Avi Ravitzky Released from Hospital

Happy news for Purim. Prof. Avi Ravitzky was released from hospital today, a year and a half after being hit by a bus in Jerusalem. His recovery is said to be somewhat of a miracle, given the extent of the injury to his head. I wish him a speedy recovery and a return to as normal a life as possible.

Zachor - Remembering Amalek

זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק, בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים. אשר קרך בדרך, ויזנב בך כל הנחשלים אחריך, ואתה עיף ויגע; ולא ירא אלהים. והיה בהניח יהוה אלהיך לך מכל איביך מסביב, בארץ אשר יהוה אלהיך נתן לך נחלה לרשתה, תמחה את זכר עמלק מתחת השמים; לא תשכח.

(דברים כ"ה, י"ז-י"ט)

This is shabbat Zachor, the shabbat before Purim, when we read the portion of the Torah reminding us of Amalek:

Remember what Amalek did to you by the way as you came out of Egypt. How he met you by the way, and smote the hindmost of you, all that were enfeebled in your rear, when you were faint and weary; and he feared not God. Therefore it shall be, when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies around you, in the land which the Lord your God gave you for an inheritance to possess it, that you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget.

(Devarim 25, 17-19)

Like the proverbial elephant, the Jews are a people who do a lot of remembering, and forget (almost) nothing. Every shabbat meal we remember the Creation and the deliverance from Egypt; our holidays are there to remember events from the past; every day we remember our destroyed Temple and pray for it to be rebuilt; our garments act as reminders: the tzitzit reminds us of the 613 commandments; and nature itself performs the same function, as by witnessing a rainbow we remember the divine promise of never again flooding the earth. And yet the commandment to remember Amalek is puzzling. Why Amalek out of all the wars and people that tried to destroy us? Why this particular event?

Rashi's commentary on the story of Amalek in Shemot quotes a parable. A king took his young son upon his shoulders and embarked on a journey. Several times along the way, the son would see an object he fancied and ask his father to pick it up for him, and the father did. After a while, they came upon a stranger and the son asked him: have you seen my father? The father, angry at the son for forgetting who was carrying him and doing all the picking-up for him, let the son off his shoulders. A dog that came along bit the son.

The moral is obvious: Israel forgot God despite all the great things that He did for them and as a result God withdrew His protection for a while and Amalek came along and "bit" Israel. Remembering God when everything is fine is not difficult. Miracles in Egypt, parting of the Dead Sea, food falling from the sky every day; who can forget God when His good acts are so obvious? Yet at the first sign of difficulties in the desert, Israel starts to forget. It's harder to believe in God when things go wrong. Many of us have this notion of a benevolent God sitting in the sky and watching over us, a grandfatherly figure with a long, white beard that protects us from evil. So when evil strikes, we are surprised. We rebel against God and our belief is shaken. We cannot bridge the gap between our expectations of Him and the bad things that happen to us.

The remembering of Amalek is there to teach us that this is a mistaken view of the belief in God. We cannot begin to understand His ways in the world and why bad things happen to good people. We refuse to accept that God does evil (or, more accurately, what we perceive as evil) depite the fact that the prophets told us explicitly this is what He does: "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil; I am the Lord that does all these things" (Yishayahu 45, 7). So when evil happens, we "forget" about God and ask: have you seen my Father? Sometimes, as happened with Amalek, God teaches us a lesson, a hard lesson. It is not the lesson that we are remembering with Zachor; it is the belief in God that we remember. Amalek's "bite" was a wake-up call to remind us that we should not waver in our belief in God, even in the face of harsh realities.

The commandment to remember Amalek can teach us also to beware of absolute truths when coming from the mouths of those that purport to know the link between God's ways and His reasons. All too easily, these people proclaim that "this was the will of God because...". A train hits a bus and children are killed? It was God's will because we don't check our mezuzot. An earthquake strikes? It's because there are homosexuals among us. The government declares its intention to evacuate the Gaza strip from Jews? This will not happen (hayo lo tihyeh, remember?), as it is not the will of God.

The story of Amalek teaches us that we cannot base our belief in God by imposing conditions: if we do X, then God will do Y, and vice versa. Israel made the mistake of asking "have you seen my Father" at the first sign of hardship. We should learn from that and instead of trying God, we should remember and pray for our belief in God to be absolute, regardless of His deeds in the world.

Why the Wife?

