisdom and courage. Golda Meir the Jewish grandmother, became the military leader in the war room and saved the country. In spite of that after the victory, she had no choice but to resign.

Journalists lack the skill and the ability to analyze difficult decisions countries are faced with and cannot grasp their complexity. Claiming knowing everything, as they most of the time do, is a stupid lie. They would do better by reporting facts. Their "expert" opinions, or "ideology" in Mr. Shavit's words, should be modest and expressed with respect toward those who are making the real decisions, in addition, always they should provide ten opinions that are different from their "ideology."

ראש חבורת מופז -- לבני -- רמון

אוסיף שתי פרוטות למקהלת פסק דין אולמרט. למען "גילוי נאות", אומר שאהוד אולמרט בהיותו חבר כנסת, כשעוד הדבר היה מותר לחבר כנסת לעסוק בעריכת דין, ואורי מסר היו עורכי דין בחברה שבה עבדתי וייצגו אותה בין היתר במרכז ההשקעות. לא הייתי נלהב מדי משירותיהם.

בהודעות ובשידורים השונים יש בלבול מה בסיכום פסק הדין. 

בכתב האישום שלושה אישומים:

ראשון – ראשונטורס – קבלת דבר במרמה בנסיבות מחמירות. הנאשם זוכה מחמת הספק. 

שני ובו שני חלקים:

    מרכז ההשקעות – הפרת אימונים. הנאשם הורשע.  

    טלנסקי – מרמה והפרת אימונים. הנאשם זוכה. 

שלישי – מרמה כלפי מבקר המדינה. הנאשם זוכה.

ההרשעה בהפרת אימונים במרכז ההשקעות עוסקת בהחלטות הנאשם בעניינם של שמן, מפעל סיליקט, פרויקט נבטים ובזק. בית המשפט מגיע למסקנה שבעניינים האלה אפשר היה להגיע להחלטות טובות יותר וייתכן שאולמרט נהג כפי שנהג בשל הטיה לטובתו של אורי מסר, שותפו לשעבר וחברו שייצג את החברות שהן נשוא פסק הדין.

בית המשפט מתייחס לישראל כאילו זו הייתה פלנטה אחרת. לו חמישה פרויקטים כל שהם של מרכז ההשקעות היו נבחנים לאחר המעשה באותה קפידה שבית המשפט הפעיל, הליקויים היו גם כן כאלה או גרועים מהם. הדברים חייבים בחינה והשוואה למה שקורה בחיים ולא להשקפה אוטופית כל שהיא. לא רק במרכז ההשקעות, אלא גם בכל תחום אחר קשה להעלות על הדעת ולו החלטה אחת של הממשלה שבדיקתה לאחר המעשה לא הייתה מסתיימת בגינוי כגון זה. כפי שבמונחים משפטיים מוסר מוגדר כהתנהגות של ("בריטי") ממוצע, כך ראוי גם להגדיר את התנהגות פקיד או שר, בהכרעת דינו, לפי המקובל ולא לפי מודל אידיאלי כל שהוא. למי שיש סבלונות כדאי לקרוא את פסק הדין ולא לסמוך על העוותונאים ובעלי ספין אחרים.   

סביר להניח שאולמרט רצה במידה זו או אחרת להיטיב עם חברו. אולם מי שחושב, גם בית המשפט, שבישראל אפשר לזכות ביחס כל שהוא של הממשל בלא מאכער, טועה ומטעה. בכל מוסדות השלטון כדי להשיג דבר מה צריך "מקורב" או עו"ד, רצוי "צמרת", לולא כך, מרכז הליכוד או של מפלגת שלטון אחרת לא היה קיים. לא רק מרכז השקעות, גם בביטוח לאומי, כפי מעידות פרסומות אין ספור ברדיו, או בפניות של ניצולי שואה בלא מאכער אי אפשר. בית המשפט לא שאל את הנאשם ולא את העדים, מדוע בכלל צריך עו"ד בפנייה למרכז השקעות. אין בשירותיו שום עניין משפטי, ויצא איפוא גם כן מתוך ההנחה שבלי מאכער אי אפשר. בעצם ההגדרה, מאכער הוא אחד שמכיר את מסדרונות הכוח ואת המחזיקים בו.

הכרעת הדין לא מציגה את השאלה, מדוע אורי מסר, הנהנה לכאורה מיחס מיוחד לא הועמד לדין.

