About what Norman quoted (maybe it has already been said), number three is the sanction that stings:

– deny Syrians suspected of being associated with terrorist groups access to the U.S. financial system: well a citizen of any national (not only Syrian) suspected of being associated with terrorist groups are banned in the US and denied access to all US systems (financial or otherwise) anyway.

They are using this to target not al-Qaida activists (they’re already sanctioned and hunted enough), but key figures in the regime. Among those who have had any existing US accounts frozen and whose bank/business interests are being hounded both publicly and below the line of sight, are Rami Makhlouf, Assef Shawkat, Maher Assad, Hafez Makhlouf, Mohammed Nassif Kheirbek, and others of that calibre. This definitely troubles the regime itself, since their personal assets (and/or patronage networks) may come under pressure. On the other hand, such targeted “smart sanctions” do no obvious damage to Syria’s economy or to ordinary Syrians, and I can actually see good reason to keep them in place or at least to sell them at high cost.

Other forms of non-targeted sanctions are, as pointed out, idiotic and counter-productive. When or if they work, they hit ordinary Syrians, and in so far as they don’t have effect, they instead provide political cover for the regime’s poor economic record. And yes, I think this was a routine roll-over, nothing else. The US wouldn’t lift sanctions for free even under Obama, but now they may be willing to discuss realistic terms for it. Unfortunately, those terms are likely to be more about getting Syrian cooperation on Palestine, Iraq or Lebanon than about domestic freedoms and reform…

Joshua,
Thanks for quoting my note,

Alle,

Syria is moving on economic reform , It might not be as fast we all like , but is moving faster than in the last 30 years,

Political reform will come later when Syria is not being threatened by a civil war from forign interference through buying votes as it is in Lebanon , so when Syria is guaranteed non interference in it’s politecal process , we will see more freedom on that point,

About the Syrians spending less than 3% on education and culture , Could that be because Education is free and most people send their kids to free public schools to university level,

Most cultural events are out on TV immediately and watched free, that could explain the lack of expenditure on cultural events.

The syrian regime is tested,by renewing the sanction,there is hope,nothing more than hope,Mitchell will visit Syria,to present demands, and ask for concessions.
the assets of high officials,will not be unfrozen,till the tribunal exonerate th Assad family.

Obama should strengthen the sanctions. Bashar is getting worse not better.

As Syria Comment and the owners of this website continue to “chase their tails” trying to discern why the US administration is still imposing sanctions on Syria (posts about the “famous” rabbi Mark Gopin notwithstanding), one only has to read an article today in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/10/AR2009051002242.html?hpid=topnews

Isn’t freedom of speech wonderful?

Syria is still using terrorism as the main tool of choice in conducting her foreign policy.

Where’s Sy hersh?

It is fairly clear why the sanctions remain in place: Syria has not changed. The sanctions are intended to produce changes in Syrian behavior. Syrian behavior has not changed, therefore, the sanctions remain. Analysts can look deeper than this, however, that is the heart of the matter.

IPSOS opinion poll: Arabs, US, Obama and more:

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=4385
.

Alle

and/or patronage networks

Slam dunk on spot, good one. And good short and insightful comment.

“The heart of the matter” Chris, is that the United States has many of the so called “friends of Israel” …

“friends of Israel” are the most experienced and successful lobbyists for “Israel”.

“Israel” is … all the way to the right. There is no Labor or Likud politician, there is a nation that is still quite confident that it can convince its big American friend to see almost everything in the Middle East the way Israel wants America to see it.

This will change … because the United States will not be able to continue to pay the steep price. The trillion dollar Iraq war is only one example.

Syria will wait patiently until that change takes place, during the Obama administration’s term hopefully, but there is no rush.

—–

Here is how peace loving Israeli politicians word towards peace:

Trivializing the Holocaust

by Uri Avnery, May 11, 2009

First of all, I want to apologize to all the good women who are engaged in the world’s oldest profession.

I recently described Shimon Peres as a political prostitute. One of my female readers has protested vigorously. Prostitutes, she pointed out, earn their money honestly. They deliver what they promise.

