חזרה
סערה במרצ עקב הקריאה לאיחוד עם העבודה
יום שישי, 29 בספטמבר 2006, 6:52 מאת: מזל מועלם, הארץ
וילן. משחק יותר טוב (וואלה!)
כהן בקמפיין האחרון. דברים מגוחכים
ביילין. סירב להגיב על הביקורת (בוצ'צ'ו)
ח"כ וילן הציע להתאחד עם העבודה, כדי למנוע את התרסקותה של מרצ. ח"כ כהן טוען כי מדובר ב"בלון ניסוי" של ביילין
ח"כ אבשלום וילן קרא לחבריו ממרצ להתאחד עם מפלגת העבודה כדי למנוע את התרסקות מרצ בבחירות הבאות. חברו למפלגה, ח"כ רן כהן, תקף אותו בתגובה בחריפות, וטען כי מדובר ב"בלון ניסוי" של יו"ר המפלגה, יוסי ביילין.
וילן אמר את הדברים בראיון מקיף ונוקב לעיתון התנועה הקבוצית "הדף הירוק" שהתפרסם אתמול. לדבריו, "אנחנו בדרך אל גבול אחוז החסימה. אם מרצ רוצה להשפיע ולהיות חלק מהמאבק הפוליטי האמיתי, ולא רק לסמן כיוון, היא מוכרחה לשחק משחק הרבה יותר רחב, שאותו אפשר לנהל עם מפלגת העבודה אשר בעמדותיה החברתיות והמדיניות התקרבה מאוד למרצ." וילן הוסיף שהאיחוד עם העבודה צריך לכלול גם מעבר של חברים ממפלגת קדימה, מפלגה שלדעתו אינה קיימת בפועל.
הפרסום עורר תגובות חריפות במרצ. ח"כ כהן אמר כי דברי וילן מגוחכים וכך גם העיתוי בהם הם נאמרו, כיוון ש"העבודה עומדת ערב פילוג ושבר גדול ולרצות להתאחד איתה זה נראה תלוש מהמציאות."
כהן הוסיף כי אם וילן מעוניין לעבור עם עוד חברים למפלגת העבודה "זה בסדר. שיילכו עם כל החברים ממפ"ם, ואחרי שהם יתחרטו שיחזרו אלינו".
כהן, המתכוון להתמודד בעתיד על ראשות מרצ, אמר כי הוא אינו מוטרד רק מדברי וילן, אלא גם משתיקתו של יו"ר המפלגה ח"כ יוסי ביילין שהעדיף שלא להגיב על הדברים. כהן אמר כי ההתנהלות הזו מעוררת בו שאלות נוקבות ונראה לו שוילן למעשה שימש כבלון ניסוי של ביילין, שכבר רמז בעבר על איחודים של מרצ עם מפלגות אחרות.
"ביילין נכשל בהובלתה של מרצ בבחירות האחרונות וגם נכשל בהובלתה במלחמה האחרונה. אין לי אינפורמציה ממשית, אבל התחושה שלי שמדובר בבלון ניסוי, אחרת מדוע הוא אינו מגיב. אני לא אפול מהכיסא אם זה יתברר כנכון".
ביילין סרב להגיב על האשמותיו וביקורתו של כהן והסתפק בתגובה כי "הוא אינו מתכוון לעמוד בראש מפלגה שתחבור למפלגת העבודה".
דברי וילן עוררו סערה גדולה במרצ. גם יו"ר הסיעה ח"כ זהבה גלאון המתכוננת גם היא להתמודד על ראשות המפלגה, תקפה את וילן.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Deep inside the Finance Ministry's electric dungeon and security secrets
Snort, squid and Tehila
26.9.06 | 09:36 By Lior Haner haaretz themarker
Deep inside the Finance Ministry's electric dungeon and security secrets
The Israeli government's Tehila project is responsible not only for building the gov.il payments portal, but also serves as the government's Internet service provider (ISP). It is impossible to prevent all security breach attempts, and when the information being safeguarded belongs to the Israeli government, the responsibility is tremendous.
Down a side corridor on the ground floor of the Finance Ministry building is a large, but inconspicuous unmarked brown door. The stairwell beyond this door houses several flights of stairs leading down to a small anteroom with a white door. Beyond this white door is another small room, crowded with computer towers connected to one another with a tangle of cables.
"We have 500 servers here," says Boaz Dolev, director of the Tehila project at the accountant general's department at the Finance Ministry, shouting over the din from all the fans and air conditioners required to cool the computers, and even so the room is warm. "All the government offices have just one exit to the Internet, via these servers. We began discussing the government's use of the Internet back in 1997 but at that point we received approval for Internet access to individual, separate computers. We wanted the computers used by government ministry workers to have Internet access from their desktops all the time."
The debate over how this would be accomplished lasted six months, but finally Dolev and Itzik Cohen, head of computing at the accountant general's department gained the upper hand.
Recent advancements in the government ministries' attitude toward the Internet include the launching three years ago of the government portal, in the framework of the Tehila "accessible government" project. When such extensive Internet infrastructure is being built, including information and payment systems, the security risks are substantial.
Risks of Internet
"No one will tell you there are no risks involved in offering services via the Internet," says Dolev, while in the same breath offering assurances that the chances of computer fraud are slim, since risk in the government's payments system is that someone might use a stolen credit card, and this can be traced easily.
Dolev notes that the ministry's sites face a greater risk from cyber attacks, e-mail assaults or server overloads, and from the theft of data. To prevent such attacks, Tehila uses security services from big companies like Check Point, which was the first partner to be brought into the project and which provides the firewall for data communication.
Tehila's virus protection is provided by Aladdin Knowledge Systems and Trend Micro, while the hardware is purchased from big companies such as HP, IBM, RAD Bynet, and Netcom Systems. Even so, since the security field is complicated and requires supplementary services, a few surprising open-code tools are used.
Snort network breach-detection software and Squid, a proxy server that separates the data serves and the computers that are hooked up to the Internet, are two tools developed by the open code community, meaning they do not require a user license.
Dolev relates that the site visited most by hackers is mossad.gov.il.
"That is one site that actually has no link to crucial information," says Dolev, "but rather only public relations information and data on employee recruitment."
While no information has been stolen from the mossad's information system, some National Insurance Institute employees have been arrested on suspicion of selling confidential information to private investigators. This alerted Dolev and his team to the need for systems that not only track external infiltration attempts, but also the movement of information within the system.
In addition to a team of eight systems analysts who oversee the maintenance and development of the Tehila project, 17 computer science students monitor the systems 24 hours a day.
The CRET
Another aspect of Tehila is the CRET (Computer Emergency Response Team), which coordinates its efforts and shares information with other CRETs around the world in identifying and combating Internet security breaches.
"ISPs in Israel could learn from our experience, but it is no small task to build an information sharing mechanism in the security world," says Dolev. "Everyone conceals data, particularly concerning [Internet security systems] failures."
Dolev notes that there are several systems security bodies in the United States that share information with Tehila's CRET, but most of them are associated with universities, rather than government bodies. "We are far more exposed than other Israeli Internet sites, and also disclose information on this subject," continues Dolev, adding that next month he will contact Israeli ISPs regarding joining Tehila's CRET.
26.9.06 | 09:36 By Lior Haner haaretz themarker
Deep inside the Finance Ministry's electric dungeon and security secrets
The Israeli government's Tehila project is responsible not only for building the gov.il payments portal, but also serves as the government's Internet service provider (ISP). It is impossible to prevent all security breach attempts, and when the information being safeguarded belongs to the Israeli government, the responsibility is tremendous.
Down a side corridor on the ground floor of the Finance Ministry building is a large, but inconspicuous unmarked brown door. The stairwell beyond this door houses several flights of stairs leading down to a small anteroom with a white door. Beyond this white door is another small room, crowded with computer towers connected to one another with a tangle of cables.
"We have 500 servers here," says Boaz Dolev, director of the Tehila project at the accountant general's department at the Finance Ministry, shouting over the din from all the fans and air conditioners required to cool the computers, and even so the room is warm. "All the government offices have just one exit to the Internet, via these servers. We began discussing the government's use of the Internet back in 1997 but at that point we received approval for Internet access to individual, separate computers. We wanted the computers used by government ministry workers to have Internet access from their desktops all the time."
The debate over how this would be accomplished lasted six months, but finally Dolev and Itzik Cohen, head of computing at the accountant general's department gained the upper hand.
Recent advancements in the government ministries' attitude toward the Internet include the launching three years ago of the government portal, in the framework of the Tehila "accessible government" project. When such extensive Internet infrastructure is being built, including information and payment systems, the security risks are substantial.
Risks of Internet
"No one will tell you there are no risks involved in offering services via the Internet," says Dolev, while in the same breath offering assurances that the chances of computer fraud are slim, since risk in the government's payments system is that someone might use a stolen credit card, and this can be traced easily.
Dolev notes that the ministry's sites face a greater risk from cyber attacks, e-mail assaults or server overloads, and from the theft of data. To prevent such attacks, Tehila uses security services from big companies like Check Point, which was the first partner to be brought into the project and which provides the firewall for data communication.
Tehila's virus protection is provided by Aladdin Knowledge Systems and Trend Micro, while the hardware is purchased from big companies such as HP, IBM, RAD Bynet, and Netcom Systems. Even so, since the security field is complicated and requires supplementary services, a few surprising open-code tools are used.
Snort network breach-detection software and Squid, a proxy server that separates the data serves and the computers that are hooked up to the Internet, are two tools developed by the open code community, meaning they do not require a user license.
Dolev relates that the site visited most by hackers is mossad.gov.il.
"That is one site that actually has no link to crucial information," says Dolev, "but rather only public relations information and data on employee recruitment."
While no information has been stolen from the mossad's information system, some National Insurance Institute employees have been arrested on suspicion of selling confidential information to private investigators. This alerted Dolev and his team to the need for systems that not only track external infiltration attempts, but also the movement of information within the system.
In addition to a team of eight systems analysts who oversee the maintenance and development of the Tehila project, 17 computer science students monitor the systems 24 hours a day.
The CRET
Another aspect of Tehila is the CRET (Computer Emergency Response Team), which coordinates its efforts and shares information with other CRETs around the world in identifying and combating Internet security breaches.
"ISPs in Israel could learn from our experience, but it is no small task to build an information sharing mechanism in the security world," says Dolev. "Everyone conceals data, particularly concerning [Internet security systems] failures."
Dolev notes that there are several systems security bodies in the United States that share information with Tehila's CRET, but most of them are associated with universities, rather than government bodies. "We are far more exposed than other Israeli Internet sites, and also disclose information on this subject," continues Dolev, adding that next month he will contact Israeli ISPs regarding joining Tehila's CRET.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Ramadan and Rosh Hashana in Jaffa
Fireworks every evening for Ramadan. Two weeks now in Jaffa.
