Posts
According to the Jerusalem Post, Netanyahu has made significant progress in convincing a faction of Kadima to split away and (re)join the Likud. As to be expected, while unnamed sources claim it's all but a done deal, named sources, such as Kadima MKs Marina Slodkin and Yaakov Edri, say that there is nothing in the works. Time will tell who's right.
At the end of the article, there's an interesting quote:
"Bibi is the only prime minister who is busy with taking apart the opposition instead of taking care of the problems of the country," Ramon said. "The prime minister's people keep selling political reporters the story, but there is no chance it will happen. This government will come apart a long time before Kadima will."
I find the quote interesting because it's attributed to Chaim Ramon, the Yoshev Rosh of the Moetsa of the Knesset's largest opposition party, Kadima. As any Israeli knows, the primary goal and objective of any opposition party is to bring down the government (or to weasel a way inside the government - sometimes I think it's just a matter of a coin flip)*. IOW, the #1 priority of a large percentage of our lawmakers is to obstruct the smooth functioning of the government and to throw the body in which they serve into such fundamental disarray that new elections would be required.
So if I understand Mr. Ramon's reasoning, the routine SOP for the opposition is unseeming for the ruling party. The opposition is entitled, in fact expected, to exploit any chink in the government's armor to bring it down. The weapon if choice is a crowbar is to be inserted in every crack in the coalition's foundation. But the government must sit idly by and wait for the inevitable to happen.
Mr Ramon's reasoning is so very odd that I admit that I'm at a loss for words to describe it any further. Suffice it to say that perhaps it is indeed for the greater good that he is in the opposition.
* By way of contrast, if you'd ask the "leader of the opposition" in the US (if such a function actually existed) what his/her #1 goal was for the rest of the current term, the answer would be some variation of: "to pass legislation that's good for my constituents and the citizens of the United States of America."
Monday, December 21, 2009
Poll Results: Where are you on the Political Map?
The results are in from Oleh Vatik's latest poll:
- Left 5 (21%)
- Right 11 (47%)
- Center 3 (13%)
- Floater 1 (4%)
- Petek Lavan 1 (4%)
- Confused 2 (8%)
Hmmm ... that looks about what I expected, although I wouldn't have been surprised to see an absolute majority on the Right.
I'll post a new poll later tomight.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Spotlight on the News: A Valid Nobel Candidate
Last week, as Israelis and Jews from all over were once again filled with pride that yet another one of ours - Professor Ada Yonat - was awarded a Nobel prize, Americans and others the world over were somewhat embarassed and at a loss for words to describe how they felt about Obama's prize.
It was an odd choice, made even odder by the fact that his candidacy had to be submitted for consideration before he'd even spent a fortnight in the Oval Office. It would appear that, as others have already said, the award was a giant in-your-face to the Bush Administration, showing them what Europeans truly thought of the past 8 years of American leadership; an expression of the sheer joy felt on the continent about the changing of the guard at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Personally, I view the episode instead as an expression of the schizoid way Europe views America. This one odd, strange award to Obama wraps up quite nicely the way "the Leader of the Free World" is viewed in Europe: there's more than a little resentment, but in the end they still look to the New World for leadership and a moral compass. Seemingly without realizing it, they hold America to a higher standard, and are quite disappointed when the Americans fail to deliver according to expectations. Now that I think of it, it reminds me just a bit of the way the World looks at the Jews.
Of course the funniest part of the whole affair is that the Pressident of the United States just won the Nobel Peace Prize ... and he got no political capital from it whatsoever. The idea that he won is just so outlandish that nobody takes it seriously and if anything, it's actually hurt him as far as the public's perception. Personally i think that his advisors missed an easy "gimme" - Obama should have refused the award by quite truthfully admitting that he didn't deserve it. That would have least gained him points in my opinion anyway.
When I first heard that Obama won the Peace Prize, I, like most people, thought it was a joke. After the initial shock wore off, I began to think of ways to quantify how incredibly stupid a choice it was. What I came up with was this: Everyone should make a list of people that they have personally met who are more deserving than Obama. It shouldn't be that hard - all you need to do is find someone who has actually done something to make the world a better place.
Accordingly, my first candidate for the Nobel Peace Price is Doris Mainzer z"l. Doris was "the mouse that roared" that founded the Keren Yosef volunteer organization in 1999. In six years the organization that Doris had founded in memory of her husband became known instead as a monument to one woman's tenacity and determination. Keren Yosef provides medical equipment and first aid training in Beit Shemesh and other areas in Israel. In less than a decade the organization has contributed to significantly raising the standard of immediate medical care available in a number of Israeli communities.
Doris passed away about 4 years ago, but her work continues today and Keren Yosef is as active as ever. She may not be as famous as Barack Obama, and she certainly wasn't as good a speaker. But she made a difference for thousands of people and she got things done. All in all, I think that she would have made an excellent Nobel Laureate.