איני חושב שאולמרט הוא דמות מופת בהגינות וביושרה, אולם מעשיו, כפי שהתביעה היציגה אינם אלא סערה בכוס מים.

המשפט הזה החליש את הפרקליטות. כשלונה נבע לדעתי לא מהתנכלות לאולמרט, אלא מהרצון "לנצח" בכל מחיר. 

Misreading Mavi Marmara

No military operation ever proceeded exactly as the military commanders planned. If the perception of the outcome is success nobody cares about what has transpired. If it is a failure, in democracies, there are questions and investigations. Then journalists and experts have a ball. They know better than anybody else, in their capacity as armchair generals, how the military operation should have been performed. Politicians have their ball too, after keeping silent for years now they are complaining that they were not consulted.

The misrepresented by press Report of Israel State Comptroller about the incident of Mavi Marmara is another instance of such ball, or rather mini-party.

With the exception of late press releases by IDF spoke persons, the Report does not point to any wrong decisions by the Prime Minister, the Defense Minister, or the Army. He criticizes the Government for improper decision making process without blaming the decisions themselves. The Comptroller thinks that the Government should have consulted in a better way with one of its departments, the recently created National Security Council, but he states that even if this had been done, the outcome would not have been necessarily better.

According to the Report violence by the Turkish supporters of Hamas was considered and dismissed. The Prime Minister tried hard to convince Erdogan through the US and others not to sponsor the flotilla. He failed because Americans did not act as they should have. The fact of the matter is that American pressure made Turks canceled subsequent flotillas. Be this as it may it was natural to presume no violence, I presume that Turks even promised that.

Militarily IDF failed to give enough weight to the size of Mavi Marmara and the unit that landed there was much too small. The soldiers were attacked because it looked easy to do so.

In every operation which goes awry press relations are difficult, because proper evaluation of facts and course of action is slow. For terrorists truth does not matter, therefore the have an immediate response. For example in the recent Toulouse murder of Sandler children, the murderer had much faster access to media than the French Government and Police.

In few days the Report of Comptroller on Marmara will be forgotten, but the fact that Israel, notwithstanding press and media, has the will and determination to defend itself is well known and remembered.

לחזור לאולפן

פינוי מתיישבים מאולפנה, מגרון וכיוצא בהם נראה מבוך שבו כל אחד ואחד מן הצדדים בונה לעצמו ולשומעיו סיפור שבא להסתיר את העובדות.

הנחת היסוד בשיטת המשפט הנהוגה בישראל  היא שהצדדים נאמנים לשטוח את טענותיהם ובית המשפט פוסק על המחלוקות ביניהם. אין בית המשפט בוחן את הדברים שהעותרים והמשיבים מסכימים עליהם. אדרבה, בית המשפט מעודד את הצדדים לצמצם את החלוקות ככל יכולתם. באין מחלקות, אין בית המשפט בוחן כליות ולב ויוצא מתוך ההנחה שמה שנאמר משקף כוונת אמת.

בעניין שלפנינו לא היו מחלקות לא על הבעלות על הקרקע ולא על החובה להרוס את מה שנבנה עליה. ההסכמה של המדינה לאלה לא הייתה הרהור לב של הפרקליטות או היועץ המשפטי לממשלה ונבעה מהחלטת הממשלה. לא "הקהילייה הבינלאומית", לא אובמה, לא עבאס ולא שלום עכשיו הכתיבו לפרקליטות את ההסכמה להריסת הבתים; ממשלת ישראל עשתה זאת וכל שריה, גם ה"ימניים", שבהם ידעו על כך.

בדיון האחרון שבו המדינה בקשה דחייה נוספת בהריסת הבתים, הפרקליטות לא טענה ששנתה דעתה כיוון שטעתה בעבר, אלא שהחידוש הוא בשינוי מדיניות הממשלה, נימוק שאין בו כל ערך משפטי.

בית המשפט פסק את מה שפסק לא בשל אהבתו לפלסטינים, או בשל שנאתו למתיישבים: הדיון הוכרע טרם עמדות כאלה או אחרות של בית המשפט הגיעו לכלל השפעה. ההתקפה על בית המשפט והאיום בחקיקה כזו או אחרת לא עומדים במבחן של ההיגיון. גם לו הצעות חוק "הסדרה" היו חוק, אם המדינה הייתה מסכימה להריסה, לא הייתה להם השפעה כל שהיא.