A new Start for me.
A new Start for me.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Change the System of Elections!!
מקור בלשכת רה"מ: אין כוונה לשנות את שיטת הממשל
יום ראשון, 17 בספטמבר 2006, 8:58 מאת: אלוף בן, הארץ
אולמרט. הארכה מלאכותית של כהונתו (רויטרס)
לדברי המקור, רה"מ לא סבור שביכולתו לקדם כעת שינוי כזה, והדבר עלול להתפרש כניסיון להאריך את כהונתו באופן מלאכותי
ראש הממשלה, אהוד אולמרט, סבור שיש לחזק את יציבות השלטון בישראל, אך לא מתכוון לקדם עכשיו מהלכים לשינוי שיטת הממשל - כך אמר מקור בלשכת ראש הממשלה, בתגובה לכותרת הראשית של "ידיעות אחרונות" מיום שישי, לפיה "אולמרט מתכנן לשנות שיטת הממשל בישראל" ולאמץ זאת כסדר יום חדש, במקום תוכנית ההתכנסות שירדה מהפרק. לדברי המקור, אולמרט לא סבור שביכולתו לקדם עכשיו שינוי בשיטת הממשל, והדבר עלול להתפרש כניסיון להאריך את כהונתו באופן מלאכותי.
אולמרט ממתין להגשת הדו"ח של הוועדה שמינה נשיא המדינה, משה קצב, לבחינת מבנה הממשל בישראל. דו"ח הוועדה, שבראשה עומד הפרופ' מנחם מגידור, עתיד להתפרסם בעוד כמה שבועות. ועדות המשנה של הוועדה המליצו לחזק את המשטר הפרלמנטרי, ולא לעבור לשיטה נשיאותית בישראל.
יו"ר הכנסת, דליה איציק, הציעה במסמך שגיבשה על "ממשלת חירום לאומית" בעקבות המלחמה בלבנון, לבחון לעומק את דו"ח הביניים של ועדת מגידור. שרת החוץ, ציפי לבני, הציעה לשרי קדימה לבחון את הנהגת "החוק הדני" שמאפשר לבוחרים לדרג את מועמדי המפלגה שהם תומכים בה, במקום שייאלצו לבחור רשימה מפלגתית שהוכתבה מראש.
יו"ר העבודה, שר הביטחון עמיר פרץ, סבור שיש לקיים דיון במפלגה על שיטת הממשל הרצויה לישראל, אך עוד לא גיבש דעה ומעדיף ללמוד קודם את ההצעות השונות. יו"ר ישראל ביתנו, ח"כ אביגדור ליברמן, תומך בהנהגת משטר נשיאותי בישראל ככלי לחיזוק היציבות השלטונית.
יום ראשון, 17 בספטמבר 2006, 8:58 מאת: אלוף בן, הארץ
אולמרט. הארכה מלאכותית של כהונתו (רויטרס)
לדברי המקור, רה"מ לא סבור שביכולתו לקדם כעת שינוי כזה, והדבר עלול להתפרש כניסיון להאריך את כהונתו באופן מלאכותי
ראש הממשלה, אהוד אולמרט, סבור שיש לחזק את יציבות השלטון בישראל, אך לא מתכוון לקדם עכשיו מהלכים לשינוי שיטת הממשל - כך אמר מקור בלשכת ראש הממשלה, בתגובה לכותרת הראשית של "ידיעות אחרונות" מיום שישי, לפיה "אולמרט מתכנן לשנות שיטת הממשל בישראל" ולאמץ זאת כסדר יום חדש, במקום תוכנית ההתכנסות שירדה מהפרק. לדברי המקור, אולמרט לא סבור שביכולתו לקדם עכשיו שינוי בשיטת הממשל, והדבר עלול להתפרש כניסיון להאריך את כהונתו באופן מלאכותי.
אולמרט ממתין להגשת הדו"ח של הוועדה שמינה נשיא המדינה, משה קצב, לבחינת מבנה הממשל בישראל. דו"ח הוועדה, שבראשה עומד הפרופ' מנחם מגידור, עתיד להתפרסם בעוד כמה שבועות. ועדות המשנה של הוועדה המליצו לחזק את המשטר הפרלמנטרי, ולא לעבור לשיטה נשיאותית בישראל.
יו"ר הכנסת, דליה איציק, הציעה במסמך שגיבשה על "ממשלת חירום לאומית" בעקבות המלחמה בלבנון, לבחון לעומק את דו"ח הביניים של ועדת מגידור. שרת החוץ, ציפי לבני, הציעה לשרי קדימה לבחון את הנהגת "החוק הדני" שמאפשר לבוחרים לדרג את מועמדי המפלגה שהם תומכים בה, במקום שייאלצו לבחור רשימה מפלגתית שהוכתבה מראש.
יו"ר העבודה, שר הביטחון עמיר פרץ, סבור שיש לקיים דיון במפלגה על שיטת הממשל הרצויה לישראל, אך עוד לא גיבש דעה ומעדיף ללמוד קודם את ההצעות השונות. יו"ר ישראל ביתנו, ח"כ אביגדור ליברמן, תומך בהנהגת משטר נשיאותי בישראל ככלי לחיזוק היציבות השלטונית.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
ישראל טוויטו (1965 - 8 בספטמבר 2006
ישראל טוויטו (1965 - 8 בספטמבר 2006), פעיל חברתי.
טוויטו נולד בגבעת שמואל. שירת בחטיבת גולני ולקראת תום שירותו נפצע קשה בתאונת דרכים ונותר נכה ברגלו. בשנת 1990 פונה מביתו בגבעת שמואל ועבר להתגורר עם בנותיו באוטובוס נטוש. בשנת 2002 הקים מאהל בכיכר המדינה בתל אביב (אותה כינה "כיכר הלחם"), יחד עם עשרות מחוסרי דיור, ומחה נגד הקיצוצים בתקציבי הרווחה שהנהיגה הממשלה. בעלי הקרקע בכיכר ניהלו נגדו מאבק משפטי במטרה לפנותו מהשטח אליו פלש, והכיכר פונתה בצו של עיריית תל-אביב באוקטובר 2003. לאחר שפונה מהכיכר, העתיק את מקום מושבו אל מול קריית הממשלה. שם פגש את ויקי קנפו והקים יחד איתה את מפלגת המחאה "לחם" (קנפו פרשה מאוחר יותר מהמפלגה). בדצמבר 2004 פונה טוויטו גם מירושלים. המפלגה שהקים התמודדה בבחירות לכנסת השבע עשרה, אך לא עברה את אחוז החסימה.
טויטו חקוק בעיני רבים כפעיל חברתי הפועל בלב שלם ובמסירות למען מעוטי היכולת, ולא חדל במאבקיו למענם.
ב-8 בספטמבר 2006 נפטר טוויטו מדום לב.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Sunday, September 03, 2006
End of the War Beginning of Vintage Dalton Winery
23 August 2006
Dear Friends,
The implementation of the cease-fire last week came just in the nick of time for us, whilst we were planning on harvesting no matter what the situation (we had stocked up on helmets and flack jackets) the renewed quiet will now allow us to conduct the harvest in peace.
In the aftermath of the war we can certainly count our blessings, we were incredibly lucky that of the 70 rockets that fell in and around the industrial zone, none caused any material damage and the winery was unscathed, some would call it miraculous. Also despite the inability of the farmers to access their vineyards during the war there seems to be minimal crop damage and 2006 is looking to be an excellent vintage.
On the 16th August we began harvesting sauvignon Blanc. The vineyard belongs to a farmer by the name of Avram Azran. Azran was called up to reserve duty in Lebanon for the duration of the war and could not tend to his vineyards or arrange the harvest; his friends rallied round and helped him with all the logistics. The pickers assembled at 5am on the morning of the harvest only to be met by Azran himself who had made his way from Lebanon, with his full kit and uniform, in order to manage the picking of his vineyard in person.
This week sees the continuation of Sauvignon Blanc that will be followed next week by chardonnay and some of the reds.
I hope that the cease-fire marks a move from Dalton being in the headlines due to its precarious situation to a position where it is in the news because of the excellence of its wines.
On a personal note, I would like to thank every member of the winery staff for their valiant efforts during the war, Moshe Haviv our CEO did not miss one day of work despite the cruel working conditions that were foisted upon him. Naama Mualem, our dedicated winemaker who monitored the progress of the vineyards despite the risk from katushas, and the rest of our winemaking team, Yochai, Zvi, Elad, Yehuda, Kobi, Chaim and Svetlana who all stepped up to the mark at a time of crisis.
I would also like to thank you, customers and friends, for your constant support, your offers of help and emails and letters warmed our hearts during these difficult times.
Needless to say, the visitors� center is now back in business and open throughout the week. Our first customers were soldiers returning from the front and a family who had booked a few days before the war started and refused to cancel the booking despite the war.
Alex Haruni
23 אוגוסט 2006
חברים יקרים,
עם סיום המלחמה אנו יכולים לומר בוודאות שהמזל היה לצדנו. למרות שנפלו כ-70 טילים באזור התעשייה של דלתון, אף אחד מהם לא גרם לנזק ישיר ליקב, יש שיקראו לזה נס. כמו כן למרות חוסר היכולת של הכורמים להגיע לכרם ולבצע את העבודות הנדרשות, נראה שהנזק ליבול היה מינימאלי ובציר 2006 נראה כבציר בעל איכויות מבטיחות.
ב- 16 לחודש אוגוסט התחלנו בבציר סוביניון בלאן השייך לכורם אברהם עזרן. עזרן נקרא לשירות מילואים בלבנון למשך המלחמה כולה ולא יכול היה לטפל בכרם ולארגן את הבציר. חבריו התארגנו ודאגו לכל הנדרש על מנת להשלים את המשימה. הבוצרים התאספו ב- 5 לפנות בוקר ביום הבציר ולהפתעתם פגש אותם עזרן בעצמו כשהוא בדרכו חזרה מלבנון לבוש במדים ועם ציוד מלא והגיע לפקח על הבציר בעצמו.
השבוע נמשיך בבציר הסוביניון כשלאחריו בשבוע הבא השרדונה ומעט מהאדומים.
כולי תקווה שבעקבות הפסקת האש ימשיך להיות יקב דלתון בכותרות בשל יינותיו המצוינים ולא בגלל אירועי המלחמה.