I watched a few seconds of the press conference at which Eliot Spitzer resigned. There's something I don't understand: why was his wife there, besides him? Given the circumstances, wouldn't she have preferred to stay home? What is it with politicians insisting that their wives be there in this moment of public humiliation? After all, it's not like there are any doubts and she's standing there to show support for some baseless accusations, right? I can't figure it out.

German at the Knesset

German chancellor Angela Merkel is going to address the Knesset tomorrow, during her visit to Israel. After a loud and public debate, the Knesset House Committee approved today that she can give her speech in German.

More than sixty years after the end of the Second World War, this is still a very touchy subject in Israel. Many people still shun anything that has to do with Germany: they don't buy German products, they don't travel to Germany and they look with disfavour at any rapprochement between Israel and Germany. I have a lot of sympathy and understanding for this position. However, I believe that if the Israeli parliament invited Ms. Merkel to speak, she should be allowed to speak in her own language (arguing that she is technically not a "head of state" and therefore the Knesset by-laws do not apply to her is a disingenuous argument, to say the least).

Modern-day Germany in general, and Ms. Merkel in particular, are supporters of Israel. As Israel's former ambassador to Germany recently pointed out, no other country in the world has gone to such lengths to erect museums and monuments to commemorate atrocious deeds from its history. Germans of my generation are not only ashamed about what their grandparents' generation did, but more importantly, they are educated and knowledgeable about it. Not forgetting the past is the best mechanism we have (although not a guarantee) that similar horrors will not be repeated in the future. Israel should be careful about stepping over that fine and ambiguous line separating rememberance and alienation.

This is not an easy path. I can speak about my own experience. Although my family was not harmed directly by the Holocaust, I still have mixed feelings when I'm in Germany (I used to manag an office in Munich with German employees and I still visit customers there). These feelings often lead to emotional rather than rational thoughts: the announcements in the train stations will suddenly bring up images of other commands being shouted out at rail stations; when speaking with a German I might wonder what his granfather did during the war; and the sight of a motorcycle-riding policeman in uniform, leather boots and all, sometimes sends a shiver down my back.

And yet, when all is said and done, Germany today is a beautiful country with beautiful people. The German they speak was the language spoken by the Nazis but also the language spoken by the Jews. As difficult as it is, one needs to realise this is a complex issue that should be handled with care, and not painted in bold black-and-white strokes.

How (Not) to Become a Cambridge PhD

Yonathan Mendel wrote an article for the latest issue of The London Review of Books on "How to Become an Israeli Journalist". Mendel used to be the Middle East correspondent for Walla (a news website in Israel), but is now pursuing studies at Cambridge (he received a scholarship, along with several other Israeli journalists). By the way, when writing for Walla, Mendel went by the popular shortened version of his name: Yoni; I guess that when you write for the LRB, and definitely when you're a student at Cambridge, using your full name is more appropriately decorous.

Anyway, let's have a look at some of the pearls of wisdom (presented as "truths") offered by Mendel to budding journalists in Israel:

Why is it that a serious article is reporting a claim made by the Palestinians? Why is there so rarely a name, a desk, an organisation or a source of this information? Could it be because that would make it seem more reliable?

I listen regularly to the news on the BBC World Service (1323AM in Israel). When the BBC reports about something happening in my neck of the woods, the report usually ends with: "Israel claims it was only responding to missiles fired from Gaza" or "Israel refuses to disclose details of its military operation". Does that make the BBC unreliable too? What does Mendel expect the article to say: "Ahmed the Dead Terrorist confirmed that it was he that blew himself up in the latest suicide attack?". Would that make the journalist more reliable?

Israel never kidnaps: it arrests.

(This was made in reference to Israel arresting senior Hamas members in response to the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit). Well, guess what: there is a difference. A huge one. When Israel arrests/kidnaps people, it is people who have done something to deserve being kidnapped in the first place. Israel also tells the world who sits in its jails, allows the Red Cross to visit and explains why the arrest took place. Those nice people from Hamas and Hezbollah kidnap at random and then torture the family and the Israeli public by withholding the most basic information about the victim (for example, whehter he's still alive).

The Israeli army never intentionally kills anyone, let alone murders them – a state of affairs any other armed organisation would be envious of.

Indeed, many armed forces around the world can be envious of the painstaking process which the IDF (and the Israeli government) go through before ordering targeted assassinations. The difference is so obvious it embarrasses me to repeat it here (but I do it for those budding journalists): the IDF targets terrorists and occasionally hits innocent bystanders; the Palestinian terrorists intentionally target innocent bystanders.