Please feel free to submit any of your own candidates that you have actually met. It'd be nice to give us all a chance to give credit where credit is due.
It was an odd choice, made even odder by the fact that his candidacy had to be submitted for consideration before he'd even spent a fortnight in the Oval Office. It would appear that, as others have already said, the award was a giant in-your-face to the Bush Administration, showing them what Europeans truly thought of the past 8 years of American leadership; an expression of the sheer joy felt on the continent about the changing of the guard at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Personally, I view the episode instead as an expression of the schizoid way Europe views America. This one odd, strange award to Obama wraps up quite nicely the way "the Leader of the Free World" is viewed in Europe: there's more than a little resentment, but in the end they still look to the New World for leadership and a moral compass. Seemingly without realizing it, they hold America to a higher standard, and are quite disappointed when the Americans fail to deliver according to expectations. Now that I think of it, it reminds me just a bit of the way the World looks at the Jews.
Of course the funniest part of the whole affair is that the Pressident of the United States just won the Nobel Peace Prize ... and he got no political capital from it whatsoever. The idea that he won is just so outlandish that nobody takes it seriously and if anything, it's actually hurt him as far as the public's perception. Personally i think that his advisors missed an easy "gimme" - Obama should have refused the award by quite truthfully admitting that he didn't deserve it. That would have least gained him points in my opinion anyway.
When I first heard that Obama won the Peace Prize, I, like most people, thought it was a joke. After the initial shock wore off, I began to think of ways to quantify how incredibly stupid a choice it was. What I came up with was this: Everyone should make a list of people that they have personally met who are more deserving than Obama. It shouldn't be that hard - all you need to do is find someone who has actually done something to make the world a better place.
Accordingly, my first candidate for the Nobel Peace Price is Doris Mainzer z"l. Doris was "the mouse that roared" that founded the Keren Yosef volunteer organization in 1999. In six years the organization that Doris had founded in memory of her husband became known instead as a monument to one woman's tenacity and determination. Keren Yosef provides medical equipment and first aid training in Beit Shemesh and other areas in Israel. In less than a decade the organization has contributed to significantly raising the standard of immediate medical care available in a number of Israeli communities.
Doris passed away about 4 years ago, but her work continues today and Keren Yosef is as active as ever. She may not be as famous as Barack Obama, and she certainly wasn't as good a speaker. But she made a difference for thousands of people and she got things done. All in all, I think that she would have made an excellent Nobel Laureate.
Please feel free to submit any of your own candidates that you have actually met. It'd be nice to give us all a chance to give credit where credit is due.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Living in Israel: The dreaded gan party
Have you been hearing a strange sound every evening for the past week or so? Sort of like the sound of air intermittently escaping from a soon to be flat tire? In case you were wondering, what you've been hearing is the sound of thousands of Israeli parents trying desperately to stifle ther yawns as they once again suffered through another annual round of Hanuka gan parties. If you listened really carefully you might have noticed how after 90 minutes or so the yawns turned into sighs of relief as the sufganiyot were brought out and the yearly rite came to a merciful end.
I have four children, each of which attended three years of gan before moving on to first grade. Each year of gan brought with it three parties: Hanuka, birthday and siyum. Multiply 3 parties by 3 years by 4 children and you get 36 parties. Average that over 10 years (from my oldest's first year of gan to my youngest's last) and you get an average of 3.6 parties a year for a solid decade.
36 opportunities to sit for an hour and a half on a munchkin chair with my knees competing for space with my shoulders. 36 opportunites to take out my old PSD camera and try to get a decent picture of my beloved one reciting his/her lines without including the 4 adults standing up in front of the first row while they video the whole show. 36 opportunities to ooh and ah when the teacher turns off the lights and the ribbons tied to the kids hands glow with reflected UV light. 36 opportunities to watch the kids mill around the "stage" with cardboard candles affixed in some way to the general area of their foreheads.
At least the cardboard candles provide some variety: some years they're stapled together; sometimes they're glued; occasionally they're just slotted together; and I think I've also seen paper clips and rubber bands used as well.
3.6 parties a year. And then it stopped. But not really. It turns out that kids continue with gan parties all the way through school - they just call them something else. For example, when my daughters graduated 6th grade they each had a tekes siyum. But the only material difference that I noticed between the tekes siyum in 6th grade and the misibat siyum in kindergarten, was that that the 6th grade tekes lasted a lot longer. Well, maybe there was another difference - the gan parties seemed a bit more organized and better planned. I guess practice does help.
Sometimes there's no school milestone to celebrate, but that's not a problem because your child's youth group fills in nicely with at least one or two similarly mismanaged and boring events a year.
Of course there is one common denominator between all these events that I've ignored up until now. While we parents are typically invited, the event is usually for and about the kids. So if they can enjoy them, I guess I can grin and bear it for their sakes. That is, of course, until medical research proves that sugar, oil and small yearly doses of UV radiation cause cancer in labratory rats.