בנימה אישית. אני מעוניין להודות לכל חברי הצוות של יקב דלתון על עוז רוחם במהלך המלחמה. למנכ"ל היקב, משה חביב, שלא החמיץ יום עבודה אחד למרות התנאים הבלתי אפשריים שנכפו עליו. לנעמה מועלם, הייננית המסורה שלנו, אשר המשיכה לעקוב אחר הכרמים למרות סכנת הקטיושות, וכן לכל צוות ייצור היין שלנו יוחאי, צבי, אלעד, קובי, יהודה, חיים וסבטלנה אשר התעלו למען המטרה בזמן משבר.
כמו כן אני רוצה להודות לכם לקוחות יקרים וחברים, על תמיכתכם ללא הרף, על הושטת היד לעזרה ועל אינספור מכתבים והודעות מייל אשר חיממו את ליבנו בזמנים קשים אלו.
כמובן שמרכז המבקרים חזר לעבודה מלאה ופתוח במהלך כל השבוע. הקונים הראשונים שלנו היו חיילים ששבו מהחזית, ומשפחה אחת, אשר למרות המצב סירבה לחזור בה מהזמנה שנעשתה מספר ימים לפני התחלת הלחימה.
אלכס הרוני
Dear Friends,
The implementation of the cease-fire last week came just in the nick of time for us, whilst we were planning on harvesting no matter what the situation (we had stocked up on helmets and flack jackets) the renewed quiet will now allow us to conduct the harvest in peace.
In the aftermath of the war we can certainly count our blessings, we were incredibly lucky that of the 70 rockets that fell in and around the industrial zone, none caused any material damage and the winery was unscathed, some would call it miraculous. Also despite the inability of the farmers to access their vineyards during the war there seems to be minimal crop damage and 2006 is looking to be an excellent vintage.
On the 16th August we began harvesting sauvignon Blanc. The vineyard belongs to a farmer by the name of Avram Azran. Azran was called up to reserve duty in Lebanon for the duration of the war and could not tend to his vineyards or arrange the harvest; his friends rallied round and helped him with all the logistics. The pickers assembled at 5am on the morning of the harvest only to be met by Azran himself who had made his way from Lebanon, with his full kit and uniform, in order to manage the picking of his vineyard in person.
This week sees the continuation of Sauvignon Blanc that will be followed next week by chardonnay and some of the reds.
I hope that the cease-fire marks a move from Dalton being in the headlines due to its precarious situation to a position where it is in the news because of the excellence of its wines.
On a personal note, I would like to thank every member of the winery staff for their valiant efforts during the war, Moshe Haviv our CEO did not miss one day of work despite the cruel working conditions that were foisted upon him. Naama Mualem, our dedicated winemaker who monitored the progress of the vineyards despite the risk from katushas, and the rest of our winemaking team, Yochai, Zvi, Elad, Yehuda, Kobi, Chaim and Svetlana who all stepped up to the mark at a time of crisis.
I would also like to thank you, customers and friends, for your constant support, your offers of help and emails and letters warmed our hearts during these difficult times.
Needless to say, the visitors� center is now back in business and open throughout the week. Our first customers were soldiers returning from the front and a family who had booked a few days before the war started and refused to cancel the booking despite the war.
Alex Haruni
23 אוגוסט 2006
חברים יקרים,
עם סיום המלחמה אנו יכולים לומר בוודאות שהמזל היה לצדנו. למרות שנפלו כ-70 טילים באזור התעשייה של דלתון, אף אחד מהם לא גרם לנזק ישיר ליקב, יש שיקראו לזה נס. כמו כן למרות חוסר היכולת של הכורמים להגיע לכרם ולבצע את העבודות הנדרשות, נראה שהנזק ליבול היה מינימאלי ובציר 2006 נראה כבציר בעל איכויות מבטיחות.
ב- 16 לחודש אוגוסט התחלנו בבציר סוביניון בלאן השייך לכורם אברהם עזרן. עזרן נקרא לשירות מילואים בלבנון למשך המלחמה כולה ולא יכול היה לטפל בכרם ולארגן את הבציר. חבריו התארגנו ודאגו לכל הנדרש על מנת להשלים את המשימה. הבוצרים התאספו ב- 5 לפנות בוקר ביום הבציר ולהפתעתם פגש אותם עזרן בעצמו כשהוא בדרכו חזרה מלבנון לבוש במדים ועם ציוד מלא והגיע לפקח על הבציר בעצמו.
השבוע נמשיך בבציר הסוביניון כשלאחריו בשבוע הבא השרדונה ומעט מהאדומים.
כולי תקווה שבעקבות הפסקת האש ימשיך להיות יקב דלתון בכותרות בשל יינותיו המצוינים ולא בגלל אירועי המלחמה.
בנימה אישית. אני מעוניין להודות לכל חברי הצוות של יקב דלתון על עוז רוחם במהלך המלחמה. למנכ"ל היקב, משה חביב, שלא החמיץ יום עבודה אחד למרות התנאים הבלתי אפשריים שנכפו עליו. לנעמה מועלם, הייננית המסורה שלנו, אשר המשיכה לעקוב אחר הכרמים למרות סכנת הקטיושות, וכן לכל צוות ייצור היין שלנו יוחאי, צבי, אלעד, קובי, יהודה, חיים וסבטלנה אשר התעלו למען המטרה בזמן משבר.
כמו כן אני רוצה להודות לכם לקוחות יקרים וחברים, על תמיכתכם ללא הרף, על הושטת היד לעזרה ועל אינספור מכתבים והודעות מייל אשר חיממו את ליבנו בזמנים קשים אלו.
כמובן שמרכז המבקרים חזר לעבודה מלאה ופתוח במהלך כל השבוע. הקונים הראשונים שלנו היו חיילים ששבו מהחזית, ומשפחה אחת, אשר למרות המצב סירבה לחזור בה מהזמנה שנעשתה מספר ימים לפני התחלת הלחימה.
אלכס הרוני
Friday, September 01, 2006
Kikar Rabin Again very emotional
Korin Elal Sang "Ein Li Eretz Acheret" and I had to many memories from Kikar Rabin.
I don't have another country
Even if my land is burning
A word in Hebrew enters my veins, my soul,
In a weak body, in a broken heart
My home is here
I won't shut up because my country changed its face
I won't stop remembering it
And I will sing here in its ears
Until it oppens its eyes.
אין לי ארץ אחרת
ביצוע: קורין אלאל
מילים: אהוד מנור
לחן: קורין אלאל
אין לי ארץ אחרת
גם אם אדמתי בוערת
רק מילה בעברית חודרת
אל עורקי אל נשמתי
בגוף כואב
בלב רעב
כאן הוא ביתי.
לא אשתוק כי ארצי
שינתה את פניה
לא אוותר לה אזכיר לה
ואשיר כאן באוזניה
עד שתפקח את עיניה.
I don't have another country
Even if my land is burning
A word in Hebrew enters my veins, my soul,
In a weak body, in a broken heart
My home is here
I won't shut up because my country changed its face
I won't stop remembering it
And I will sing here in its ears
Until it oppens its eyes.
אין לי ארץ אחרת
ביצוע: קורין אלאל
מילים: אהוד מנור
לחן: קורין אלאל
אין לי ארץ אחרת
גם אם אדמתי בוערת
רק מילה בעברית חודרת
אל עורקי אל נשמתי
בגוף כואב
בלב רעב
כאן הוא ביתי.
לא אשתוק כי ארצי
שינתה את פניה
לא אוותר לה אזכיר לה
ואשיר כאן באוזניה
עד שתפקח את עיניה.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Advantages of Plurality
Advantages
[edit]
Simplicity
Plurality may well be the simplest of all voting systems. This implies specific advantages. It is likely to be quicker, and easier to administer; this may also imply that an election costs less to run. It may also have an effect on voters, because it is easy to explain and understand. Alternative voting systems may alienate some voters who find the systems hard to understand, and who therefore feel detached from the direct effect of their own vote.
In addition, not all voters see party politics or policies as a major issue. Some voters see an election primarily as a form of recruitment for an individual representative, a point of contact between the state and themselves. FPTP gives such voters a direct choice of single candidate, with no extra votes to be shared or balanced between parties. This may be especially important to voters who want to vote for individuals based on particular ethical frameworks that are not party aligned, and who do not want their vote to have a "side effect" of electing others they may not approve of.
[edit]
Each representative must be a winner
Sometimes, the voters are in favour of a political party, but do not like specific candidates. An example was the premier of Alberta, Don Getty. His government was re-elected in 1989, but because of voter dissatisfaction with the way the government was led, Getty, the leader of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party, was not re-elected by voters from his electoral district.
However this can also have the opposite effect. A candidate who is very popular among the electorate in general may lose if the candidate or the candidate's party is unpopular or has caused dissatisfaction in his or her seat. An example was how Winston Churchill lost the 1945 UK Parliamentary elections. Churchill had over a 90% approval rating, but the Labour Party won overall defeating Churchill's Conservative Party and making Clement Attlee the Prime Minister.
Similarly, in the 1999 Ontario provincial election, Mike Harris and his Progressive Conservative party was re-elected to a majority government, but symbolic of the growing discontent among voters about cuts to education, his education minister and strong ally was resoundingly defeated by the opposition candidate.
It is often claimed that because each electoral district votes for its own representative, the elected candidate is held accountable to his own voters, thereby helping to prevent incompetent, fraudulent or corrupt behavior by elected candidates. The voters in the electoral district can easily replace him since they have full power over who they want to represent them. In the absence of effective recall legislation, however, the electors must wait until the end of the representative's term. Moreover, it is possible for a winning candidate or government to increase support from one election to the next, but lose the election, or vice-versa. Also, it is generally possible for candidates to be elected if the party regards them as important even if they are fairly unpopular, by moving the candidate to a safe seat which the party is unlikely to lose or by getting a candidate in a safe seat to step down.
[edit]
Preservation of One Person One Vote principle
The arguments for a plurality voting system rely heavily on the preservation of the "one person, one vote" principle (often shortened to OMOV for "one man, one vote" or more recently "one member, one vote"), as cited by the Supreme Court of the United States, wherein each voter is only able to cast one vote in a given election, where that vote can only go to one candidate. Plurality voting systems elect the candidate who is preferred first by the largest number of voters. Other voting systems, such as Instant-runoff voting or Single Transferable Vote also preserve OMOV, but rely on lower voter preference to arrive at a candidate earning either absolute majority or droop quota, respectively.
However, proponents of other systems, such as approval voting, point out that the OMOV principle was made to control the magnitude of districts; that each district must be relatively in proportion to one another in population. Approval voting does not actually represent some voters more than others, so the OMOV principle would be a weak one to discount it on. In any case, it could be argued approval voting grants one vote for each candidate to each voter - which they may choose not to cast, and cannot vote cumulate on one candidate.