Another useful word is crowning (keter), a euphemism for a siege in which anyone who leaves his house risks being shot at.

Hmmm... A scholarship to study at Cambridge? The word keter in Hebrew has more than one meaning, Mr. Mendel. One is, indeed, a crown. But another is "to surround" or "to enclose". I wonder how this one slipped past the LRB's editor.

It was curious to watch the newspapers’ responses to the assassination of Imad Moughniyeh in Syria two weeks ago. Everyone tried to outdo everyone else over what to call him: arch-terrorist, master terrorist or the greatest terrorist on earth. It took the Israeli press a few days to stop celebrating Moughniyeh’s assassins and start doing what it should have done in the first place: ask questions about the consequences of the killing.

First, Moughniyeh was an arch-terrorist. As arch as they come. But are Mendi and I following the same Israeli media? The very first news report I heard about the welcome death of Hezbollah's operations chief was immediately followed by a long analysis by a panel of experts about "what next?" and what price Israel will pay for this assassination. Perhaps Mendel suffers from "selective reading" disease? It would not surprise me, as this is a malady many editorialising Israeli journalists suffer from.

And then there are the Occupied Territories themselves. Remarkably, there are no Occupied Territories in Israel... in Israel’s mass media today they’re called the Territories (Ha-Shtachim).

Well, duh! After all, the entire State of Israel sits on "occupied territories" taken from Palestinians (or Syrians) in 1948 and 1967. To be precise, the West Bank and Gaza are not part of the State of Israel and are therefore hardly "occupied". Gaza certainly isn't, not for more than two years now. If anything, Israel proper and the Golan are the classic "occupied territories". Yet somehow I don't see Mendel calling Tel Aviv "occupied territory"; we wouldn't want to let go of all those wonderful coffee places and bars, would we? By the way, I wonder how the Palestinian and Syrian media refer to to Israel.

I could go on, but the point is clear. Mendel's area of study at Cambridge is apparently about the connection between Arabic language and security in Israel. That certainly explains his interest in the subject and his bias towards finding faults everywhere. Fair enough. He would not be the first pseudo-academic to become so obsessed with his field of study as to come up with the silliest ideas (this week's undisputed winner of the title "academic gone silly" is Prof. Shanon from the Hebrew University, but I digress). But what on earth does all this have to do with "how to become an Israeli journalist"?

Clear Air and Plagiarism

I heard on the news this morning that the family of Naomi Shemer, perhaps Israel's most famous song writer, is threatening to sue the city of Tel Aviv for using four words from the song "Jerusalem of Gold" in an ad campaign.

Tel Aviv, among other cities, signed an ecological treaty, and street ads all over the city carry the words avir arim tsalul ka-yayin - "city air as clear as wine". One changed letter in Hebrew paraphrases the opening line from Shemer's song: "mountain air as clear as wine". The family claims this play on words violates copyrights. (For those who don't know, "Jerusalem of Gold" is practically Israel's non-official national anthem; almost every Jewish child around the world will recognize this song instantly.)

I had to smile. A couple of years ago it became known that Shemer confessed, in a letter, that the melody to "Jerusalem of Gold" is based on an old Basque folk song called "Pello Joxepe" that she heard a friend sing. Shemer says this was done inadvertently and the Basque song must have "subconciously" influenced her. Perhaps. But if you listen to the original song, as performed by Paco Ibanez, the similarity is glaringly obvious.

If I were the family of Naomi Shemer I would have been a little more humble and cautious before crying out plagiarism over this particular song...

Built to Sell

I don't usually write about business on my blog. I spend way too much time working, so blogging about work seems a foolish thing to do. But I felt like the following picture, appearing in The Marker this week, deserved a comment:

The background: an young Israeli start-up company, YaData, was acquired by Microsoft. Although the exact amount was not disclosed, it was quoted as being a "very nice rate of return on the investment", which probably means tens of millions of dollars. This is yet another Israeli high-tech success story, a good example of the engine driving Israeli economy and helping it attain a GDP per capita that surpasses that of most European countries. Kudos to the entrepreneurs and the investors behind the company.