I have four children, each of which attended three years of gan before moving on to first grade. Each year of gan brought with it three parties: Hanuka, birthday and siyum. Multiply 3 parties by 3 years by 4 children and you get 36 parties. Average that over 10 years (from my oldest's first year of gan to my youngest's last) and you get an average of 3.6 parties a year for a solid decade.
36 opportunities to sit for an hour and a half on a munchkin chair with my knees competing for space with my shoulders. 36 opportunites to take out my old PSD camera and try to get a decent picture of my beloved one reciting his/her lines without including the 4 adults standing up in front of the first row while they video the whole show. 36 opportunities to ooh and ah when the teacher turns off the lights and the ribbons tied to the kids hands glow with reflected UV light. 36 opportunities to watch the kids mill around the "stage" with cardboard candles affixed in some way to the general area of their foreheads.
At least the cardboard candles provide some variety: some years they're stapled together; sometimes they're glued; occasionally they're just slotted together; and I think I've also seen paper clips and rubber bands used as well.
3.6 parties a year. And then it stopped. But not really. It turns out that kids continue with gan parties all the way through school - they just call them something else. For example, when my daughters graduated 6th grade they each had a tekes siyum. But the only material difference that I noticed between the tekes siyum in 6th grade and the misibat siyum in kindergarten, was that that the 6th grade tekes lasted a lot longer. Well, maybe there was another difference - the gan parties seemed a bit more organized and better planned. I guess practice does help.
Sometimes there's no school milestone to celebrate, but that's not a problem because your child's youth group fills in nicely with at least one or two similarly mismanaged and boring events a year.
Of course there is one common denominator between all these events that I've ignored up until now. While we parents are typically invited, the event is usually for and about the kids. So if they can enjoy them, I guess I can grin and bear it for their sakes. That is, of course, until medical research proves that sugar, oil and small yearly doses of UV radiation cause cancer in labratory rats.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Living in Israel: The "Kick me!" sign
A little while ago my brother mentioned to me that he had recently noticed that driving in Israel - never the most relaxing sport - had gotten worse. It seemed that every few minutes behind the wheel another driver would cut him off, fail to yield the right of way, flash his brights, honk, etc. He couldn't figure out what the problem was. Was it possible that there really had been a fundamental shift in Israeli driving etiquette? Or maybe he was just getting old and driving a bit more timidly than in the past.
It took him a few weeks but he finally figured out what was going on: it was the "Kick me!" sign on his rear window. Other drivers saw the "Kick me!" sign and instictively began to kick him.
It wasn't his fault, of course. It wasn't his idea to hang the sign there, the law mandated that he do so. Or rather that his daughter do so. For as you have likely already figured out, the "Kick me!" sign is that orange sign that you hang in the back of your car to proudly proclaim that a new driver is at the wheel. My niece had recently received her license and instead of putting the sign up and taking it down every time she drove, they just left it up. Big mistake. Everyone who drove the car got kicked, not just the newbie.
That of course is not the stated purpose of the orange sign; it's supposed to let others around you know that it'd be a good idea to cut you some slack. Good luck with that.
If they'd asked me before passing the sign law I could have told them what would happen. I remember my first car pool driving from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv and back every day close to 20 years ago. Every day as we descended the crowded LaGuardia on-ramp, one of the guys in the pool would always say the same thing: "look for a naheget chadasha to cut in front of." The logic was clear - no one else would let us in, whereas the new driver wouldn't be able to stop us.
And why davka naheget instead of nahag? For the answer to that question you have to think back 15-20 years. Before the law was inacted, when did you ever see a nahag chadash sign? A true gever would never point out that he needed a break.
It took him a few weeks but he finally figured out what was going on: it was the "Kick me!" sign on his rear window. Other drivers saw the "Kick me!" sign and instictively began to kick him.
It wasn't his fault, of course. It wasn't his idea to hang the sign there, the law mandated that he do so. Or rather that his daughter do so. For as you have likely already figured out, the "Kick me!" sign is that orange sign that you hang in the back of your car to proudly proclaim that a new driver is at the wheel. My niece had recently received her license and instead of putting the sign up and taking it down every time she drove, they just left it up. Big mistake. Everyone who drove the car got kicked, not just the newbie.
That of course is not the stated purpose of the orange sign; it's supposed to let others around you know that it'd be a good idea to cut you some slack. Good luck with that.
If they'd asked me before passing the sign law I could have told them what would happen. I remember my first car pool driving from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv and back every day close to 20 years ago. Every day as we descended the crowded LaGuardia on-ramp, one of the guys in the pool would always say the same thing: "look for a naheget chadasha to cut in front of." The logic was clear - no one else would let us in, whereas the new driver wouldn't be able to stop us.
And why davka naheget instead of nahag? For the answer to that question you have to think back 15-20 years. Before the law was inacted, when did you ever see a nahag chadash sign? A true gever would never point out that he needed a break.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Poll Results: Who's Responsible for your Aliyah?