[edit]
Regionalism
FPTP also encourages regional parties which can be very popular in one geographical region but have little or no support in other parts of the electorate.
Some parts of a given country may have local support for a specific political party which may have no support in another reigon. In the United States for example, small parties, like the Socialist parties may have scattered support in certain municipalities, so a candidate from one of there reigions may appear on the ballot there, whereas his name would not appear on the ballot in a reigon where the party has little support.
A good example of this is Canada, where, in 1993, the separatist Bloc Québécois formed the opposition, despite getting only 13% of the vote. In the 2006 election, the Bloc Québécois received 51 seats (16.6% of the total seats) with 10.5% of the total votes. In contrast, the New Democratic Party received 29 seats (9.4% of the total seats) with 17.5% of the total votes.
This section is a stub. You can help by adding to it.
[edit]
Disadvantages
[edit]
Tactical voting
To a much greater extent than many other electoral methods, plurality electoral systems encourage tactical voting techniques, like "compromising". Voters are pressured to vote for one of the two candidates they predict are most likely to win, even if their true preference is neither, because a vote for any other candidate will be likely to be wasted and have no impact on the final result.
In the example above, Cathy's voters would have done much better to have voted for Amy instead of Cathy; that way, Amy would have beaten Brian by eight votes. They would not have gotten their most desirable person elected, but rather their second choice; in this case plurality voting led to the paradoxical result that attempting to get their 1st most desired person elected led to their 3rd most desired person being elected instead. Likewise, in the Tennessee example, if all the voters for Chattanooga and Knoxville had instead voted for Nashville, then Nashville would have won (with 58% of the vote); this would only have been the 3rd choice for those voters, but voting for their respective 1st choices (their own cities) actually results in their 4th choice (Memphis) being elected.
The difficulty is sometimes summed up, in an extreme form, as "All votes for anyone other than the second place are votes for the winner", because by voting for other candidates, they have denied those votes to the second place candidate who could have won had they received them. It is often claimed by United States Democrats that Democrat Al Gore lost the 2000 Presidential Election to Republican George W. Bush because some voters on the left voted for Ralph Nader of the Green Party, who presumably would have preferred Gore to Bush. (It should be noted that despite such claims of potential Gore votes going to Nader, Gore still had a plurality of the popular vote. Bush won due to having more electoral votes.) Conversely, Republicans can claim that Ross Perot was a spoiler who enabled Bill Clinton to win the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections with a minority of the popular vote, because Perot had split the conservative vote.
Such a mentality is reflected by elections in Puerto Rico and its three principal voter groups: the Independentistas (pro-independence), the Populares (pro-commonwealth), and the Estadistas (pro-statehood). Historically, there has been a tendency for Independentista voters to elect Popular candidates and policies. This phenomenon is responsible for some Popular victories, even though the Estadistas have the most voters on the island. It is so widely recognised that the Puertoricans sometimes call the Independentistas who vote for the Populares "melons", because the fruit is green on the outside but red on the inside (in reference to the party colours).
Because voters have to predict in advance who the top two candidates will be, this can cause significant perturbation to the system:
Substantial power is given to the media. Some voters will tend to believe the media's assertions as to who the leading contenders are likely to be in the election. Even voters who distrust the media will know that other voters do believe the media, and therefore those candidates who receive the most media attention will nonetheless be the most popular and thus most likely to be in one of the top two.
A newly appointed candidate, who is in fact supported by the majority of voters, may be considered (due to the lack of a track record) to not be likely to become one of the top two candidates; thus, they will receive a reduced number of votes, which will then give them a reputation as a low poller in future elections, compounding the problem.
The system may promote votes against more so than votes for. In the UK, entire campaigns have been organised with the aim of voting against the Conservative party by voting for either Labour or Liberal Democrats based on which is most popular in each constituency, regardless of the voters' opinions of the policies of these parties.
If enough voters use this tactic, the first-past-the-post system becomes, effectively, runoff voting - a completely different system - where the first round is held in the court of public opinion.
A feature of the FPTP system is that invariably, voters can select only one candidate in a single-member district, whilst in multi-member districts they can never select more candidates than the number of seats in the district. Some argue that FPTP would work better if electors could cast votes for as many candidates as they wish. This would allow voters to "vote against" a certain despised candidate if they choose, without being forced to guess who they should vote for to defeat that candidate, thus eliminating the need for tactical voting. Such a system would also serve to reduce the spoiler effect. This system is called approval voting.
[edit]
Effect on representation
Created by an organisation promoting proportional representation, this campaign postcard illustrates that Labour obtained a majority in Parliament despite winning only 35.2% of the national vote in the 2005 election.
The most commonly expressed disadvantage — perhaps because it is easiest to express and explain — of first-past-the-post is that it does not reflect the voter's thoughts. Thus, substantial bodies of opinion can be rendered irrelevant to the final outcome, and a party can obtain a majority of seats without a majority of the vote. Examples include the recent United Kingdom general election of 2005 where the new government won a majority of the seats with less than 36% of the national vote. The disproportionate nature of this system also means that whole regions may have MPs from only one party. The British Conservatives won large majorities of seats in the 1980s on a minority of votes while almost all the Scottish seats were Labour, Liberal or SNP; this disparity created tremendous dissatisfaction in Scotland.
A further example of disproportionality arose in the Canadian federal election of 1926 for the province of Manitoba. The province was entitled to 17 seats in that election. The result was very different from how people voted.Political party % votes Number
of seats % seats
Conservative 42.2% 0 0%
Liberal-Progressive 19.5% 7 41%
Liberal 18.4% 4 24%
Progressive 11.2% 4 24%
Labour 8.7% 2 12%
The Conservatives clearly had the largest number of votes across the province, but received no seats at all.
The usual cause for these disproportionate results is that a party has a large number of votes across the entire territory, but they are spread out across the territory rather than being concentrated in particular constituencies. Parties with less overall support, but where that support is concentrated in particular constituencies, will win plurality in those constituencies over a party with widely distributed support.
This presents a problem because it encourages parties to focus narrowly on the needs and well-being of specific electoral districts where they can be sure to win seats, rather than be sensitive to the sentiments of voters everywhere. A further problem is that the party in power often has the ability to determine where the boundaries of constituencies lie: to secure election results, they may use gerrymandering — that is, redistricting to distort election results by enclosing party voters together in one electoral district. Moreover, it can be demonstrated that even the use of non-partisan districting methods - such as computers - to determine constituency boundaries tends to generate results very similar to those produced by a majority party with the power to gerrymander in its favour.[2] Conversely, there are cases where there may be no possible way of drawing contiguous boundaries that will allow a minority representation.
It often seems fundamentally unfair that a party should have a substantially greater or lesser share of seats than their share of the vote. A further consequence of the system is that many such elections can be considered won before all votes are tallied, once there are no longer enough uncounted votes to override an established plurality count. Though not necessarily a disadvantage, this can produce a feeling of disenfranchisement among voters when running tallies are reported through the media.
This argument applies to most other single-winner voting systems.
[edit]
How the seats can differ hugely from votes
In the FPTP system, the proportion of seats won may differ hugely from the proportion of votes received. A huge disparity between votes and seats is demonstrated below.
In the first table labour has rightly won, but the size of its victory is unjusitified by votes. Also, the LibDems have won a seat with half the Conservative vote when the Conservatives have no seats!Data Cons.
votes Labour
votes LibDem
votes
Constituency A 40 50 10
Constituency B 45 55 0
Constituency C 40 10 50
Constituency D 35 40 25
Constituency E 40 60 0
Overall votes 200
40% 215
43% 85
17%
Seats 0 4 1
[edit]
How polarisation can stop seats changing hands
If a country becomes polarised, many constituencies will have strong majorities in certain seats, this will mean that marginal seats could be few and far between, making it hard for many seats to change hands when a party's vote drops.
Below are two tables of the six most marginal seats in a country. They both show the same seats but the second table is more polarised. Both show what would happen when there is a 5 per cent swing from Cons. to Labour. Amongst the non-polarised seats, Labour would make a larger gain than it would with polarised seats.Non-polarised Cons.
votes Labour
votes Change?
Constituency A 59 41 Cons. hold
Constituency B 57 43 Cons. hold
Constituency C 54 46 Labour gain
Constituency D 54 46 Labour gain
Constituency E 52 48 Labour gain
Constituency F 51 49 Labour gain
Seats that would
change hands -4 +4 n/a
Polarised Cons.
votes Labour
votes Change?
Constituency A 67 33 Cons. hold
Constituency B 64 36 Cons. hold
Constituency C 62 38 Cons. hold
Constituency D 59 41 Cons. hold
Constituency E 56 44 Cons. hold
Constituency F 52 48 Labour gain
Seats that would
change hands -1 +1 n/a
[edit]
Effect on political parties
Duverger's law is a principle of political science which predicts that constituencies that use first-past-the-post systems will become two-party systems, given enough time.
First-past-the-post tends to reduce the number of political parties to a greater extent than most other methods, thus making it more likely that a single party will hold a majority of legislative seats. (In the United Kingdom, 18 out of 22 General Elections since 1922 have produced a majority government.)
Some argue that this is an advantage, in that single party rule enables quicker decision-making with less need for back and forth negotiation.
Multi-party coalitions, on the other hand, require consent among all coalition partners to pass legislation, which some argue gives small parties a disproportionate amount of power. In the UK, arguments for plurality often look to Italy where the frequent government changeovers are presented as undesirable.
FPTP's tendency toward fewer parties and more frequent one-party rule can also produce disadvantages. One such disadvantage is that the government may not consider as wide a range of perspectives and concerns. It is entirely possible that a voter will find that all major parties agree on a particular issue. In this case, the voter will not have any meaningful way of expressing a dissenting opinion through his or her vote.
Another disadvantage is that fewer choices are offered to the voters, often pressuring voters to vote for a candidate with whom they largely disagree so as to oppose a candidate with whom they disagree even more (See tactical voting above); this feature pressures candidates to appeal to the extremes in order to avoid being undercut. This appeal-to-extremes operates by giving those voters who are more centrist no choice but to vote for them. The likely result of this is that candidates will less closely reflect the viewpoints of those who vote for them.
It may also be argued that one-party rule is more likely to lead to radical changes in government policy that are only favoured by a plurality or bare majority of the voters, whereas multi-party systems usually require greater consensus in order to make dramatic changes.
[edit]
Safe seats
See also: Rotten borough
A safe seat is one in which a plurality of voters support a particular candidate or party so strongly that their votes for that candidate are guaranteed in advance of the election. This causes the difficulty that all other voters in the constituency can then make no difference to the result, since the winner of the seat is already known in advance. This results in serious feelings of disenfranchisement, and to abstention.