But the "SOLD" message (with those big grins) in the picture above is annoying. There are far too many "entrepreneurs" that set up new companies with an explicit, typically lightning-speed, exit strategy. There are not enough entrepreneurs that have a vision to build a company over a long period of time, going through the hard work of creating an Israeli "Nokia". The challenges are huge, given the particular circumstances of Israel, but it can be done, as Teva, Amdocs and others have shown. The "SOLD" mentality is definitely great for the bank accounts of those smiling entrepreneurs, but I'm not sure it is good for Israeli economy as a whole.

Equality Before the Law

Haaretz today tells the story of Natasha Erdman.

Briefly, this 32-year-old scientist postponed her military service when she was 18 to acquire a BSc (in the IDF's "atuda" programme). Upon graduation from the Technion, she applied and received a scholarship from Northwestern University in the US. The army refused to postpone her service further, so she made a false request to visit a relative in the US, and never came back. She is now, according to the article, a successful and "desirable" PhD in her field. Now she wants to come back to Israel, to be near her parents, and is asking the army to promise she won't be sent to jail (she's still considered a deserter).

Erdman decided to pursue her personal professional goals and abuse the agreement she had with the army. She did so knowingly - after all, she had to apply to Northwestern - and as an adult (she was about 22 years old at the time). Fair enough, that was her choice. But now that it's no longer convenient for her elderly parents to come visit her in the US, she's asking the army to forgive her and not pay the price for her decision.

Erdman has some chutzpah but that is not surprising. This is not the first case of somebody spitting into the well that one day he or she might need to drink from. What really annoys me is the tone of Haaretz. Not a newspaper to miss a chance to laud the principle of equality before the law, this article smacks of sympathy towards Erdman and contempt towards the IDF's position. Why should Erdman be above the law? Shame on Haaretz for so easily shedding its highbrowed principles to support a pseudo-liberal and annoyingly self-serving cause.

The Dumbing of America

American author Susan Jacoby wrote an excellent article that appeared in yesterday's issue of The Washington Post. Bottom line: "Americans are in serious intellectual trouble". She quotes three main reasons for this trouble: the decline in reading (taken over by the "video culture"); the erosion of general knowledge; and the fact that many Americans are actually proud of their ignorance (a form of "anti-rationalism").

Not that we needed Ms. Jacoby to know this about America, but she did a good job summarising the pain points. Perhaps Obama, Clinton and McCain will start their promised era of "change" by devoting some attention to the dumbing of their constituents?

Which reminds me. My wife is worried about Obama's lead in the Democratic primaries. I told her I'm not so worried, as I believe that in a McCain-Obama face-off, the difference between the candidates will be so blatantly obvious that Americans will surely be smart enough to make the right choice. Now, after having read Jacoby, perhaps I should be more worried...

Barack "Small Shore" Obama

We've all heard about Barack Obama. But did you hear about Obama, Japan?

One line in the article caught my eye:

"At first we were more low-key as Hillary Clinton looked to be ahead, but now we see he is getting more popular," Obama Mayor Toshio Murakami said.

In this short sentence lies evidence of a typical Japanese trait: going with the winner. The Japanese respect power (as the events of August 6, 1945 have shown) and will in most cases partner with the winner. Moral and ethical considerations, let alone political ones, take second place to making sure the strong guy in the neighbourhood is on "our side". I believe this is the main reason behind Japan's gradual rapprochement with China: to make sure the Land of the Rising Sun stays close to the emerging regional (and potentially global) superpower.

Extreme Ironing

Confession: I like to iron. I don't do it very often, but when I do engage in it, I find it exercises a kind of calm on me that comes, I guess, from going through the same dull motions over and over again.

So I was glad to come across an article in Reshimot about an activity unbeknown to me, called Extreme Ironing. Apparently, this "sport" is quite popular in some circles. Not surprisingly, the Japanese are avid practitioners and have achieved some rather spectacular feats - see here.

I will never see ironing the same way. And I will certainly never again refer to it as a dull activity.

Constantine's Sword, by James Carroll

Contantine the Great was the Roman emperor that embraced Christianity in the 4th century and gave this religion the necessary means to propagate itself throughout the Roman Empire and become, over time, the world's largest religion. The story goes, that on the eve of the crucial Milvian Bridge battle of Rome in 312, Constantine saw a vision of a cross in the night sky with the words In Hoc Signo Vinces ("with this sign you shall win") across it. He pledged that if he would be victorious, he would embrace Christianity. Thus, "Constantine's Sword" became a symbol of the power of the cross combined with the sword, the power of the Christian Church.