המתיישבים סבורים לרוב שבית המשפט הוא "שמאלני" ולכן עדיף להשתתף כמה שפחות בדיוניו ודי בהשפעתם הפוליטית על הליכוד כדי שהעולם ינהג לפי מאווייהם, בשל כך נימוקים משפטיים נגד ההריסה ויש כאלה הרבה, לא נדונו בשום מקום. הפילוג במחנה הדתי הלאומי והבכיינות של מאות רבניו, גם הם השפיעו על המחדל המשפטי. ההתנהלות הזאת כמעט ולא מאפשת שום הליך משפטי בשל שיהוי.

הוויכוח המשפטי שמתנהל בציבור וכאמור לא בבית המשפט עוסק בזכות הקניין "הקדושה" כביכול. מעניין שדווקא השמאל הפך לחסיד מובהק של הקניין הפרטי. מארקס במהופך. אלא שהזכות הזאת כרוכה כפי שכתבה כבוד השופטת בייניש "בשיטתנו". אלא שבשיטתנו זכות הקניין כמו כל זכות אחרת אינה עומדת לכשעצמה אלא היא כרוכה ב"שיטתנו". ב"שיטתנו" יש עוד כמה דברים, למשל חופש לכרות חוזה. אין החופש הזה מתקיים כאן, שכן אפילו היו מציעים לבעלי הקרקע, ועוד לא ברור שהם אכן כאלה, Empire State Building בתמורה לקרקע, עדין היו מסרבים כיוון שהיו נענשים בעונש מוות, לו הסכימו.

החוקתיות של עונש מוות על מכירות קרקע ליהודים צריכה להיבדק גם כן. אם ישראל היא הכובש לפי החוק הבינלאומי הרי ככל הנראה המפקד הצבאי לא מילא את חובתו בהתירו קיום לחוק הזה. אפילו חקיקה עצמאית של הרשות הפלסטינית מותרת לפי הסכמי אוסלו, היא סותרת ככל הנראה את החוק הבינלאומי. מכל מקום החוק הזה הוא בעל חשיבות מכרעת בקיומה או העדרה של מכירת הקרקע ומציאותו איננה "לשיטתנו.”

כיוון שאין בעלי הקרקע חופשיים למכור את הנכס בכל מחיר, אפשר להניח שהאינטרס האמיתי שלהם דורש מכירה בכפייה. מכאן שבית המשפט היה צריך לכפות את המכר לא רק בשל זכויות המתיישבים אלא מכוח דאגה לרווחת בעלי הקרקע. איני יודע מה תהיה הנפקות של הטענות האלה אם יועלו בבית המשפט, אולם עובדה היא שלא הועולו.

נחזור ל"שיטנו". אם בישראל היה מתברר שעסקת מכר כל שהיא הייתה פגומה הוויכוח בין הצדדים היה רק על כסף ולא על עקרונות מופשטים כל שהם. אם בית המשפט מבקש לנהוג "לשיטתנו" ראוי שיתיחס לדברים כפי שהם נוהגים אצלנו ולא בכל מקום אחר.

שאלה אחרת שעומדת על הפרק היא הנזק שנגם לזכויות אדם של המתיישבים לעומת הנזק לבעלי הקרקע, אם בית המשפה יכפה מכר.

המתיישבים צריכים, לדעתי, להגיש צו על תנאי נגד המדינה, על שלא טענה את הטענות האלה ועל שהסכימה שלא כדין עם עותרים על פינוי והריסה. המתיישבים צריכים להסביר את השיהוי בכך שהמדינה שהסכימה עם העותרים, הבטיחה אין קץ פעמים שלא יהיה פינוי, ונסוגה מהבטחתה בנימוק שאו לפיו אינה יכולה להתנגד להחלטה חלוטה של בית המשפט, אלא שהחלטה נובעת מהטעיית בית המשפט על ידי המדינה ולא מכל סיבה אחרת.