As an example Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin holds the 4th safest parliamentary seat in Westminster for his West Belfast constituency.
[edit]
Wasted Votes
Wasted votes are votes cast for losing candidates or votes cast for winning candidates in excess of the number required for victory. For example, in the UK General Election of 2005, 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes - a total of 70% wasted votes. This is perhaps the most fundamental criticism of FPTP, that a large majority of votes may play no part in determining the outcome. Alternative electoral systems attempt to ensure that almost all votes are effective in influencing the result and the number of wasted votes is consequently minimised.
This section is a stub. You can help by adding to it.
[edit]
Wipeout and clean sweep results
Since FPTP combined with single member constituencies generate a winner's bonus, if not winner takes all, the opposition can be left with few if any seats (see above).
It is argued that a weak or absent opposition due to an electoral wipeout is bad for the government. Provincial elections in several Canadian provinces provide suitable examples.
[edit]
Disproportionate influence of smaller parties
Smaller parties can disproportionately change the outcome of a FPTP election by swinging what is called the 50-50% balance of two party systems, by creating a faction within one or both ends of the political spectrum which shifts the winner of the election from an absolute majority outcome to a simple majority outcome favouring the previously less favoured party. In comparison, for electoral systems using proportional representation small groups win only their proportional share of representation. In the United States, this mechanism falls within one major reasoning (USA, Voting act, 1970s) favoring two-party, First-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral systems.
[edit]
Current events
The United Kingdom continues to use the first-past-the-post electoral system for general elections, and for local government elections in England and Wales. Changes to the UK system have been proposed, and alternatives were examined by the Jenkins Commission in the late 1990s but no major changes have been implemented. Canada also uses this system for national and provincial elections. In May 2005 the Canadian province of British Columbia had a referendum on abolishing single-member district plurality in favour of multi-member districts with the Single Transferable Vote system after the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform made a recommendation for the reform. The referendum obtained 57% of the vote, but failed to meet the 60% requirement for passing.
Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand and Australia are notable examples of countries within the UK, or with previous links to it, that use non-FPTP electoral systems.
Recent examples of nations which have undergone democratic reforms but have not adopted the FPTP system include South Africa, almost all of the former Eastern bloc nations, Russia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
[edit]
Where plurality voting is used
Countries that use this system to elect the lower or only house of their legislature include:
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belize
Bhutan
Botswana
Canada
Dominica
Ethiopia
The Gambia
Ghana
Grenada
India (Proportional representation in upper house)
Jamaica
Kenya
Malawi
Malaysia
Federated States of Micronesia
Morocco
Nepal
Nigeria
Pakistan
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
Singapore
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Swaziland
Tanzania
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tuvalu
Uganda
United Kingdom (Parliamentary and local government elections in England and Wales only, PR in elections for EU)
United States (except for Louisiana)
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
See also: Table of voting systems by nation
The plurality election system is used in the Republic of China on Taiwan for executive offices such as county magistrates, mayors, and the president, but not for legislative seats which used the single non-transferable vote system. This has produced an interesting party structure in which there are two broad coalitions of parties which cooperate in executive elections but which compete internally in legislative elections. [3]
India uses a proportional representation system for its upper house.
[edit]
Simplicity
Plurality may well be the simplest of all voting systems. This implies specific advantages. It is likely to be quicker, and easier to administer; this may also imply that an election costs less to run. It may also have an effect on voters, because it is easy to explain and understand. Alternative voting systems may alienate some voters who find the systems hard to understand, and who therefore feel detached from the direct effect of their own vote.
In addition, not all voters see party politics or policies as a major issue. Some voters see an election primarily as a form of recruitment for an individual representative, a point of contact between the state and themselves. FPTP gives such voters a direct choice of single candidate, with no extra votes to be shared or balanced between parties. This may be especially important to voters who want to vote for individuals based on particular ethical frameworks that are not party aligned, and who do not want their vote to have a "side effect" of electing others they may not approve of.
[edit]
Each representative must be a winner
Sometimes, the voters are in favour of a political party, but do not like specific candidates. An example was the premier of Alberta, Don Getty. His government was re-elected in 1989, but because of voter dissatisfaction with the way the government was led, Getty, the leader of the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party, was not re-elected by voters from his electoral district.
However this can also have the opposite effect. A candidate who is very popular among the electorate in general may lose if the candidate or the candidate's party is unpopular or has caused dissatisfaction in his or her seat. An example was how Winston Churchill lost the 1945 UK Parliamentary elections. Churchill had over a 90% approval rating, but the Labour Party won overall defeating Churchill's Conservative Party and making Clement Attlee the Prime Minister.
Similarly, in the 1999 Ontario provincial election, Mike Harris and his Progressive Conservative party was re-elected to a majority government, but symbolic of the growing discontent among voters about cuts to education, his education minister and strong ally was resoundingly defeated by the opposition candidate.
It is often claimed that because each electoral district votes for its own representative, the elected candidate is held accountable to his own voters, thereby helping to prevent incompetent, fraudulent or corrupt behavior by elected candidates. The voters in the electoral district can easily replace him since they have full power over who they want to represent them. In the absence of effective recall legislation, however, the electors must wait until the end of the representative's term. Moreover, it is possible for a winning candidate or government to increase support from one election to the next, but lose the election, or vice-versa. Also, it is generally possible for candidates to be elected if the party regards them as important even if they are fairly unpopular, by moving the candidate to a safe seat which the party is unlikely to lose or by getting a candidate in a safe seat to step down.
[edit]
Preservation of One Person One Vote principle
The arguments for a plurality voting system rely heavily on the preservation of the "one person, one vote" principle (often shortened to OMOV for "one man, one vote" or more recently "one member, one vote"), as cited by the Supreme Court of the United States, wherein each voter is only able to cast one vote in a given election, where that vote can only go to one candidate. Plurality voting systems elect the candidate who is preferred first by the largest number of voters. Other voting systems, such as Instant-runoff voting or Single Transferable Vote also preserve OMOV, but rely on lower voter preference to arrive at a candidate earning either absolute majority or droop quota, respectively.
However, proponents of other systems, such as approval voting, point out that the OMOV principle was made to control the magnitude of districts; that each district must be relatively in proportion to one another in population. Approval voting does not actually represent some voters more than others, so the OMOV principle would be a weak one to discount it on. In any case, it could be argued approval voting grants one vote for each candidate to each voter - which they may choose not to cast, and cannot vote cumulate on one candidate.
[edit]
Regionalism
FPTP also encourages regional parties which can be very popular in one geographical region but have little or no support in other parts of the electorate.
Some parts of a given country may have local support for a specific political party which may have no support in another reigon. In the United States for example, small parties, like the Socialist parties may have scattered support in certain municipalities, so a candidate from one of there reigions may appear on the ballot there, whereas his name would not appear on the ballot in a reigon where the party has little support.
A good example of this is Canada, where, in 1993, the separatist Bloc Québécois formed the opposition, despite getting only 13% of the vote. In the 2006 election, the Bloc Québécois received 51 seats (16.6% of the total seats) with 10.5% of the total votes. In contrast, the New Democratic Party received 29 seats (9.4% of the total seats) with 17.5% of the total votes.
This section is a stub. You can help by adding to it.
[edit]
Disadvantages
[edit]
Tactical voting
To a much greater extent than many other electoral methods, plurality electoral systems encourage tactical voting techniques, like "compromising". Voters are pressured to vote for one of the two candidates they predict are most likely to win, even if their true preference is neither, because a vote for any other candidate will be likely to be wasted and have no impact on the final result.
In the example above, Cathy's voters would have done much better to have voted for Amy instead of Cathy; that way, Amy would have beaten Brian by eight votes. They would not have gotten their most desirable person elected, but rather their second choice; in this case plurality voting led to the paradoxical result that attempting to get their 1st most desired person elected led to their 3rd most desired person being elected instead. Likewise, in the Tennessee example, if all the voters for Chattanooga and Knoxville had instead voted for Nashville, then Nashville would have won (with 58% of the vote); this would only have been the 3rd choice for those voters, but voting for their respective 1st choices (their own cities) actually results in their 4th choice (Memphis) being elected.
The difficulty is sometimes summed up, in an extreme form, as "All votes for anyone other than the second place are votes for the winner", because by voting for other candidates, they have denied those votes to the second place candidate who could have won had they received them. It is often claimed by United States Democrats that Democrat Al Gore lost the 2000 Presidential Election to Republican George W. Bush because some voters on the left voted for Ralph Nader of the Green Party, who presumably would have preferred Gore to Bush. (It should be noted that despite such claims of potential Gore votes going to Nader, Gore still had a plurality of the popular vote. Bush won due to having more electoral votes.) Conversely, Republicans can claim that Ross Perot was a spoiler who enabled Bill Clinton to win the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections with a minority of the popular vote, because Perot had split the conservative vote.
Such a mentality is reflected by elections in Puerto Rico and its three principal voter groups: the Independentistas (pro-independence), the Populares (pro-commonwealth), and the Estadistas (pro-statehood). Historically, there has been a tendency for Independentista voters to elect Popular candidates and policies. This phenomenon is responsible for some Popular victories, even though the Estadistas have the most voters on the island. It is so widely recognised that the Puertoricans sometimes call the Independentistas who vote for the Populares "melons", because the fruit is green on the outside but red on the inside (in reference to the party colours).
Because voters have to predict in advance who the top two candidates will be, this can cause significant perturbation to the system:
Substantial power is given to the media. Some voters will tend to believe the media's assertions as to who the leading contenders are likely to be in the election. Even voters who distrust the media will know that other voters do believe the media, and therefore those candidates who receive the most media attention will nonetheless be the most popular and thus most likely to be in one of the top two.
A newly appointed candidate, who is in fact supported by the majority of voters, may be considered (due to the lack of a track record) to not be likely to become one of the top two candidates; thus, they will receive a reduced number of votes, which will then give them a reputation as a low poller in future elections, compounding the problem.
The system may promote votes against more so than votes for. In the UK, entire campaigns have been organised with the aim of voting against the Conservative party by voting for either Labour or Liberal Democrats based on which is most popular in each constituency, regardless of the voters' opinions of the policies of these parties.
If enough voters use this tactic, the first-past-the-post system becomes, effectively, runoff voting - a completely different system - where the first round is held in the court of public opinion.
A feature of the FPTP system is that invariably, voters can select only one candidate in a single-member district, whilst in multi-member districts they can never select more candidates than the number of seats in the district. Some argue that FPTP would work better if electors could cast votes for as many candidates as they wish. This would allow voters to "vote against" a certain despised candidate if they choose, without being forced to guess who they should vote for to defeat that candidate, thus eliminating the need for tactical voting. Such a system would also serve to reduce the spoiler effect. This system is called approval voting.