James Carroll used to be a Catholic priest, and nowadays he's a writer-historian with a mission in life: to reform the Catholic Church. For Carroll, the fundamental flaw and central issue in the church's thinking since its inception, the "defining sin" if you like, is the church's attitude towards Jews. In this book, Carroll describes almost 2,000 years of how the church thought, preached and acted towards Jews. It is an extended version of J'accuse, an indicting statement against the Catholic chruch through the ages. What Carroll tries to show is that an alternative path could have been chosen by the church's leaders at various points in this bloody and murderous journey, a path that would have defined the Christian-Jewish debate in completely different terms.

Carroll strips traditional Christian beliefs apart, showing how they were formed and why they are flawed. He does so by starting the obvious: Jesus lived and died as Jew, wanting to renew and reform his fellow Jews. It was only much later, within the context of the debate between his followers and the Jewish majority and in response to the persecution by the Roman emperors, that the concept of the "other" was formed and a line separating the two religions began to form. He does so also by unravelling the political and economic factors hiding behind the church's leaders' so-called theological decisions through the ages: from Constantine's "conversion of convenience", through the murder and explusion of Jews for "religious reasons", culminating the in unholy pact between Pope Pius XII and Hitler shortly after the latter came to power.

This book is, strictly speaking, not a history book. Many would undoubtedly argue, and with justice, that Carroll is not an historian and his use of secondary (and selective) sources to prove his point of view is not rigorously academic. But I don't think that was his intent. This is very much a personal story, of how Carroll fell in love with the Catholic Church, how he became a priest, why he decided to remove his habit, his journeys through Europe and his ideas about chruch reform. This combination of historical facts with a personal story is very powerful. Although it does become a little too personal for my likeing when he tells us about his erotic attraction to his pious mother, who took him to see the seamless robe of Jesus in Trier.

I read this book during and after a course I took about Jews and Christians in medieval times. It was a good companion to the course and helped me frame many historical events in their proper context. It is not an easy book to read (not least because of its length) but it's a must read for anyone wanting to understand the core values that drove, and to a certain extent are still driving, the attitude of the Catholic church towards Jews.

Is Google a Deity?

Religion is a serious thing. And so seem to be the people behind the newest of religions: The Church of Google. They composed nine "proofs" that Google is god (a "she" god, no less). I liked the following one:

Google answers prayers. One can pray to Google by doing a search for whatever question or problem is plaguing them. As an example, you can quickly find information on alternative cancer treatments, ways to improve your health, new and innovative medical discoveries and generally anything that resembles a typical prayer. Ask Google and She will show you the way, but showing you is all She can do, for you must help yourself from that point on.

I guess having Google as a religion is less harmful than many other kinds of religions floating around...

Save Israel, Drink Pepsi

I always knew that Jews control the world. But I never imagined the extent of our control. Now, thanks to Iranian TV, the truth is out there.

Think about it, next time you buy a Pepsi.

Mishpatim - Helping the Donkey

כי תראה חמור שנאך רבץ תחת משאו, וחדלת מעזב לו, עזב תעזב עמו

(שמות כ"ג, ה')

Mishpatim is a parasha fraught with commandments that encompass all walks of life and deal with some of the most complicated issues concerning commercial and fiduciary laws. But the parasha also deals with simple and seemingly mundane issues, such as helping someone's donkey:

"If you see the donkey of someone who hates you lying under its burden, and you refrain from assisting him, you shall repeatedly help with him"

What does the Torah mean by "and you refrain from assisting him"? If you must "repeatedly help him", then why would you refrain from doing so? Rashi says this is actually a rhetorical question: "would you refrain from assisting him? Of course not! You shall repeatedly help with him". (Although, halachically speaking, there are situations where one is indeed exempt from helping, and Rashi brings such an example).

The 16th century commentator Kli Yakar (R. Shlomo Efraim of Luntchitz) offers a different explanation. The first part says "and you refrain from assisting HIM", using the word lo (him) in Hebrew. But the concluding statement says "and you shall repeatedly help WITH HIM", using the word imo (with him) in Hebrew. The Torah changes pronoun from lo to imo to teach us that the owner of the donkey is not allowed to sit there waiting for another Jew to come along, and say: "unload my donkey, as this is your mitzvah!". In such circumstances, one is not obligated to help HIM. But if the donkey owner is willing to roll up his sleeves as well, only then is one obligated to help WITH HIM.