המעשה הפגום והמחדל הם מפעל ממשלתי למהדרין. בשל כך גם המתיישבים, גם בעלי הקרקע וגם המדינה יוצאים נפגעים. הניסיון לפייס את המתיישבים ולפצותם בבניית "דווקא" חדשה, מוסיפה חטא על פשע. ישראל צריכה להחליט על בנייה או העדר בנייה ביהודה ושומרון מתוך שיקול עצמאי שאין לו כל קשר להריסה כזאת או אחרת. הקהילייה הבינלאומית זועמת. כל אלה בשל מעשיה של ממשלת ישראל, ממשלת "ימין"? 

Learning from America - United Arab States

America is praised for its democracy, for freedom, for the genius of Federalist Papers, for its Constitution, for stability, for economic and military power and for many other well deserved exceptional qualities. Yet less abstract characteristics, what Alexis de Tocqueville called 'habit of mind,' may explain better its uniqueness.

Holocaust Museum  Washington DC

America has created a vision of nation building without an nationalistic ethos. To be a French, or German, or Russian, or Polish one must carry on his or her shoulders the history, language, culture, sometimes religion, and other attributes, without which one is not considered a full member of the nation. America is different: by some magical process one becomes an American the next day after getting citizenship, and without the immediate burden of culture and history. New Americans may have taken rudimentary citizenship 101 course about George Washington, the Constitution and the Civil War, but they feel American not because of that. Furthermore, usually the new Americans are more patriotic than citizens born there.

When one becomes an American, one is accepted as he or she is. His English may be less than perfect, it doesn't matter. If his sense of humor is unconventional, perhaps perhaps we could learn something new. His clothes are different? So what? Henry Kissinger still retains traces of German accent, but nobody cares. It is hard to imagine French, or Russian Foreign Ministers with less than impeccable French or Russian accents respectively. Did Bashevitz Singer write in Yiddish? Nobody remembers. He is an American Nobel winner, isn't he? He writes about a bygone strange world. It does not matter, we can live it through reading his stories.

What is perhaps more important, America welcomes the ties of new or old Americans with their previous homelands. Those ties become somehow a pillar of American community life. In the past they used to say that a New York politician must visit the three i's: Ireland, Italy and Israel before running for an office. Because of this attitude, after the State of Israel was established, the ties of Jews to the new country seemed natural. In fact they strengthened the status of American Jews as Americans.

Even the language issue of Spanish American is more or less tolerated. Turkish commentator, who recently visited Florida, was wondering how America tolerates Spanish easily while Kurdish in Turkey is almost a sin.

When Arabs become in 'habit of mind' Americans, they reject terror and are open to any discussions which concern the Arab world. CAIR and similar organizations damage Muslims not because of their real or alleged support of human rights but because they make it harder for Muslims to become Americans.

The ability of the people of United States to accept new Americans as equals from day one is, in my mind, the most important quality of the “exceptional” America. Individuals, communities and countries around the world should learn and imitate it not as a tribute to the US, but as first rate service for their own existence.

The hard Left will benefit too from taking a rest from its usual agenda and take a hard look at what their country really is.

The European concept of nation state is quite new. Even in late Middle Age there were no modern nation states. If a Lord of the King of France decided to shift his loyalty to the King of Prussia, all inhabitants of his fief became "Germans" without much ado. The rise of nationalism in the modern age created the concept of nation state, the pioneers of which were Italy and Poland. In this sense Palestinians and almost everybody else are "invented" nations.

The idea of nation state maintained that nation was, or should have been the dominant social structure of the community, more important than any other such structure. The nation was was somehow vaguely defined by ethnicity, language, religion and territory. Since in all countries there were minorities which didn't fit into definition of the "nation," minorities became a key negative factor in defining nationalism. They were the "other," without which nation was, in fact, impossible. They were "not us," and thus a subject of prejudice and hate. There was strong affinity between nationalism and fascism. Most of the new nation states established after the First World War had strong fascistic tendencies. 

Baghdad

The Arab states came into being by strokes of pen of imperialist powers, which defined rather arbitrarily borders according to power politics of France, Britain and to lesser extent Germany and Russia, and according to internal politics of the pretending dictators, monarchs and other rulers. Those states didn't reflect the social structures that mattered to people more than the the artificial states: tribes, religious sects and territorial loyalties. The new Arab states had fascist tendencies because other states had them too, and because such tendencies made life easier for the semi-independent rulers. Furthermore, political parties established at the beginning of the last century in the Arab world, be it the religious Muslim Brothers or the secular Ba'ath looked at fascist Germany and Italy as inspiring models.