[edit]
Effect on representation
Created by an organisation promoting proportional representation, this campaign postcard illustrates that Labour obtained a majority in Parliament despite winning only 35.2% of the national vote in the 2005 election.
The most commonly expressed disadvantage — perhaps because it is easiest to express and explain — of first-past-the-post is that it does not reflect the voter's thoughts. Thus, substantial bodies of opinion can be rendered irrelevant to the final outcome, and a party can obtain a majority of seats without a majority of the vote. Examples include the recent United Kingdom general election of 2005 where the new government won a majority of the seats with less than 36% of the national vote. The disproportionate nature of this system also means that whole regions may have MPs from only one party. The British Conservatives won large majorities of seats in the 1980s on a minority of votes while almost all the Scottish seats were Labour, Liberal or SNP; this disparity created tremendous dissatisfaction in Scotland.
A further example of disproportionality arose in the Canadian federal election of 1926 for the province of Manitoba. The province was entitled to 17 seats in that election. The result was very different from how people voted.Political party % votes Number
of seats % seats
Conservative 42.2% 0 0%
Liberal-Progressive 19.5% 7 41%
Liberal 18.4% 4 24%
Progressive 11.2% 4 24%
Labour 8.7% 2 12%
The Conservatives clearly had the largest number of votes across the province, but received no seats at all.
The usual cause for these disproportionate results is that a party has a large number of votes across the entire territory, but they are spread out across the territory rather than being concentrated in particular constituencies. Parties with less overall support, but where that support is concentrated in particular constituencies, will win plurality in those constituencies over a party with widely distributed support.
This presents a problem because it encourages parties to focus narrowly on the needs and well-being of specific electoral districts where they can be sure to win seats, rather than be sensitive to the sentiments of voters everywhere. A further problem is that the party in power often has the ability to determine where the boundaries of constituencies lie: to secure election results, they may use gerrymandering — that is, redistricting to distort election results by enclosing party voters together in one electoral district. Moreover, it can be demonstrated that even the use of non-partisan districting methods - such as computers - to determine constituency boundaries tends to generate results very similar to those produced by a majority party with the power to gerrymander in its favour.[2] Conversely, there are cases where there may be no possible way of drawing contiguous boundaries that will allow a minority representation.
It often seems fundamentally unfair that a party should have a substantially greater or lesser share of seats than their share of the vote. A further consequence of the system is that many such elections can be considered won before all votes are tallied, once there are no longer enough uncounted votes to override an established plurality count. Though not necessarily a disadvantage, this can produce a feeling of disenfranchisement among voters when running tallies are reported through the media.
This argument applies to most other single-winner voting systems.
[edit]
How the seats can differ hugely from votes
In the FPTP system, the proportion of seats won may differ hugely from the proportion of votes received. A huge disparity between votes and seats is demonstrated below.
In the first table labour has rightly won, but the size of its victory is unjusitified by votes. Also, the LibDems have won a seat with half the Conservative vote when the Conservatives have no seats!Data Cons.
votes Labour
votes LibDem
votes
Constituency A 40 50 10
Constituency B 45 55 0
Constituency C 40 10 50
Constituency D 35 40 25
Constituency E 40 60 0
Overall votes 200
40% 215
43% 85
17%
Seats 0 4 1
[edit]
How polarisation can stop seats changing hands
If a country becomes polarised, many constituencies will have strong majorities in certain seats, this will mean that marginal seats could be few and far between, making it hard for many seats to change hands when a party's vote drops.
Below are two tables of the six most marginal seats in a country. They both show the same seats but the second table is more polarised. Both show what would happen when there is a 5 per cent swing from Cons. to Labour. Amongst the non-polarised seats, Labour would make a larger gain than it would with polarised seats.Non-polarised Cons.
votes Labour
votes Change?
Constituency A 59 41 Cons. hold
Constituency B 57 43 Cons. hold
Constituency C 54 46 Labour gain
Constituency D 54 46 Labour gain
Constituency E 52 48 Labour gain
Constituency F 51 49 Labour gain
Seats that would
change hands -4 +4 n/a
Polarised Cons.
votes Labour
votes Change?
Constituency A 67 33 Cons. hold
Constituency B 64 36 Cons. hold
Constituency C 62 38 Cons. hold
Constituency D 59 41 Cons. hold
Constituency E 56 44 Cons. hold
Constituency F 52 48 Labour gain
Seats that would
change hands -1 +1 n/a
[edit]
Effect on political parties
Duverger's law is a principle of political science which predicts that constituencies that use first-past-the-post systems will become two-party systems, given enough time.
First-past-the-post tends to reduce the number of political parties to a greater extent than most other methods, thus making it more likely that a single party will hold a majority of legislative seats. (In the United Kingdom, 18 out of 22 General Elections since 1922 have produced a majority government.)
Some argue that this is an advantage, in that single party rule enables quicker decision-making with less need for back and forth negotiation.
Multi-party coalitions, on the other hand, require consent among all coalition partners to pass legislation, which some argue gives small parties a disproportionate amount of power. In the UK, arguments for plurality often look to Italy where the frequent government changeovers are presented as undesirable.
FPTP's tendency toward fewer parties and more frequent one-party rule can also produce disadvantages. One such disadvantage is that the government may not consider as wide a range of perspectives and concerns. It is entirely possible that a voter will find that all major parties agree on a particular issue. In this case, the voter will not have any meaningful way of expressing a dissenting opinion through his or her vote.
Another disadvantage is that fewer choices are offered to the voters, often pressuring voters to vote for a candidate with whom they largely disagree so as to oppose a candidate with whom they disagree even more (See tactical voting above); this feature pressures candidates to appeal to the extremes in order to avoid being undercut. This appeal-to-extremes operates by giving those voters who are more centrist no choice but to vote for them. The likely result of this is that candidates will less closely reflect the viewpoints of those who vote for them.
It may also be argued that one-party rule is more likely to lead to radical changes in government policy that are only favoured by a plurality or bare majority of the voters, whereas multi-party systems usually require greater consensus in order to make dramatic changes.
[edit]
Safe seats
See also: Rotten borough
A safe seat is one in which a plurality of voters support a particular candidate or party so strongly that their votes for that candidate are guaranteed in advance of the election. This causes the difficulty that all other voters in the constituency can then make no difference to the result, since the winner of the seat is already known in advance. This results in serious feelings of disenfranchisement, and to abstention.
As an example Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin holds the 4th safest parliamentary seat in Westminster for his West Belfast constituency.
[edit]
Wasted Votes
Wasted votes are votes cast for losing candidates or votes cast for winning candidates in excess of the number required for victory. For example, in the UK General Election of 2005, 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes - a total of 70% wasted votes. This is perhaps the most fundamental criticism of FPTP, that a large majority of votes may play no part in determining the outcome. Alternative electoral systems attempt to ensure that almost all votes are effective in influencing the result and the number of wasted votes is consequently minimised.
This section is a stub. You can help by adding to it.
[edit]
Wipeout and clean sweep results
Since FPTP combined with single member constituencies generate a winner's bonus, if not winner takes all, the opposition can be left with few if any seats (see above).
It is argued that a weak or absent opposition due to an electoral wipeout is bad for the government. Provincial elections in several Canadian provinces provide suitable examples.
[edit]
Disproportionate influence of smaller parties
Smaller parties can disproportionately change the outcome of a FPTP election by swinging what is called the 50-50% balance of two party systems, by creating a faction within one or both ends of the political spectrum which shifts the winner of the election from an absolute majority outcome to a simple majority outcome favouring the previously less favoured party. In comparison, for electoral systems using proportional representation small groups win only their proportional share of representation. In the United States, this mechanism falls within one major reasoning (USA, Voting act, 1970s) favoring two-party, First-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral systems.
[edit]
Current events
The United Kingdom continues to use the first-past-the-post electoral system for general elections, and for local government elections in England and Wales. Changes to the UK system have been proposed, and alternatives were examined by the Jenkins Commission in the late 1990s but no major changes have been implemented. Canada also uses this system for national and provincial elections. In May 2005 the Canadian province of British Columbia had a referendum on abolishing single-member district plurality in favour of multi-member districts with the Single Transferable Vote system after the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform made a recommendation for the reform. The referendum obtained 57% of the vote, but failed to meet the 60% requirement for passing.
Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand and Australia are notable examples of countries within the UK, or with previous links to it, that use non-FPTP electoral systems.
Recent examples of nations which have undergone democratic reforms but have not adopted the FPTP system include South Africa, almost all of the former Eastern bloc nations, Russia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
[edit]
Where plurality voting is used
Countries that use this system to elect the lower or only house of their legislature include:
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belize
Bhutan
Botswana
Canada
Dominica
Ethiopia
The Gambia
Ghana
Grenada
India (Proportional representation in upper house)
Jamaica
Kenya
Malawi
Malaysia
Federated States of Micronesia
Morocco
Nepal
Nigeria
Pakistan
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
Singapore
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Swaziland
Tanzania
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tuvalu
Uganda
United Kingdom (Parliamentary and local government elections in England and Wales only, PR in elections for EU)
United States (except for Louisiana)
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
See also: Table of voting systems by nation
The plurality election system is used in the Republic of China on Taiwan for executive offices such as county magistrates, mayors, and the president, but not for legislative seats which used the single non-transferable vote system. This has produced an interesting party structure in which there are two broad coalitions of parties which cooperate in executive elections but which compete internally in legislative elections. [3]
India uses a proportional representation system for its upper house.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
I AM 57 AND A MONTH TODAY
AT WAR
August 22
Does Iran have something in store?
BY BERNARD LEWIS
Tuesday, August 8, 2006 4:30 p.m.
During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan. In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.
It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.
Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?
There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.
Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.
The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights--the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.
A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.
The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians--but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent--the threat of direct retaliation on Iran--is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.
In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time--Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.
What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.
A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."
In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.
How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD.
Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
August 22
Does Iran have something in store?
BY BERNARD LEWIS
Tuesday, August 8, 2006 4:30 p.m.
During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan. In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.
It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.
Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?
There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.
Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.
The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights--the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.
A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.
The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians--but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent--the threat of direct retaliation on Iran--is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.
In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time--Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.
What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.
A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."
In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.
How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD.
Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Psalm 122 Peace in Jerusalem
תהילים פרק קכב
א שִׁיר הַמַּעֲלוֹת, לְדָוִד:
שָׂמַחְתִּי, בְּאֹמְרִים לִי-- בֵּית יְהוָה נֵלֵךְ.