The Kli Yakar makes a profound sociological statement. If a person is able-bodied and capable but does nothing to help himself, then he cannot come to the community and ask for charity and help. All of us are familiar with people who expect the community to help them even if they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to help themselves first.

This is a shrewd interpretation by the Kli Yakar, but the fact remains that the context of this mitzvah is to help even if the donkey belongs to someone who hates us. To understand the full meaning of this help, here is a short story told about R. Israel Salanter, head of the mussar movement.

R. Israel was travelling on a train to Vilna. He was seated in a smoking compartment, enjoying a cigar, when a young passenger approached him and started yelling about the smoke. Although it was his right to smoke, R. Israel immediately put out the cigar and opened the window to let the smoke out. The same fellow shouted again at the rabbi, telling him to shut the window as it was now getting too cold.

Upon arriving in Vilna, the young man noticed the hundreds of people waiting to greet R. Israel and realised who the elderly passenger was. He started crying, begging R. Israel for forgiveness. R. Israel forgave him and asked him what he was looking for in Vilna. The youngster replied that he was looking for a job as a shochet (ritual slaughterer) but needed first a recommendation from a local rabbi. R. Israel referred him to his son-in-law for a letter of recommendation, but the man's knowledge was so poor he failed the test. So R. Israel found tutors to teach the man and prepare him for the test. Several weeks later, the man passed the test and R. Israel helped in again to find a job in Vilna.

The man came to R. Israel and asked him: I understand that you forgave me for my rudeness on the train, but why did you help me out so much, sending me to your son-in-law, finding tutors and helping me get a job? R. Israel reponsded: anyone can say "I forgive you", but I felt that the only way to really forgive you was to get to like you. And to get to like you, I had to help you, as the key to becoming someone's friend is to give from yourself. I wanted my forgiveness to be sincere, not merely lip service, so I had to go out of my way to help you.

And this is what the Torah commands us. We naturally feel like refraining from assisting our enemy with his donkey. But we need to overcome our natural inclincation, help him, and thus turn an enemy into a friend.

Apathy

The past couple of weeks have seen some of the coldest weather in Israel in recent years. In these two weeks, seven (7) people have died as a result of hypothermia. Five (5) were homeless.

When I was a child, there were no homeless people in Israel. Did people die of hypothermia? Probably yes, old people alone at home. But each death was something the entire country heard about. It made the news. People talked about it the next morning.

Israel, January 2008. The country's 60th year. The deaths of homeless people are lumped together in a passing news flash, hastily reported to make way for more blah-blah about the Winograd report (as if the gist of this long overdue report is a mystery that requires endless speculation). I'm willing to bet that if you ask around tomorrow morning about the dead homeless, most people will not know what you're talking about.

Apathy. It's every man for himself in the Promised Land.

"Screw It, I'm Running For President"

From today's The Onion. If only it were true...

CHARLESTON, SC—After spending two months accompanying his wife, Hillary, on the campaign trail, former president Bill Clinton announced Monday that he is joining the 2008 presidential race, saying he "could no longer resist the urge."

"My fellow Americans, I am sick and tired of not being president," said Clinton, introducing his wife at a "Hillary '08" rally. "For seven agonizing years, I have sat idly by as others experienced the joys of campaigning, debating, and interacting with the people of this great nation, and I simply cannot take it anymore. I have to be president again. I have to."

"Damn, this feels good," Clinton told supporters as he shook hands in Charleston Monday.

He continued, "It is with a great sense of relief that I say to all of you today, 'Screw it. I'm in.'"

In a show of respect, Clinton then completed his introduction of Hillary Clinton, calling her a "wonderful wife and worthy political adversary," and warmly shook her hand as she approached the podium. A clearly shocked Mrs. Clinton got halfway through her speech about the nation's obligation to its children before walking briskly offstage.

A spokesman for Sen. Clinton's campaign had no comment.

"No longer will I have to endure watching candidates like Hillary Clinton engaging in single-pump handshakes with voters, as I use every last ounce of restraint not to shout out, 'No! Warm double-clasp! Warm double-clasp!'" Clinton said. "America deserves someone who can do it right."

While the announcement has come as a surprise to many, Beltway observers said it was not completely unexpected, citing footage from a recent Democratic debate that showed Clinton fidgeting in his seat, gripping the arms of his chair, and repeatedly glancing at all the television cameras while rapidly tapping his right foot. Analysts also noted one debate in which Clinton mouthed responses to all the moderator's questions while making hand gestures to himself.