Israel’s president, on the other hand, only tells the truth by accident. He is a political impostor and a political sham. To him, too, apply Winston Churchill’s words about a former prime minister: “The right honorable gentleman sometimes stumbles upon the truth, but he always hurries on as if nothing has happened.” Or the words of former minister Amnon Rubinstein about Ariel Sharon: “He blushes when he tells the truth.”

Like a traveling salesman offering a counterfeit product, Peres is now peddling the merchandise called Binyamin Netanyahu. He presents to the world a Netanyahu we have never known: a peacemaker, the epitome of truthfulness, a man with no other ambition than to go down in history as the founder of the state of Palestine. A Righteous Jew to outshine all Righteous Gentiles.

However, all these lies are nothing compared to trivializing the Holocaust.

In some countries, that is a criminal offense, punishable by prison. The trivializing has many guises. For example: the assertion that the gas chambers never existed. Or: that not 6 million Jews were killed, but only six hundred thousand. But the most dangerous form of minimizing is the comparison of the Holocaust to passing events, thus turning it into “a detail of history,” as Jean-Marie Le-Pen infamously put it.

This week, Shimon Peres committed exactly this crime.

Like a lackey walking in front of the king, strewing flowers on the road, Peres flew to the U.S. to prepare the ground for Netanyahu’s coming visit. He imposed himself on a reluctant Barack Obama, who had no choice but to receive him.

Posing as a new Winston Churchill, the man who warned the world against the rise of Nazi Germany, he informed Obama with solemn bombast: “As Jews we cannot but compare Iran to Nazi Germany.”

About this sentence at least three things must be said: (a) it is untrue, (b) it trivializes the Holocaust, and (c) it reflects a catastrophic policy.

Does Iran really resemble Nazi Germany?

I don’t like the regime there. As a committed atheist who insists on total separation between state and religion, I oppose any regime based on religion – in Iran, in Israel, or in any other country.

Also, I don’t like politicians like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I am allergic to leaders who stand on balconies and declaim to the masses below. I detest demagogues who appeal to the base instincts of hatred and fear.

Alas, Ahmadinejad is not the only leader of this type. Indeed, the world is full of them; some are among the staunchest supporters of the Israeli government. In Israel, too, we do not lack this sort.

But Iran is not a fascist state. According to the evidence, there is quite a lot of freedom there, including freedom of expression. Ahmadinejad is not the only candidate for president in the present election campaign. There are a number of others, some more radical, some less.

Nor is Iran an anti-Semitic state. A Jewish community, whose members are refusing to emigrate, is living there comfortably enough. It enjoys religious freedom and has a representative in parliament. Even if we take such reports with a grain of salt, it is clear that the Jews in Iran are not being persecuted like the Jews in Nazi Germany.

And, most important: Iran is not an aggressive country. It has not attacked its neighbors for centuries. The long and bloody Iraq-Iran war was started by Saddam Hussein. It may be remembered that at the time Israel (contrary to the U.S.) supported the Iranian side and supplied it with arms. (One such transaction was accidentally disclosed in the Irangate affair.) Before the Khomeini revolution, Iran was our most important ally in the region.

Ahmadinejad hates Israel. But it has been denied that he has threatened to annihilate Israel. It appears that the crucial sentence in his famous speech was mistranslated: he did not declare his determination to wipe Israel off the map, but expressed the opinion that Israel will disappear from the map.

Frankly, I don’t think that there is such a great difference between the two versions. When the leader of a big country predicts that my state will disappear, that makes me worry. When that country appears to do everything possible to produce a nuclear bomb, that worries me even more. I draw conclusions, but about that later.

Moreover, Ahmadinejad – unlike Hitler – is not the supreme leader of his country. He is subject to the real leadership, composed of clerics. All the signs indicate that this is not a group of adventurers. On the contrary, they are very balanced, sophisticated, and prudent. Now they are cautiously feeling their way toward dialogue with the U.S., trying to reach an accord without sacrificing their regional ambitions, which are quite normal.

In brief, the speeches of one demagogic leader do not turn a country into Nazi Germany. Iran is not a mad country. It has no real interests in Israel/Palestine. Its interests are focused on the Persian Gulf area, and it wants to increase its influence throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Its relations with Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas mostly serve this purpose, and so does the anti-Israeli incitement of Ahmadinejad.