The results are in from Oleh Vatik's latest poll:
- Parents: 1 (9%)
- Children: 0 (0%)
- Spouse: 2 (18%)
- Siblings: 0 (0%)
- Youth group: 1 (9%)
- Friends: 0 (0%)
- Yourself: 8 (72%)
- Don't know / Other: 0 (%)
Frankly I was a wee bit surprised by the results - I had expected a more even spread. I guess it means that the most likely candidates to stick it out on aliyah are those that came without undue outside influence. Hmmm ... now that I think of it, that actually makes sense.
I'll try to have the next poll up later in the day.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Nostalgia Corner: Photo IDs
Before I left the Old Country ...
In the late 70s the State of Illinois added photographs to drivers licenses. Prior to that time, all an underaged teenager had to do to buy alcohol or get into an 'R' rated movie was to borrow a license from a friend who had the same eye color and was roughly the same height. Looking back, I realize that while I got a nice laminated photo ID issued by my high school when I was a freshman in 1975, it would be several years before my parents got a card of similar quality from the State.
When I made Aliyah ...
I was given an orange teudat zehut at the airport with my photograph stapled in. Even though my arrival had been coordinated with the Misrad HaKlita weeks in advance, my personal details were entered by hand on the spot. As luck would have it, the pakid made a mistake entering my lastname which I didn't notice until later. When I opened up my first bank account, the bank officer noticed the discrepancy between the way I spelled my name on the forms and the way it was spelled in the teudat zehut. When I explained what had happened, he said "no problem," and just took a pen and corrected the spelling in the teudat zehut.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Poll Results: How long have you been on Aliyah?
The results are in from Oleh Vatik's first poll.
- Not yet: 0 (0%)
- Less than two years: 0 (0%)
- Two to Five years: 2 (4%)
- Five to ten years: 4 (9%)
- Ten to twenty years: 14 (32%)
- Over twenty years: 23 (53%)
Please keep an eye for the next poll which should be up later today.
Spotlight on the News: Frisking Soldiers
Kfir is once again in the news. In the last month the regiment has been struck by a wave of sign waving incidents. Soldiers from both Shimshon and Nachshon have been court martialed for raising up signs with political messages, and just recently a third sign was found before it could be displayed.
In response the army has resorted to somewhat drastic measures. A recent ceremony involving the Nachal Charedi (which also belongs to Kfir) was closed to the press, and prior to the ceremony the participating soldiers were searched to ensure that they didn't have any signs on them.
I was intrigued by the coverage of the incident. Most of the posts that I saw on the Internet played it straight regarding the involvement of the charedi unit - the soldiers were quoted complaining about the humiliation of being treated as if they were at a machsom, but hardly anyone played up the angle that they were davka charedi soldiers. For reasons I find hard to express, I found it encouraging that a story could be about charedim without the fact that they were charedim being a central part of the story. BTW, the sole exception to this approach was a post on a charedi portal (http://www.ladaat.net/) that interpreted it as a sign of continuing harassment of the charedi soldiers.
I do admit to being a bit nonplussed by the official statement by the Dover Tsahal. As reported by YNet, the official explanation was: " ... the commanders checked the soldiers in order to prevent unpleasantries or the possibility that certain factors would try to use the soldiers to create a provocation (my apologies for the poor translation)."
Regardless of whether or not I agree with the soldiers' actions/motives in raising the signs, I would hope that the reasons for the search would have been a bit more straightforward. Soldiers are supposed to conduct themselves in a certain manner, wherein discipline plays a rather large part. I would have been quite happy if the reason given for the search was that the officers wished to make sure that the soldiers were following orders and that the ceremony would go as planned. Nothing more, and nothing less.
I would also have preferred to see a bit more follow up by the reporters. Is this now SOP for all ceremonies, or just those involving Kfir? And while I was impressed to see the low key treatment of charedi involvement, I do wonder if the religious orientation of the soldiers played a factor in the officers' decisions. Perhaps they thought that religious soldiers would be more likely to make trouble (of this sort) than others? I don't know the answers - that's why I have to ask the questions.
One final thought: Is it just me, or does anyone else find that the most provocative word in the Israeli lexicon is provocation?
In response the army has resorted to somewhat drastic measures. A recent ceremony involving the Nachal Charedi (which also belongs to Kfir) was closed to the press, and prior to the ceremony the participating soldiers were searched to ensure that they didn't have any signs on them.
I was intrigued by the coverage of the incident. Most of the posts that I saw on the Internet played it straight regarding the involvement of the charedi unit - the soldiers were quoted complaining about the humiliation of being treated as if they were at a machsom, but hardly anyone played up the angle that they were davka charedi soldiers. For reasons I find hard to express, I found it encouraging that a story could be about charedim without the fact that they were charedim being a central part of the story. BTW, the sole exception to this approach was a post on a charedi portal (http://www.ladaat.net/) that interpreted it as a sign of continuing harassment of the charedi soldiers.
