A major fracas between Bibi’s government and Obama’s administration is a blessing in disguise. The administration is finally taking its gloves off. Using this latest folly as a pretext (laced, I’m assuming with some heartfelt anger), they may see ato ram through real change to the status quo, that Bibi and his immediate predecessors were happy to maintain . A shift that Bibi himself can’t muster on his own, even if he wanted to. It seems that Obama could potentially truly reengage (and now with a little gusto). I hope so. It’s been long due.
But this latest story also brings heightened attention by the American press, and along the way helps reveal a more fine grained truth about Israeli politics and culture that most, even politicaly astute writers like the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd – can’t always keep track of. And by doing so, from a distance, provides distilled insights that that can only come from those who’re involved enough, but are also removed from the heat of the situation.
Pundits like Dowd, while lambasting Bibi’s careless treatment of its American benefactor and main ally (echoing many Israeli opinionators), can now distinguish between the religious Shas party and its nationalistic wrapped religious motives on the one hand, and mainstream thinking in Israel. Her latest column is a revelation of sorts in its subtleties. Yet clear about options facing the state of Israel.
I wish many more Israelis could see the forest from the trees.

I was watching Alexandra Pelosi’s documentary about Ted Haggard (
I’ve been using digital cameras since 2001 or so. I owned 5 of them, mostly D-SLRs, and saw how digital photography’s tentative start transformed into a full stride. So why in the world should I compare the wonderful Canon 5D MKII to my iPhone’s puny camera? Since photography is also about sharing, the iPhone introduces new dimensions that are worth exploring.
Historical comparisons are dangerous and could be inaccurate and out of specific context. They can lead to academic bickering and worse. This is especially true when comparing the strategies and tactics of bitter waring parties. In any ethnic or religious conflict, two sides will convince themselves that theirs is the one who holds the key to truth and therefore moral high ground. So much so, that both sides can justify horrendous acts of aggression that are otherwise incomprehensible. I was born in Israel, and as such, I’m thinking about the conflict quite often. I am usually torn between a sense of commitment to ‘my people’, belief in unique circumstances that lead to the formation of Israel, and the plight of Palestinians as a result. 