In brief, the comparison of Iran to Nazi Germany lacks a factual basis.

From the Jewish point of view, the comparison is even more objectionable.

The Holocaust was a unique crime. True, the 20th century has seen other terrible acts of genocide, but they did not resemble the Shoah. In the Ottoman empire, a horrifying massacre of the Armenian citizens took place, which amounted to genocide. Hitler himself mentioned it, saying that the annihilation of the Jews would similarly be forgotten. Stalin killed millions of Soviet citizens in the name of a monstrous ideology, which had started as a humanist creed. So did Pol Pot, who killed millions in order to change society for the better. In Rwanda, members of one tribe slaughtered the members of another. And, alas, the list goes on.

But Nazi Germany was unique in employing the instruments of a modern industrial society in order to eliminate helpless minorities (let’s not forget the Roma, those with disabilities, and homosexuals) in a prolonged, planned, and highly organized process, with the participation of all the organs of the state. If the Nazi regime had not been overthrown by war, Hitler would have continued with the annihilation of many more millions of Poles, Ukrainians, and Russians.

Nothing like that can reasonably be expected to happen in Iran. Neither the ideology nor the composition of the regime nor any other indication leads in that direction. As far as its growing nuclear capabilities are concerned, the Israeli deterrent power will prevent any such thought from arising. (Let’s not forget that the only country ever to use nuclear bombs in war was our friend, the USA.)

Nothing that is happening in the world today resembles the Shoah, in which six million Jews were wiped out. The Palestinians did not kill six million Israelis, and we did not kill 6 million Palestinians. Comparing the Arabs to the Nazis is no less odious than comparing the Israelis to the Nazis. Many terrible things have been and are being committed in our name – but they are as far from the deeds of the Nazis as the earth is from distant galaxies.

Any such comparison for the sake of some fleeting propaganda advantage is trivializing the Holocaust and its perpetrators. If the Nazis were not worse than the ayatollahs, then the Shoah was not so terrible, after all.

In all my contacts with Palestinian leaders, including Yasser Arafat, I have always advised them to avoid this upsetting comparison. This would also be good advice for our own leaders.

Does the comparison of Iran to Nazi Germany serve Israeli interests?

Iran is there. It was our ally in the past, and may be our ally again in the future. Leaders come and go, but geopolitical interests are more or less constant. Ahmadinejad may be replaced by a leader who will see Iranian interests in a different light.

The nuclear threat to Israel will not disappear – not after a (bad) speech by Peres nor after a (good) speech by Netanyahu. All over the region, nuclear installations will pop up. This process cannot be stopped. We all need nuclear energy to desalinate water and to produce electricity without destroying the environment. As an Israeli professor, a former employee in the nuclear center at Dimona, said this week: we must reconsider our nuclear policy. It may well be to our advantage to accept the demand of the American spokeswoman that Israel (as well as India and Pakistan) join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and a regime of strict supervision.

President Barack Obama is now saying to Israel: Put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is a precondition for the elimination of the threat to Israel. When the Palestinians, and the entire Arab world, make peace with Israel, Iran will not be able to exploit the conflict for the furthering of its interests. We were saying this, by the way, many years ago.

The refusal of Netanyahu-Lieberman-Barak to accept this demand shows the insincerity of their arguments about Iran. If they really believed that Iran posed an existential menace, they would hurry to dismantle the settlements, demolish the outposts, and make peace. That would, after all, be a small price to pay for the elimination of an existential danger. Their refusal proves that the entire existential story is a bluff.

And concerning the comparison of Iran to Nazi Germany: it is as convincing as the comparison of Shimon Peres to Sir Winston.

I think it was mostly, domestic politics. He would stand to look weak against terror, combine that with closing of gitmo, Rush and Cheney would have a field day.

Alex,

Are you saying that Syrian behavior wasn’t a critical factor when policymakers thought about the sanctions? It sounds like you believe that Syria’s behavior is irrelevant and that the single greatest reason for the sanctions remaining in place is lobbying by “friends of Israel,” your euphemism for jews. Sorry to ruin your conspiracy theory Alex, but the formation of U.S. foreign policy is a bit more complicated than that. Moreover, “friends of Israel”, like all other groups in American society, including Cuban-Americans, Armenian-Americans, Greek-Americans, gun-owners, retired people, religious christians, gays & lesbians, unions, have a right to participate in the political process. They can do this through a myriad of ways, among which is sending people to Washington, DC to effectively communicate their concerns to congressman, i.e. lobbying.