I do admit to being a bit nonplussed by the official statement by the Dover Tsahal. As reported by YNet, the official explanation was: " ... the commanders checked the soldiers in order to prevent unpleasantries or the possibility that certain factors would try to use the soldiers to create a provocation (my apologies for the poor translation)."
Regardless of whether or not I agree with the soldiers' actions/motives in raising the signs, I would hope that the reasons for the search would have been a bit more straightforward. Soldiers are supposed to conduct themselves in a certain manner, wherein discipline plays a rather large part. I would have been quite happy if the reason given for the search was that the officers wished to make sure that the soldiers were following orders and that the ceremony would go as planned. Nothing more, and nothing less.
I would also have preferred to see a bit more follow up by the reporters. Is this now SOP for all ceremonies, or just those involving Kfir? And while I was impressed to see the low key treatment of charedi involvement, I do wonder if the religious orientation of the soldiers played a factor in the officers' decisions. Perhaps they thought that religious soldiers would be more likely to make trouble (of this sort) than others? I don't know the answers - that's why I have to ask the questions.
One final thought: Is it just me, or does anyone else find that the most provocative word in the Israeli lexicon is provocation?
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Spotlight on the News: The Yoetz HaMishpati
It seems like Bibi has never had any luck where the Yoetz HaMishpati is concerned.
During his first shot at PM, he got stuck with a hold over, Michael Ben-Yair. Ben-Yair spent most of his time indicting senior Likud officials and saw no problem being the chief legal advisor to a government that that didn't want him. He refused to leave the job.
When Bibi finally got his chance to replace Ben-Yair, he slid straight into the "Bar-on for Chevron" affair. Perhaps his track record persuaded him to maintain an official aloof position while the current search committee has been wandering in the desert. In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that Netanyahu did ok appointing Elyakim Rubinstein, but perhaps that was just the law of averages at work.
The Yoetz is a bit of a schizoid position. As the name implies, the Yoetz is the Chief Legal Advisor to the Government of Israel. The holder of the position advises the Government and its members regarding the legality of proposed decisions, effectively drawing the line between legal and illegal action with every opinion offered. The Yoetz also represents the Government and its members as needed. On the other hand, the holder of the position is also charged with the ultimate say regarding who gets charged. The Praklitut recommends, but the Advisor decides.
The conflicts of interest inherent to the position are so very obvious that apparently most people just assume that there must be a really good reason for this hodgepodge of responsibilities - but since they can't figure it out, and it's too embarassing to ask when it's obvious that there really must be a simple answer, they simply move on to the next issue.
True story: Some time during Rubinstein's time as Yoetz, I had a job interview at the Ministry of Justice. No, I didn't get an offer, bit I did learn something interesting while I was there. On the wall of the office where the interview took place was a hierarchical chart outlining the different departments and lines of authority in the Ministry. Each position was color coded by department/function and connected by a solid line to those above and below. The Minister was, as to be expected, at the top of the pyramid, with the Mancal and various department heads filling the next level or two. And way off to the side, with its very own color was the Yoetz, connected by a dotted line to the chain of command somewhat below the Minister.
The conversation during the interview eventually came around to the organizational chart. The interviewer explained to me that yes, it was as I understood it. The Yoetz wasn't really a part of the organization at all; the position held enormous power in the Ministry, but officially nobody was underneath it. And it wasn't hard for me to detect an underlying note of resentment in his voice.
I didn't remember it at the time, but later on when I thought about it, it matched up well with what I was once told by an older lawyer with whom I had a conversation during the Ben-Yair years. I asked him how they'd come up with such a strange position, and he told me a story that I'd never heard before. Apparently, the Minister of Justice in Israel was originally intended to be like the Attorney General of the US, including much of the role of the Yoetz. But Ben Gurion didn't like/trust his pick for Minister of Justice, so he created the Yoeta position to lessen the role of the Minister. I've never heard this story confirmed, but it would explain some things, no?
During his first shot at PM, he got stuck with a hold over, Michael Ben-Yair. Ben-Yair spent most of his time indicting senior Likud officials and saw no problem being the chief legal advisor to a government that that didn't want him. He refused to leave the job.
When Bibi finally got his chance to replace Ben-Yair, he slid straight into the "Bar-on for Chevron" affair. Perhaps his track record persuaded him to maintain an official aloof position while the current search committee has been wandering in the desert. In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that Netanyahu did ok appointing Elyakim Rubinstein, but perhaps that was just the law of averages at work.
The Yoetz is a bit of a schizoid position. As the name implies, the Yoetz is the Chief Legal Advisor to the Government of Israel. The holder of the position advises the Government and its members regarding the legality of proposed decisions, effectively drawing the line between legal and illegal action with every opinion offered. The Yoetz also represents the Government and its members as needed. On the other hand, the holder of the position is also charged with the ultimate say regarding who gets charged. The Praklitut recommends, but the Advisor decides.