ב עֹמְדוֹת, הָיוּ רַגְלֵינוּ-- בִּשְׁעָרַיִךְ, יְרוּשָׁלִָם.
ג יְרוּשָׁלִַם הַבְּנוּיָה-- כְּעִיר, שֶׁחֻבְּרָה-לָּהּ יַחְדָּו.
ד שֶׁשָּׁם עָלוּ שְׁבָטִים, שִׁבְטֵי-יָהּ--עֵדוּת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: לְהֹדוֹת, לְשֵׁם יְהוָה.
ה כִּי שָׁמָּה, יָשְׁבוּ כִסְאוֹת לְמִשְׁפָּט: כִּסְאוֹת, לְבֵית דָּוִד.
ו שַׁאֲלוּ, שְׁלוֹם יְרוּשָׁלִָם; יִשְׁלָיוּ, אֹהֲבָיִךְ.
ז יְהִי-שָׁלוֹם בְּחֵילֵךְ; שַׁלְוָה, בְּאַרְמְנוֹתָיִךְ.
ח לְמַעַן, אַחַי וְרֵעָי-- אֲדַבְּרָה-נָּא שָׁלוֹם בָּךְ.
ט לְמַעַן, בֵּית-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ-- אֲבַקְשָׁה טוֹב לָךְ.
א שִׁיר הַמַּעֲלוֹת, לְדָוִד:
שָׂמַחְתִּי, בְּאֹמְרִים לִי-- בֵּית יְהוָה נֵלֵךְ.
ב עֹמְדוֹת, הָיוּ רַגְלֵינוּ-- בִּשְׁעָרַיִךְ, יְרוּשָׁלִָם.
ג יְרוּשָׁלִַם הַבְּנוּיָה-- כְּעִיר, שֶׁחֻבְּרָה-לָּהּ יַחְדָּו.
ד שֶׁשָּׁם עָלוּ שְׁבָטִים, שִׁבְטֵי-יָהּ--עֵדוּת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: לְהֹדוֹת, לְשֵׁם יְהוָה.
ה כִּי שָׁמָּה, יָשְׁבוּ כִסְאוֹת לְמִשְׁפָּט: כִּסְאוֹת, לְבֵית דָּוִד.
ו שַׁאֲלוּ, שְׁלוֹם יְרוּשָׁלִָם; יִשְׁלָיוּ, אֹהֲבָיִךְ.
ז יְהִי-שָׁלוֹם בְּחֵילֵךְ; שַׁלְוָה, בְּאַרְמְנוֹתָיִךְ.
ח לְמַעַן, אַחַי וְרֵעָי-- אֲדַבְּרָה-נָּא שָׁלוֹם בָּךְ.
ט לְמַעַן, בֵּית-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ-- אֲבַקְשָׁה טוֹב לָךְ.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Grass SS role stirs indignation
Grass was one of my favorites (S.C.)
The admission by Nobel prize-winning novelist Guenter Grass that he served in the notorious Waffen SS during World War II has sent shockwaves through Germany and neighbouring Poland.
The Waffen SS was the combat arm of Hitler's dreaded SS paramilitary force, which was responsible for atrocities throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.
Guenter Grass was born in the northern port city of Danzig - now Polish Gdansk - in 1927.
His father was German, his mother Kashubian - a member of a small Baltic community which, depending on your point of view, speaks a peculiar Polish dialect or a distinct Slav language.
Moral authority
Much of Grass's writing - starting with The Tin Drum in 1956 - is located in and around his home city, with its complex and ultimately tragic history of mixed languages, cultures and divided political loyalties.
Grass also presented himself as a moral authority for post-war Germans.
Politically on the left, he attacked what he saw as his country's often superficial reckoning with the Nazi era.
When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, he advocated the maintenance of two separate German states, arguing that a reunited Germany would eventually resume its old nationalistic bullying ways.
For his German critics, the shock is not so much that he was in the Waffen SS - by the time he joined in 1944 most members were young conscripts rather than committed Nazi zealots - but that he took so long to own up.
It has been pointed out that if his SS membership had been known at the time, he would probably not have received the Nobel prize for literature - even though, on merit, he deserved it.
It has even been suggested that his "revelation" might have been a publicity stunt, ahead of next month's publication his autobiography, called Peeling Onions.
Polish unease
In Poland, Gdansk city council is expected to discuss withdrawing his honourary Gdansk citizenship later this month - though a spokesperson is reported as saying a majority of councillors appeared to oppose the idea.
However, Lech Walesa - Poland's former president and former leader of the Solidarity movement - said from from his Gdansk home that he thought Grass should surrender his citizenship voluntarily.
The Czech PEN club is also considering whether to withdraw the prestigious Karel Capek Prize, awarded to Grass in 1994.
It turns out that Guenter Grass was a trooper in the SS Frundsberg Division, which fought against the Allies in Normandy and at Arnhem, and later against the Soviet army in Pomerania and Saxony.
Grass himself claims he never fired any shots and was a poor soldier.
It has to be said, that up to now, the Frunsberg Division has not been implicated in any major atrocities or war crimes - even though the SS as a whole was classified as a criminal organisation after the war.
Grass's own lack of candour about his past can be seen as an ironic commentary on his own insistence that Germans need to make an honest appraisal of their own horrible past.
For many, his status as a moral authority will have been compromised for good.
The latest revelations also come at a sensitive time in Germany's relations with its eastern neighbours, especially with Poland, run since last year by a centre-right government not afraid to make political capital at home by appealing to residual anti-German sentiment.
Opinion polls suggest that most Poles now see the Russians as the main potential threat to their country.
But renewed German interest in the fate of the expelled inhabitants of the former Polish-German borderlands - an interest that Grass himself has stimulated through his recent writing - has revived public unease in a Poland now supposedly Germany's friend and ally in the European Union and Nato.
The admission by Nobel prize-winning novelist Guenter Grass that he served in the notorious Waffen SS during World War II has sent shockwaves through Germany and neighbouring Poland.
The Waffen SS was the combat arm of Hitler's dreaded SS paramilitary force, which was responsible for atrocities throughout Nazi-occupied Europe.
Guenter Grass was born in the northern port city of Danzig - now Polish Gdansk - in 1927.
His father was German, his mother Kashubian - a member of a small Baltic community which, depending on your point of view, speaks a peculiar Polish dialect or a distinct Slav language.
Moral authority
Much of Grass's writing - starting with The Tin Drum in 1956 - is located in and around his home city, with its complex and ultimately tragic history of mixed languages, cultures and divided political loyalties.
Grass also presented himself as a moral authority for post-war Germans.
Politically on the left, he attacked what he saw as his country's often superficial reckoning with the Nazi era.
When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, he advocated the maintenance of two separate German states, arguing that a reunited Germany would eventually resume its old nationalistic bullying ways.
For his German critics, the shock is not so much that he was in the Waffen SS - by the time he joined in 1944 most members were young conscripts rather than committed Nazi zealots - but that he took so long to own up.
It has been pointed out that if his SS membership had been known at the time, he would probably not have received the Nobel prize for literature - even though, on merit, he deserved it.
It has even been suggested that his "revelation" might have been a publicity stunt, ahead of next month's publication his autobiography, called Peeling Onions.
Polish unease
In Poland, Gdansk city council is expected to discuss withdrawing his honourary Gdansk citizenship later this month - though a spokesperson is reported as saying a majority of councillors appeared to oppose the idea.
However, Lech Walesa - Poland's former president and former leader of the Solidarity movement - said from from his Gdansk home that he thought Grass should surrender his citizenship voluntarily.
The Czech PEN club is also considering whether to withdraw the prestigious Karel Capek Prize, awarded to Grass in 1994.
It turns out that Guenter Grass was a trooper in the SS Frundsberg Division, which fought against the Allies in Normandy and at Arnhem, and later against the Soviet army in Pomerania and Saxony.
Grass himself claims he never fired any shots and was a poor soldier.
It has to be said, that up to now, the Frunsberg Division has not been implicated in any major atrocities or war crimes - even though the SS as a whole was classified as a criminal organisation after the war.
Grass's own lack of candour about his past can be seen as an ironic commentary on his own insistence that Germans need to make an honest appraisal of their own horrible past.
For many, his status as a moral authority will have been compromised for good.
The latest revelations also come at a sensitive time in Germany's relations with its eastern neighbours, especially with Poland, run since last year by a centre-right government not afraid to make political capital at home by appealing to residual anti-German sentiment.
Opinion polls suggest that most Poles now see the Russians as the main potential threat to their country.
But renewed German interest in the fate of the expelled inhabitants of the former Polish-German borderlands - an interest that Grass himself has stimulated through his recent writing - has revived public unease in a Poland now supposedly Germany's friend and ally in the European Union and Nato.
Monday, August 14, 2006
David Grossman's son killed in battle
David Grossman's son killed in battle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 14, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The son of novelist and peace activist David Grossman has been killed in southern Lebanon, the army said Sunday, just days after the author urged the government to end the war with Hizbullah guerrillas.
Staff Sgt. Uri Grossman who served in an armored unit, was killed Saturday when an anti-tank missile hit his tank, according to the military. He was 20. Twenty-four IDF soldiers were killed on Saturday in the bloodiest day of battles [Click here to read their stories].
Tearful friends and relatives gathered Sunday morning at the Grossman home in the Jerusalem suburb of Mevasseret Tzion.
A statement from the family described Uri as a young man with a wonderful sense of humor, who planned to travel abroad and study theater after his scheduled release from the army in November.
His father, whose novels and political essays have been translated into 20 languages, is an outspoken advocate of conciliation with the Arabs and of ending Israel's occupation of the West Bank.
But, like most Israelis, David Grossman supported Israel's retaliation when Hizbullah fighters kidnapped two IDF soldiers inside Israel on July 12 and unleashed a barrage of rockets on civilians in the north.
By Thursday he said the war had gone on long enough.
The turning point came the previous day when the government approved a plan to launch an 11th-hour campaign to inflict a devastating blow to the guerrillas.
In a joint news conference with fellow novelists Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua, Grossman denounced the plan as dangerous and counterproductive.
"Out of concern for the future of Israel and our place here, the fighting should be stopped now, to give a chance to negotiations," he said.
Grossman, an Israeli-born son of a refugee from Nazi Europe, urged Israel to accept a proposal by Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora - which later formed the core of the UN resolution for ending the conflict - calling for the deployment of Lebanese troops in southern Lebanon with the help of an international force that would end Hizbullah's virtual control over the area.