It is great to see that this moderator of a blog on the Middle East has decided to put Israel in quotes. What’s next, will you tell us that Syria ought to include Cyprus?

I feel somewhat but not totally at ease with the SC moderator.

It is great to see that this moderator of a blog on the Middle East has decided to put Israel in quotes.

Chris,

cc: Alex

At least Alex can say, “Some of my best friends are Co-Directors of Peace Studies”. ;0)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Well Chris … when I write an opinion, it has nothing to do with the way I moderate the comments section. When was the last time you had an issue with my moderation? … The last few months you left 100 times more comments than I did. Did you notice?

As for my use of quotes for “Israel” and “friends of Israel” …this is because I don’t think they are friends of Israel … they are friends of sick ego and friends of conflict and violence.

I am not a fan of the Cuban lobby or the gun lobby either. But don’t worry … This is just my personal opinion … it does not change a thing.

And “Israel” today is not the Israel I can accept anymore .. I am more than happy to see Syria living in peace with a peaceful Israel … but today’s “Israel” is an aggressive, arrogant, selfish country that elects violent criminals and racists to its leadership… a country that thinks that through slick lies (like those of President Peres) it will be able to continue to fool everyone into thinking today’s “Israel” is interested in peace.

When today’s “Israel” and the “friends of Israel” in Washington understand that they have no way but to learn to respect their neighbors then I will be happy to go back to Israel, without the quotes.

Don’t worry … I have not changed my acceptance of Israel’s right to live in its UN recognized borders of pre-1967.

It is your newly elected prime minister Netanyahu and your newly updated president Peres who are again trying to go above international law.

And finally … We are hearing again that sanctions against Syria are extended because among other things, Syria failed to control its border with Iraq.

Well .. compare that to Egypt then:

MI Chief: Gaza smuggling continues, despite Egypt’s efforts
By Yuval Azoulay

Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin said on Tuesday that despite Egypt’s increased patrol along its border with the Gaza Strip, the smuggling of weapons into the coastal territory has not been stymied.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1084991.html

Alex is no longer a Zionist (pass the tissues)

… but today’s “Israel” is an aggressive, arrogant, selfish country that elects violent criminals and racists to its leadership…

Alex,

Thanks for finally telling us how you really feel.

And “Israel” today is not the Israel I can accept anymore ..

Alex,

Please tell me and the rest of the forum when you DID accept the State of Israel, and exactly when did you change your point-of-view?

After spending a few minutes collecting and writing your thoughts on that, then ask us if we believe you.

Alex (the moderator) wrote:
“… today’s “Israel” is an aggressive, arrogant, selfish country”

Your vitriolic comments and the virulence of your hatred for Israel is not surprising. What is surprising is that the co-director of the center for peace studies at the University of Oklahoma would choose a person who holds such views to moderate his blog.

In the spirit of peace and coexistence, I think I’ll be voting for Israel, which chose to send Mira Awad, in the Eurovision Song contest this weekend.

Your vitriolic comments and the virulence of your hatred for Israel is not surprising. What is surprising is that the co-director of the center for peace studies at the University of Oklahoma would choose a person who holds such views to moderate his blog.

Alex’s beliefs about Israel are irrelevant to how he moderates Syria Comment. The very fact that supporters of Israel like AIG, Akbar Palace, & yourself are regular participants in the comments section is proof enough that Alex’s hostility towards the current Israeli leadership does not interfere with his commitment to a free & open discussion. I, for one, appreciate the work the administrators have done in making SC one of the best sites to go for civil discussion of the Mideast.

Peter,

“The very fact that supporters of Israel like AIG, Akbar Palace, & yourself are regular participants in the comments section is proof enough that Alex’s hostility towards the current Israeli leadership does not interfere with his commitment to a free & open discussion.”

There was a time when I was banned from this site because I had been too critical of the Syrian regime. I believe AIG has also been banned from participating on this site. So, it is not so clear to me that politics doesn’t come into play when it comes to the moderation of this site.