The conflicts of interest inherent to the position are so very obvious that apparently most people just assume that there must be a really good reason for this hodgepodge of responsibilities - but since they can't figure it out, and it's too embarassing to ask when it's obvious that there really must be a simple answer, they simply move on to the next issue.
True story: Some time during Rubinstein's time as Yoetz, I had a job interview at the Ministry of Justice. No, I didn't get an offer, bit I did learn something interesting while I was there. On the wall of the office where the interview took place was a hierarchical chart outlining the different departments and lines of authority in the Ministry. Each position was color coded by department/function and connected by a solid line to those above and below. The Minister was, as to be expected, at the top of the pyramid, with the Mancal and various department heads filling the next level or two. And way off to the side, with its very own color was the Yoetz, connected by a dotted line to the chain of command somewhat below the Minister.
The conversation during the interview eventually came around to the organizational chart. The interviewer explained to me that yes, it was as I understood it. The Yoetz wasn't really a part of the organization at all; the position held enormous power in the Ministry, but officially nobody was underneath it. And it wasn't hard for me to detect an underlying note of resentment in his voice.
I didn't remember it at the time, but later on when I thought about it, it matched up well with what I was once told by an older lawyer with whom I had a conversation during the Ben-Yair years. I asked him how they'd come up with such a strange position, and he told me a story that I'd never heard before. Apparently, the Minister of Justice in Israel was originally intended to be like the Attorney General of the US, including much of the role of the Yoetz. But Ben Gurion didn't like/trust his pick for Minister of Justice, so he created the Yoeta position to lessen the role of the Minister. I've never heard this story confirmed, but it would explain some things, no?
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Living in Israel: Customer Service
A friend of a friend recently told me this story:
A woman - we'll call her "N" (just like the press refers to security personages and state witnesses) - was in an Ace outlet when she happened to notice a super duper portable DVD player on sale (the kind with all sorts of connectivity options that are understood only by true teechno geeks). She decided to splurge and buy it, but then found out that there weren't any in stock. No problem, she was assured, she could order it now and pick it up in a couple of sdays when they got their next shipment. So she ordered one.
A week later she stopped in to pick up her order, but was told that they were still out of stock. But no problem and no worries: they'd call her when it call in.
Time flies when you're having fun, but I suspect that it goes slower when there's no DVD player to play music. Even so, close to 3 more weeks managed to crawl by before "N" next happened to walk into the store. Lo and behold, there were a stack of players on the display floor. She went up to the Head Cashier, produced her receipt for the player she had ordered - and paid for - close to a month earlier, and was rewarded with a new DVD player.
When she asked why no one called her she was told that they "must have tried, but no one answered." Did I mention that "N" and her husband work at home and even when they aren't there, there's an answering machine? Never mind, all's well that ends well. "N" took her purchase home.
The first thing that "N" did was check that her new player worked. She stuck in a music DVD and everything was fine. She then picked up her new toy, moved to another room, turned it back on, and ... nothing. Like one of those short-lived insects that are born, fly around a few hours, lay eggs and die, the player had lived its brief life and now was done.
Back to the store. When "N" asked for her money back, the store clerk didn't understand. They did, after all, have several more units in stock, wouldn't "N" prefer to replace her purchase instead of a refund? But "N" was adamant. Once burned, twice shy, she had no desire to tempt fate any longer.
It was at this point that they explained to her that she couldn't return the defective item. It wasn't that they didn't have a return policy, because they did (and do). It was because in order to take advantage of the policy you had to return the merchandise within two weeks of purchase - and "N" had bought the player almost 4 weeks earlier!
Never fear, "N" did eventually get her refund, but it was touch and go there for a while.
When I first heard this story, I grinned, and like a typical oleh vatik I shook my head and mumbled something like "Ah, only in Israel ..." Ignoring, by the way, the fact that the store in question was actually an American franchise because that would ruin my perception of the typical Israeli customer experience.
And then just yesterday I was reminded that perhaps Israel doesn't have a monopoly on odd and incongruous customer service.
20+ years ago I opened an IRA account with a well known American investment house. A few years ago I become vaguely aware of the fact that they had stopped sending me regular financial statements. I know that I should have looked into it at the time, but when you can't touch the cash until you're almost 60 anyway, it's not like you circle dates on the calendar to make sure that you get your statement on time.
Anyway, recently I tried looking at the account on the Internet, but I found out that my Internet access had been frozen because mail had been returned from my address of record. This, by the way, wasn't because I had moved without notifying the investment company - I've lived in the same home for over a decade and a half. But when we moved in, we used the address that the kablan gave us, and since then the Iriyah has informed us that the address (including even the apartment number) is something else. The investment company had the original "kablan address" - I hadn't updated them in respect to the Iriyah's revelations.