The ever simplistic orientalist view of the West presumes that Arab states are God created structures and that "free election" will bring democracy and prosperity, following which there will be a happy beach party. Without preexisting democracy free elections are meaningless. In fact the worst totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century, came about by "free election."

Arabs will have to find by themselves the social and territorial structure. In doing that they should rely to their own culture and history and observe critically the world around. Examining the success of the United States may give them some clues as to why Unites Arab States could become the future success of world history.

Striking Iran: the Decision

None of the Israeli major intelligence services, SHABAK, MOSSAD and Military Intelligence, 

predicted the Arab Spring. After it started they were unable to predict the fall of Mubarak. 

Even now, they do not have a clear idea as to its outcome. In this they are not different 

from other intelligence services, and from the so called experts and journalists. Be this as it may,

the knowledge of what happens next door is of paramount importance to Israel. This 

failure of  of intelligence is not less important than any other such failure in the 65 years of 

Israel's existence. 

Failures of intelligence are in fact failures in analysis of raw, frequently contradictory, data in 

drawing conclusions and making decisions. The process is much wider than strictly 

professional intelligence. Most of the times the failure or success is determined by other 

military and civilian leaders. At the end it is the commander in chief, whatever his or her 

formal title is, who makes the decision. 

In summer of 1973, 44 years old Major Shlomo Baum serving his 30 days annual reserve 

service in Sinai not far from the Suez Canal noticed unusual movements of the Egyptian 

Army across the canal. He reported it to his superior officers, who dismissed the 

information. Baum who knew Ariel Sharon from the famous, some would say infamous, 101 

Unit, called him up. At that time General Sharon was the Commander of the Southern 

Command. Sharon ordered alert. Baum's superiors did as ordered, but complained about 

the unnecessary move, because of friendship of Baum and Sharon. In his memoir of the 

Yom Kippur war Saadat wrote that he planned the war for summer, but the alert of IDF forced 

him to change plans. 

Israeli intelligence was surprised by the war which was launched in October. Newspapers 

blamed the ruling conventional wisdom concepts, which they called the “conception,” or 

CONSEPTSYA, which precluded war. Without concepts thinking, decision making is 

impossible. The concepts must however be constantly evaluated and criticized. Pierre 

Bourdieu in very different context regarded the inability of social and political scientists to 

Commander in Chief

reflect critically on their assumptions and concepts a major weakness of these disciplines.

In the first few days Yom Kippur was, to say the least, difficult for Israel. On the basis of 

the same intelligence the Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan, the adored hero military leader 

and the Prime Minister, the grandma Golda Meir reached opposite decisions. Dayan 

wanted to admit defeat, Meir thought that victory can still be achieved. She became the de 

facto commander in chief, and made strategic and tactical military decisions. 

Truman - against the "wise men"

Many times failures of intelligence stem 

from the fact that heads of such services

do not fully understand, or perhaps 

cannot internalize the rules of decision 

making. Human decision takes place only under uncertainty. 

The future and its consequences are unknown, and

in spite of that a decision has to be taken. 

If everything is known, there is no decision, 

a computer would do the job better. 

In 1948 the US had to decide whether to recognize soon to 

be born the new State of Israel. George Marshall, the 

legendary war hero, whom Churchill called the “organizer of 

the victory,” the originator of the Marshall Plan for Europe, was the Secretary of State. He 

strongly objected to recognition of Israel. The “wise men” in the Department, Acheason, 

Kennan, Bohlen and others supported him, so did the CIA, which predicted that Jews will 

lose the war. Marshall threatened to resign. He insisted that the written protocol of meeting with

Truman will state that he will not vote for him, if overruled. Truman decided to 

Begin - Osiris Strike - against the Mossad

recognize Israel. The strong objections of Marshall 

and the “wise men” are remembered only as a 

footnote to history. 

Meir Dagan, the former head of MOSSAD, and  

Yuval Diskin, the former head of SHABAK do not 

think that failure in the past precludes them from 

continuing to be experts about the future. They claim 

to know what Iran is and how it will respond to attack 

by Israel. 

The fact is, however, that future in the matter of Iran 

is unchartered territory, not only for Israel and the 

United States, but probably for Iran too. 

It will take a missile several minutes to reach Israel. Israel is a tiny country, even if it has a 

massive nuclear capability, second strike may be too late. Is Iran “rational” as some claim? 