You refer to Alex’s hostility to the current Israeli leadership. Was there a time when Alex wasn’t hostile to the Israeli leadership of the time? After reading that comment of his, I get the feeling that he hates Israel and “Israel’s friends” (euphemism for jews) in the US rather than simply the current leadership.

Chris,

You are out of line ,in what you said about Alex.

Thanks Peter and Norman.

First, this comment has nothing to do with me being the moderator.

I have not done much moderating recently anyway.

Chris

You hate Muslims .. you hate Syrians .. you hate Arabs.. you hate God.

This is how outrageous you sound when you accuse me of hating Jews.

If “there was a time” you were banned, then how come it was followed by months and months of allowing you here unedited? … do you know that Israelis write more comments than Syrians on … Syria Comment?

Akbar,

I have accepted Israel within internationally recognized pre-1967 borders since I was a teenager. When today’s messed up “Israel” is ready to realize that inevitable eventual solution, I will be happy to recognize it.

Can you remind me the last time you DID understand a thing here? … I always wondered if you are merely pretending that you don’t understand, but your confidence shows that you really believe in what you are writing… amazing.

The two of you:

One of the reasons I am confident that today’s extremist and arrogant “Israel” will be forced within few years to learn to be more mature and more wise, is that after interacting with the two of you, and after I listen to President Peres turn into a genuine used car salesman, and after I got to appreciate the fine qualities of your country’s top diplomat (the Foreign minister) I realize that “Israel” in not in good hands …

End of personal comment.

—————-

Now as a moderator:

Any problem you have with moderation, send an email. No more disrupting the comments section. Any comment you add that is not respecting my wish, I will delete it. If you persist, you will be banned immediately.

And needless to say, you are free to discuss any serious and useful issues as much as you want. No one will ban you if you are

Alex,

You wrote: “As for my use of quotes for “Israel” and “friends of Israel” …this is because I don’t think they are friends of Israel … they are friends of sick ego and friends of conflict and violence.”

Are you seriously telling us that your reference to “friends of Israel” isn’t a reference to American jews? Oh and by the way, if someone is calling a people “sick” , as you did, and stating that they are friendly to violence and conflict, as you did, would it be odd to get the feeling that that he hates the people in question?

I hate violence .. I don’t hate people.

You probably do not understand Chris.

Those who claim they are “Friends of Israel” include tons of Christian politicians and journalists…

Ask any American politician if he is a “friend of Israel” … tha vast majority will say that they are.

So do I hate Christians too?

Here is the same from former speaker of Knesset, I hope he is not also a hater of Jews, is he Chris?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/15/comment

The end of Zionism

Israel must shed its illusions and choose between racist oppression and democracy

* Avraham Burg
* The Guardian, Monday 15 September 2003 11.31 BST

The Zionist revolution has always rested on two pillars: a just path and an ethical leadership. Neither of these is operative any longer. The Israeli nation today rests on a scaffolding of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice. As such, the end of the Zionist enterprise is already on our doorstep. There is a real chance that ours will be the last Zionist generation. There may yet be a Jewish state here, but it will be a different sort, strange and ugly.

There is time to change course, but not much. What is needed is a new vision of a just society and the political will to implement it. Diaspora Jews for whom Israel is a central pillar of their identity must pay heed and speak out.

The opposition does not exist, and the coalition, with Ariel Sharon at its head, claims the right to remain silent. In a nation of chatterboxes, everyone has suddenly fallen dumb, because there’s nothing left to say. We live in a thunderously failed reality. Yes, we have revived the Hebrew language, created a marvellous theatre and a strong national currency. Our Jewish minds are as sharp as ever. We are traded on the Nasdaq. But is this why we created a state? The Jewish people did not survive for two millennia in order to pioneer new weaponry, computer security programs or anti-missile missiles. We were supposed to be a light unto the nations. In this we have failed.

It turns out that the 2,000-year struggle for Jewish survival comes down to a state of settlements, run by an amoral clique of corrupt lawbreakers who are deaf both to their citizens and to their enemies. A state lacking justice cannot survive. More and more Israelis are coming to understand this as they ask their children where they expect to live in 25 years. Children who are honest admit, to their parents’ shock, that they do not know. The countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun.