Clinton told reporters Tuesday that seeing so many "Clinton '08" posters "really got [him] thinking," and said that the fact that he was already wearing a suit, and smiling and waving on the campaign trail was an added motivator.

"From signing healthcare reform legislation, to working with politicians from across the aisle, to brokering international peace treaties with foreign dignitaries, I goddamn love being president," Clinton said. "For too long has this nation been deprived of a Bill Clinton presidency, and for too long have I been deprived of being president. Now I get to experience all these wonderful things again myself."

"And the applause," Clinton added. "I look forward to the endless roar of applause perhaps most of all."

Since his announcement two days ago, Clinton has raised a staggering $550 million. He has also surged in national polls, rising from a mere 2 percent prior to his candidacy to a commanding 94 percent, ahead of former front-runners Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are now tied with 3 percent each. John Edwards withdrew from the race Tuesday, saying only, "I am not worthy."

Although some have pointed out that it is unconstitutional for Clinton to run for a third term in office, he has silenced most critics by urging voters "not to worry about the Constitution for now" and assuring them he will address those legal issues immediately after regaining control of the White House.

"All I am asking of the American people is four more years," Clinton said at a fundraiser Tuesday where tens of thousands of South Carolinians gathered to stare in gape-jawed wonderment at the former president. "Well, maybe eight. Actually, you know what, definitely eight. Eight more years."

Thus far, the response among voters has been positive. "I love Bill Clinton," said Orangeburg, SC resident Marsha Demarais. "God, he was just so great as president. Can we just make him president again right now?"

Clinton also noted that, if elected, the timing would be perfect for his family, as his wife has recently expressed a desire to move back to the D.C. area.

Crash Landing

Stuck at Heathrow airport last Thursday for long hours, as a result of the crash landing of the British Airways B-777 aircraft (most flights were cancelled or delayed as a result), I had plenty of time to think again about London and its third-world-like infrastructure and services. The daily delays and closures on the London Underground, the percentage of lugguage lost at Heathrow airport, the outrageous prices one has to pay for almost everything and get mediocre service in return. And the list goes on. So it didn't come as a surprise to me that it took the authorities more than a day to get the runway cleared and operational again.

But instead of ranting again about London, I will say a few words about that landing. It was a very close call, a chilly reminder of how binary air accidents are. The plane lost power on both engines at an altitude of 600 feet. After the on-board computer failed to boost power to the engines, the co-pilot, who was in command of the aircraft, took control and managed to glide it safely past a highway and bring it down on the grass. If the power loss would have happened a minute earlier, or if the co-pilot wouldn't have reacted so quickly to take control of the aircraft, then most probably everyone on board would have died. As is usually the case, it was either zero or one. Why bother with those safety demonstrations? Either you get out alive or you don't. There's almost no in-between.

I did smile, though, when I heard today the name of the hero co-pilot: John Coward. Only in Britain.

The Last Fanatic

Here is a new trailer for a movie that does not exist:

"The Last Fanatic" is the latest promotional stunt by The Israeli Initiative, a political solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict promoted by Benny Elon, a right-wing member of the Knesset. They obviously managed to raise considerable amounts of money, by Israeli standards, for this campaign. Most of it, I'm guessing, came from the US, not only from Jews but also from evangelical Christians, who support right-wing movements in Israel in the hope that a Jewish redemption will lead to the Second Coming. An unholy alliance of sorts, but as they say: money has no smell.

Disclosure: Rabbi Elon conducted our wedding ceremony (chuppah). My wife and I used to go to a weekly shi'ur he gave at the university dorms and when we decided to tie the knot, we asked him to do it and he agreed (even though he is not officially registered at the Chief Rabbinate). Four years later, when he was elected to the knesset in 1996 through the Moledet party, we wrote him a letter expressing our disappointment for joining a party that advocated transfer of Arabs. He wrote back to us, very politely. We did not remain closely in touch, but I did visit him at the Knesset last year and was very happy to see him after all these years. Despite disagreeing with his political views, I think very highly of him as a human being and a teacher.

Behaviour in Schools

I have some criticism about the national-religious education system in Israel, the so-called mamad ("mamlachti-dati") and the follow-up framework of high-school yeshivot. However, when I hear about and see incidents like the clip below, filmed at a secular high-school, I am thankful my children go to religious schools. I cannot imagine such behaviour coming even from the worst-behaving kids in my son's class.