So I sent an email inquiry asking how to set things straight. They replied that I should call during office hours and ask to speak to rep who would help me out. So I called and the rep said no problem, he'd send me an address change form and all I had to do was fill it out and send it in. No problem at all. Why they couldn't send it in response to my email inquiry was an excellent question; he said he'd "look into it."
So last night I got an email with instructions how to get the address change form. All I had to do was log into my account on their website and download it. The only problem, of course, was that until I filed the form I couldn't access my account to get the form to file ...
So I wonder, has Israeli customer service progressed to the point that it's indistinguishable from American service, or perhaps in my extended absence American service has regressed to the Israeli level? Or maybe, just maybe, k'mo ba'America was never as good as I remembered it.
A woman - we'll call her "N" (just like the press refers to security personages and state witnesses) - was in an Ace outlet when she happened to notice a super duper portable DVD player on sale (the kind with all sorts of connectivity options that are understood only by true teechno geeks). She decided to splurge and buy it, but then found out that there weren't any in stock. No problem, she was assured, she could order it now and pick it up in a couple of sdays when they got their next shipment. So she ordered one.
A week later she stopped in to pick up her order, but was told that they were still out of stock. But no problem and no worries: they'd call her when it call in.
Time flies when you're having fun, but I suspect that it goes slower when there's no DVD player to play music. Even so, close to 3 more weeks managed to crawl by before "N" next happened to walk into the store. Lo and behold, there were a stack of players on the display floor. She went up to the Head Cashier, produced her receipt for the player she had ordered - and paid for - close to a month earlier, and was rewarded with a new DVD player.
When she asked why no one called her she was told that they "must have tried, but no one answered." Did I mention that "N" and her husband work at home and even when they aren't there, there's an answering machine? Never mind, all's well that ends well. "N" took her purchase home.
The first thing that "N" did was check that her new player worked. She stuck in a music DVD and everything was fine. She then picked up her new toy, moved to another room, turned it back on, and ... nothing. Like one of those short-lived insects that are born, fly around a few hours, lay eggs and die, the player had lived its brief life and now was done.
Back to the store. When "N" asked for her money back, the store clerk didn't understand. They did, after all, have several more units in stock, wouldn't "N" prefer to replace her purchase instead of a refund? But "N" was adamant. Once burned, twice shy, she had no desire to tempt fate any longer.
It was at this point that they explained to her that she couldn't return the defective item. It wasn't that they didn't have a return policy, because they did (and do). It was because in order to take advantage of the policy you had to return the merchandise within two weeks of purchase - and "N" had bought the player almost 4 weeks earlier!
Never fear, "N" did eventually get her refund, but it was touch and go there for a while.
When I first heard this story, I grinned, and like a typical oleh vatik I shook my head and mumbled something like "Ah, only in Israel ..." Ignoring, by the way, the fact that the store in question was actually an American franchise because that would ruin my perception of the typical Israeli customer experience.
And then just yesterday I was reminded that perhaps Israel doesn't have a monopoly on odd and incongruous customer service.
20+ years ago I opened an IRA account with a well known American investment house. A few years ago I become vaguely aware of the fact that they had stopped sending me regular financial statements. I know that I should have looked into it at the time, but when you can't touch the cash until you're almost 60 anyway, it's not like you circle dates on the calendar to make sure that you get your statement on time.
Anyway, recently I tried looking at the account on the Internet, but I found out that my Internet access had been frozen because mail had been returned from my address of record. This, by the way, wasn't because I had moved without notifying the investment company - I've lived in the same home for over a decade and a half. But when we moved in, we used the address that the kablan gave us, and since then the Iriyah has informed us that the address (including even the apartment number) is something else. The investment company had the original "kablan address" - I hadn't updated them in respect to the Iriyah's revelations.
So I sent an email inquiry asking how to set things straight. They replied that I should call during office hours and ask to speak to rep who would help me out. So I called and the rep said no problem, he'd send me an address change form and all I had to do was fill it out and send it in. No problem at all. Why they couldn't send it in response to my email inquiry was an excellent question; he said he'd "look into it."
So last night I got an email with instructions how to get the address change form. All I had to do was log into my account on their website and download it. The only problem, of course, was that until I filed the form I couldn't access my account to get the form to file ...
So I wonder, has Israeli customer service progressed to the point that it's indistinguishable from American service, or perhaps in my extended absence American service has regressed to the Israeli level? Or maybe, just maybe, k'mo ba'America was never as good as I remembered it.
Monday, November 16, 2009
How Google sees this blog
I don't expect this blog to be a big money maker, but I signed up for Google Ads to help defray costs. Google Ads runs the ads that you see in the sidebar and underneath the posts. They scan the content of the posts and based on the results they display ads that they feel will abe attractive to the typical visitor to the blog.
So what kind of person does Google expect to visit this blog? Well the first ads that they displayed were in Hebrew for large flat screen TVs. I wonder how many olim vatikim can afford that; I suspect that most of us are still using the 20" Sony that we put in our lifts 20 years ago. Maybe that's not entirely accurate - in addition to my 20" Sony, I've also got a 20" JVC that was bought in Duty Free when the $200 TV was all the rage ...