Rational or not, it is difficult to understand the rationale of sending children to war with 

formal passport to heaven if they die as it did in Iraq-Iran war, and to figure out what was the 

political or military gain in killing 85 Jews in Buenos Aires in the eighties. 

Will military attack destroy or delay Iran's capability to make a nuclear weapon? Will such 

attack remove the clerics from power? Can Israel rely on the US? How far will Obama go 

with Iran if he is reelected? 

Those are hundreds more questions do not have easy, clear and easy answers. Uncertainty and 

difficulties notwithstanding, a decision must be taken. The commander in chief will have to make

it. 

Against Hate -- Ahad Ha'am for Palestinians

How could a nation rooted in Palestine for well over a thousand years be so easily plucked out and chased away at gunpoint? By now I knew this wasn't because of the inherently superior intelligence or even malevolence of our enemy. What was it then?

I didn't have any answers.

Nusseibeh, Sari with David, Anthony (2007) Once Upon a Country p. 121 Farras, Straus and Giroux New York

I will try to suggest a partial answer.

David (Dolik) Horovitz (1899-1979) was the founder and then the Governor of the Bank of Israel. In 1970, at that time he was 71 years old, he published his autobiography, Ha'etmol Sheli in Hebrew, which means My Yesterday in English. In 1920 he and Meir Yaari, who later became the legendary leader of Israeli Left, were among the founders of a Hashomer Hatzair kibbutz, Beytanya. The book caused a bitter controversy between the two young old men about Talmudic or dialectical shades in semi-private discussions they held 50 years before as if it happened yesterday. They recalled what transpired clearly not only because of outstanding memory and intelligence. The argument was well remembered becaust it dealt with vision and ambition of the allmost teenagers pioneers of the tiny, in present day terms, Third Immigration Wave or Aliyah, of less than 30,000 immigrants that came to Palestine in the years 1918 to 1924. These young men and women wanted to create new forms of personal, social and economic existence not only for Jews but for all humankind. The world knew nothing about them, and even within the world Zionist movement the whole Jewish population in Palestine at that time was a small minority. In spite of all that, the Third Aliyah created, in defiance to all expectations the social, political, ideological and military foundation for the future state of Israel.

The will and determination of a group of people to create new vision is the precondition for its success.

In my mind, the public understanding and poor scholarship missed the real history of the Holocaust. To exist in the Ghetto, in face of death everywhere and keep the family safe for another day called for immensely more bravery and courage than manifested by the conventional glory of military armed heroics. What was most remarkable, in spite of the knowledge that death is a day, a week, or in the best case few months away, is the fact that food and survival were not the only things that mattered for the Ghetto residents. They also created in the dreary reality theaters, schools, libraries and books. They revolted not only against the opressors but against the overpowering hate too.

Eva Sandler lost lost her two children and her husband in the Toulouse murder. In face of the disaster she remained self-composed and kept her trust in God. Furhermore, this remarkable woman obstinately refused to fall into the chaos of hate. “We, the Jews, we are not looking for revenge,” she said. Mass media, the loyal allies to terror, are much more interested in the assassin than in the mother of murdered children and their father. The God of ratings is not interested in honest courage. Mournig with no hate and lust for revenge is much more powerful than ranting of lesser human beings.

The major flaw of hatred is not faulty ethics or even deranged psychology, but the acceptance and confirmation of the alleged or true stereotype that the hated has of the hater. Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg (1856 - 1927), primarily known by his Hebrew name and pen name, Ahad Ha'am, (Hebrew: אחד העם‎, lit. one of the people, Genesis 26:10) in his essay Imitation and Assimilation written in German in 1893 dealt at length with the cultural danger of adopting stereotypes of the “other” nation. Palestinians may learn something from it, rereading it will not damages the Jews either.

Arabs and Palestinians can choose peace or war with Jews. Be their choice as it may, hatred will serve it poorly.

On individual level many Arabs in Israel are most intelligent and and successful. Some of the best doctors are Arabs. As many antisemites who prefer to be treated by Jewish doctors, know, it is not easy to compete with Jewish physicians. Arabs are certainly able of great achievements in community and in nation and state building too. Getting rid of hatred is a step in this direction.

Sari Nusseibeh believes that Jews and Arabs are natural allies. Such view may seem overoptimistic, but Arab success in the long run could become a bridge for the two nations.