It is very comfortable to be a Zionist in West Bank settlements such as Beit El and Ofra. The biblical landscape is charming. You can gaze through the geraniums and bougainvilleas and not see the occupation. Travelling on the fast highway that skirts barely a half-mile west of the Palestinian roadblocks, it’s hard to comprehend the humiliating experience of the despised Arab who must creep for hours along the pocked, blockaded roads assigned to him. One road for the occupier, one road for the occupied.

This cannot work. Even if the Arabs lower their heads and swallow their shame and anger for ever, it won’t work. A structure built on human callousness will inevitably collapse in on itself. Note this moment well: Zionism’s superstructure is already collapsing like a cheap Jerusalem wedding hall. Only madmen continue dancing on the top floor while the pillars below are collapsing.

We have grown accustomed to ignoring the suffering of the women at the roadblocks. No wonder we don’t hear the cries of the abused woman living next door or the single mother struggling to support her children in dignity. We don’t even bother to count the women murdered by their husbands.

Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centres of Israeli escapism. They consign themselves to Allah in our places of recreation, because their own lives are torture. They spill their own blood in our restaurants in order to ruin our appetites, because they have children and parents at home who are hungry and humiliated. We could kill a thousand ringleaders a day and nothing will be solved, because the leaders come up from below – from the wells of hatred and anger, from the “infrastructures” of injustice and moral corruption.

If all this were inevitable, divinely ordained and immutable, I would be silent. But things could be different, and so crying out is a moral imperative.

Here is what the prime minister should say to the people: the time for illusions is over. The time for decisions has arrived. We love the entire land of our forefathers and in some other time we would have wanted to live here alone. But that will not happen. The Arabs, too, have dreams and needs.

Between the Jordan and the Mediterranean there is no longer a clear Jewish majority. And so, fellow citizens, it is not possible to keep the whole thing without paying a price. We cannot keep a Palestinian majority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East. There cannot be democracy without equal rights for all who live here, Arab as well as Jew. We cannot keep the territories and preserve a Jewish majority in the world’s only Jewish state – not by means that are humane and moral and Jewish.

Do you want the greater land of Israel? No problem. Abandon democracy. Let’s institute an efficient system of racial separation here, with prison camps and detention villages.

Do you want a Jewish majority? No problem. Either put the Arabs on railway cars, buses, camels and donkeys and expel them en masse – or separate ourselves from them absolutely, without tricks and gimmicks. There is no middle path. We must remove all the settlements – all of them – and draw an internationally recognised border between the Jewish national home and the Palestinian national home. The Jewish law of return will apply only within our national home, and their right of return will apply only within the borders of the Palestinian state.

Do you want democracy? No problem. Either abandon the greater land of Israel, to the last settlement and outpost, or give full citizenship and voting rights to everyone, including Arabs. The result, of course, will be that those who did not want a Palestinian state alongside us will have one in our midst, via the ballot box.

The prime minister should present the choices forthrightly: Jewish racism or democracy. Settlements, or hope for both peoples. False visions of barbed wire and suicide bombers, or a recognised international border between two states and a shared capital in Jerusalem.

Why, then, is the opposition so quiet? Perhaps because some would like to join the government at any price, even the price of participating in the sickness. But while they dither, the forces of good lose hope. Anyone who declines to present a clear-cut position – black or white – is collaborating in the decline. It is not a matter of Labour versus Likud or right versus left, but of right versus wrong, acceptable versus unacceptable. The law-abiding versus the lawbreakers. What’s needed is not a political replacement for the Sharon government but a vision of hope, an alternative to the destruction of Zionism and its values by the deaf, dumb and callous.

Israel’s friends abroad – Jewish and non-Jewish alike, presidents and prime ministers, rabbis and lay people – should choose as well. They must reach out and help Israel to navigate the road map toward our national destiny as a light unto the nations and a society of peace, justice and equality.

© Avraham Burg

· Avraham Burg was speaker of Israel’s Knesset in 1999-2003 and is a former chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel. Reprinted with permission of The Forward, which translated and adapted this essay from an article that originally appeared in Yediot Aharonot