Last I checked, the sidebar ad was alternating between two different Hebrew ads: the first for a movie that I haven't heard about yet, and the second for Orange (incidentally the only major cellular provider that I haven't used yet). The bottom ads were all in English, but for Israel focused content.
So basically, Google has us spec'ed as thinking about the world in general in Hebrew, while thinking about Israel in English. I'm not sure that I agree, but I do think that it's an interesting theory.
So what kind of person does Google expect to visit this blog? Well the first ads that they displayed were in Hebrew for large flat screen TVs. I wonder how many olim vatikim can afford that; I suspect that most of us are still using the 20" Sony that we put in our lifts 20 years ago. Maybe that's not entirely accurate - in addition to my 20" Sony, I've also got a 20" JVC that was bought in Duty Free when the $200 TV was all the rage ...
Last I checked, the sidebar ad was alternating between two different Hebrew ads: the first for a movie that I haven't heard about yet, and the second for Orange (incidentally the only major cellular provider that I haven't used yet). The bottom ads were all in English, but for Israel focused content.
So basically, Google has us spec'ed as thinking about the world in general in Hebrew, while thinking about Israel in English. I'm not sure that I agree, but I do think that it's an interesting theory.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Welcome, Citizens of the Azores!
Most, but not all, olim eventually reach a point where they realize that they are no longer olim chadashim. Some insignificant little event suddenly brings it home that they are no longer rookies; that they have paid their dues and are no longer the greenest apple in the barrel. For some it may happen when they find themselves giving driving instructions to passersby - olim chadashim often lack either the knowledge or confidence (or both) to do so. For some it may happen when they actually start winning political arguments with co-workers. For me, it was the day that I realized that there were more than a few words that I knew in Hebrew that I could no longer instinctively translate back into English. Olim chadashim may speak Hebrew, but they rarely think Hebrew. When that happens, something has changed.
But for most of us, not everything changes. For better or worse, who we are is still in some part a function of who we were. We still tend to compare our current lives to what it was like where we used to live. And where did we used to live? Well if you're reading this blog, you were probably a citizen of an English speaking country - an anglo saxon by Israeli standards - that at some point moved to Israel. So you are now an oleh vatik, but the prism of your experiences gives you a different view of life here than that seen by your tsabar friend and neighbors.
So basically speaking, while we are no longer olim chadashim, we don't really qualify as 100% typical Israelis either. We're something in between. I tend to think of that "something" as being from the Azores. The Azores, for those who may not know, are a group of strategically located islands somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. The US Air Force maintains a station there to enable planes to refuel during transatlantic crossings. I don't know their exact location, but I've always assumed that since they are owned by the Portuguese that they're relatively close to the European mainland. Which of course means that they should be just about halfway between the US and Israel. Just perfect for those of us that are no longer "from America", but don't quite fit in seamlessly in Israel, either.
My apologies to other English speaking olim; the Azores as a metaphor doesn't work as well for you as it does for US and Canadian citizens. Perhaps the Brits could make do with Malta, but I'm not sure what to do for the South Africans and Australians - anybody out there know of any suitable islands in the Indian Ocean?
Anyway ... Welcome, Citizens of the Azores! Welcome, Citizens of Malta! Welcome, Citizens of yet-to-be-named islands in the Indian Ocean. Let's talk about what it means to be an oleh vatik.
But for most of us, not everything changes. For better or worse, who we are is still in some part a function of who we were. We still tend to compare our current lives to what it was like where we used to live. And where did we used to live? Well if you're reading this blog, you were probably a citizen of an English speaking country - an anglo saxon by Israeli standards - that at some point moved to Israel. So you are now an oleh vatik, but the prism of your experiences gives you a different view of life here than that seen by your tsabar friend and neighbors.
So basically speaking, while we are no longer olim chadashim, we don't really qualify as 100% typical Israelis either. We're something in between. I tend to think of that "something" as being from the Azores. The Azores, for those who may not know, are a group of strategically located islands somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. The US Air Force maintains a station there to enable planes to refuel during transatlantic crossings. I don't know their exact location, but I've always assumed that since they are owned by the Portuguese that they're relatively close to the European mainland. Which of course means that they should be just about halfway between the US and Israel. Just perfect for those of us that are no longer "from America", but don't quite fit in seamlessly in Israel, either.
My apologies to other English speaking olim; the Azores as a metaphor doesn't work as well for you as it does for US and Canadian citizens. Perhaps the Brits could make do with Malta, but I'm not sure what to do for the South Africans and Australians - anybody out there know of any suitable islands in the Indian Ocean?
Anyway ... Welcome, Citizens of the Azores! Welcome, Citizens of Malta! Welcome, Citizens of yet-to-be-named islands in the Indian Ocean. Let's talk about what it means to be an oleh vatik.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