"This solution is the victory that Israel wanted," Grossman said. He warned that stepping up the offensive could trigger the collapse of Saniora's government and the strengthening of Hizbullah - the very force Israel set out to destroy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 14, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The son of novelist and peace activist David Grossman has been killed in southern Lebanon, the army said Sunday, just days after the author urged the government to end the war with Hizbullah guerrillas.
Staff Sgt. Uri Grossman who served in an armored unit, was killed Saturday when an anti-tank missile hit his tank, according to the military. He was 20. Twenty-four IDF soldiers were killed on Saturday in the bloodiest day of battles [Click here to read their stories].
Tearful friends and relatives gathered Sunday morning at the Grossman home in the Jerusalem suburb of Mevasseret Tzion.
A statement from the family described Uri as a young man with a wonderful sense of humor, who planned to travel abroad and study theater after his scheduled release from the army in November.
His father, whose novels and political essays have been translated into 20 languages, is an outspoken advocate of conciliation with the Arabs and of ending Israel's occupation of the West Bank.
But, like most Israelis, David Grossman supported Israel's retaliation when Hizbullah fighters kidnapped two IDF soldiers inside Israel on July 12 and unleashed a barrage of rockets on civilians in the north.
By Thursday he said the war had gone on long enough.
The turning point came the previous day when the government approved a plan to launch an 11th-hour campaign to inflict a devastating blow to the guerrillas.
In a joint news conference with fellow novelists Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua, Grossman denounced the plan as dangerous and counterproductive.
"Out of concern for the future of Israel and our place here, the fighting should be stopped now, to give a chance to negotiations," he said.
Grossman, an Israeli-born son of a refugee from Nazi Europe, urged Israel to accept a proposal by Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora - which later formed the core of the UN resolution for ending the conflict - calling for the deployment of Lebanese troops in southern Lebanon with the help of an international force that would end Hizbullah's virtual control over the area.
"This solution is the victory that Israel wanted," Grossman said. He warned that stepping up the offensive could trigger the collapse of Saniora's government and the strengthening of Hizbullah - the very force Israel set out to destroy.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Analysis: For Israel, an imperfect deal By KARIN LAUB
Back to Story - Help
Analysis: For Israel, an imperfect deal By KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writer
Sat Aug 12, 7:18 PM ET
For Israel, the U.N. cease-fire deal is far from perfect. A U.N. force deploying in south Lebanon as part of the truce will have trouble keeping Hezbollah at bay for long or prevent the Iranian-supplied guerrillas from rearming, critics said, pointing to past failures of international peacekeepers.
The U.N. terms will buy temporary calm, but make the next war between Israel and Tehran's proxy army inevitable, former Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom and some military analysts warned.
"It begs the question, `What was it all for?'" Shalom said, reflecting a growing chorus of criticism.
Israel had little choice but to go along with the U.S.-backed compromise, after its vaunted army failed to subdue Hezbollah in more than a month of fighting. The guerrillas took heavy blows and suffered scores of casualties, but kept raining rockets on northern Israel throughout the war and clung to positions near Israel's border.
In a race against a looming cease-fire, Israeli troops moved deeper into Lebanon on Saturday to try to capture all territory south of the Litani River, the area that is to be free of Hezbollah. Helicopters ferried hundreds of soldiers into the war zone, in the biggest military airlift in 33 years.
Israeli officials explained that the troops were trying to pave the way for the deployment of 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers and 15,000 Lebanese forces between the border and the Litani. However, some said the last-minute push was of questionable military value and unnecessarily endangered soldiers.
At least seven soldiers were killed Saturday, the first day of the wider ground war, and an Israeli helicopter was shot down.
On paper, a combined force of 30,000 patrolling south Lebanon appeared an impressive achievement for Israel, which has long demanded that the Lebanese government take control of that area.
However, the Lebanese army — composed of up to 50 percent of Shiite Muslims, the same faith as Hezbollah's fighters — will at best have a symbolic role, and at worst be sympathetic to the guerrillas, said Shlomo Brom, a former Israeli military chief of planning.
If challenged by Hezbollah gunmen, the army would likely fold, Brom said. "That's why a multinational force is needed," he said.
However, international observers in the area have proven ineffective in the past. The 2,000 U.N. peacekeepers, known as UNIFIL, who have patrolled south Lebanon since 1978 are no match for Hezbollah, which built its state-within-a-state and acquired sophisticated weapons from Iran without interference.
The new beefed-up U.N. force was given a wider mandate, including permission to use "forceful means" if challenged by the guerrillas.
That wording is still vague, Israeli TV commentator Ehud Yaari said. "When you take into account the past record of UN forces ... it's hard to be hopeful," he said.
Alvaro de Soto, a U.N. special envoy to the Middle East, said much of the criticism of UNIFIL was unfair, since its mandate had been limited. Even so, he said the force repeatedly had defused minor confrontations.
The U.N. resolution's language on a weapons embargo also is problematic, analysts said. The truce deal bars the "sales or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon, except as authorized by its government" — of which Hezbollah is a member. An embargo also would be difficult to enforce on the ground, Yaari said.
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said his guerrillas would abide by the cease-fire once Israeli forces leave, but he expressed reservations about the deal.
The Islamic militant group wants a release of Lebanese prisoners in Israel and a return of Chebaa Farms, a disputed border region held by Israel. If progress is not made on those provisions, the guerrillas may be less willing to cooperate with the forces in the south.
Defense analysts warned more fighting was likely in the future.
Iran can easily reactivate Hezbollah for its own political needs, particularly if it were to be attacked by the West over its nuclear weapons ambitions, Israeli counterterrorism expert Boaz Ganor said.
Shalom, of the right-wing Likud Party, agreed that another war is inevitable. "This was just the preview for the main movie," he said of the conflict that began July 12 when Hezbollah crossed the border and captured two Israeli soldiers.
"They (Hezbollah) will now rebuild themselves. We could then see long-range missiles, perhaps with non-conventional warheads," warned Shalom.
Israeli leaders defended the deal against growing skepticism — and got a little help from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The deal, she told Israel TV in a telephone interview, "really does enhance Israel's security."
Defense Minister Amir Peretz acknowledged that Israel would have preferred a NATO-led force, rather than U.N. troops, but emphasized the expanded size and mandate of the peacekeepers.
Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Israel couldn't expect to get everything it wanted. "If we opposed the U.N. resolution, the world would have turned against us," he cautioned.
___
Karin Laub is AP news editor in Jerusalem and has covered the region since 1987.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Analysis: For Israel, an imperfect deal By KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writer
Sat Aug 12, 7:18 PM ET
For Israel, the U.N. cease-fire deal is far from perfect. A U.N. force deploying in south Lebanon as part of the truce will have trouble keeping Hezbollah at bay for long or prevent the Iranian-supplied guerrillas from rearming, critics said, pointing to past failures of international peacekeepers.
The U.N. terms will buy temporary calm, but make the next war between Israel and Tehran's proxy army inevitable, former Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom and some military analysts warned.
"It begs the question, `What was it all for?'" Shalom said, reflecting a growing chorus of criticism.
Israel had little choice but to go along with the U.S.-backed compromise, after its vaunted army failed to subdue Hezbollah in more than a month of fighting. The guerrillas took heavy blows and suffered scores of casualties, but kept raining rockets on northern Israel throughout the war and clung to positions near Israel's border.
In a race against a looming cease-fire, Israeli troops moved deeper into Lebanon on Saturday to try to capture all territory south of the Litani River, the area that is to be free of Hezbollah. Helicopters ferried hundreds of soldiers into the war zone, in the biggest military airlift in 33 years.
Israeli officials explained that the troops were trying to pave the way for the deployment of 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers and 15,000 Lebanese forces between the border and the Litani. However, some said the last-minute push was of questionable military value and unnecessarily endangered soldiers.
At least seven soldiers were killed Saturday, the first day of the wider ground war, and an Israeli helicopter was shot down.
On paper, a combined force of 30,000 patrolling south Lebanon appeared an impressive achievement for Israel, which has long demanded that the Lebanese government take control of that area.
However, the Lebanese army — composed of up to 50 percent of Shiite Muslims, the same faith as Hezbollah's fighters — will at best have a symbolic role, and at worst be sympathetic to the guerrillas, said Shlomo Brom, a former Israeli military chief of planning.
If challenged by Hezbollah gunmen, the army would likely fold, Brom said. "That's why a multinational force is needed," he said.
However, international observers in the area have proven ineffective in the past. The 2,000 U.N. peacekeepers, known as UNIFIL, who have patrolled south Lebanon since 1978 are no match for Hezbollah, which built its state-within-a-state and acquired sophisticated weapons from Iran without interference.
The new beefed-up U.N. force was given a wider mandate, including permission to use "forceful means" if challenged by the guerrillas.
That wording is still vague, Israeli TV commentator Ehud Yaari said. "When you take into account the past record of UN forces ... it's hard to be hopeful," he said.
Alvaro de Soto, a U.N. special envoy to the Middle East, said much of the criticism of UNIFIL was unfair, since its mandate had been limited. Even so, he said the force repeatedly had defused minor confrontations.
The U.N. resolution's language on a weapons embargo also is problematic, analysts said. The truce deal bars the "sales or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon, except as authorized by its government" — of which Hezbollah is a member. An embargo also would be difficult to enforce on the ground, Yaari said.
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said his guerrillas would abide by the cease-fire once Israeli forces leave, but he expressed reservations about the deal.
The Islamic militant group wants a release of Lebanese prisoners in Israel and a return of Chebaa Farms, a disputed border region held by Israel. If progress is not made on those provisions, the guerrillas may be less willing to cooperate with the forces in the south.
Defense analysts warned more fighting was likely in the future.
Iran can easily reactivate Hezbollah for its own political needs, particularly if it were to be attacked by the West over its nuclear weapons ambitions, Israeli counterterrorism expert Boaz Ganor said.
Shalom, of the right-wing Likud Party, agreed that another war is inevitable. "This was just the preview for the main movie," he said of the conflict that began July 12 when Hezbollah crossed the border and captured two Israeli soldiers.
"They (Hezbollah) will now rebuild themselves. We could then see long-range missiles, perhaps with non-conventional warheads," warned Shalom.
Israeli leaders defended the deal against growing skepticism — and got a little help from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The deal, she told Israel TV in a telephone interview, "really does enhance Israel's security."
Defense Minister Amir Peretz acknowledged that Israel would have preferred a NATO-led force, rather than U.N. troops, but emphasized the expanded size and mandate of the peacekeepers.
Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Israel couldn't expect to get everything it wanted. "If we opposed the U.N. resolution, the world would have turned against us," he cautioned.
___
Karin Laub is AP news editor in Jerusalem and has covered the region since 1987.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Sunday, August 06, 2006
On War, General Carl von Clausewitz, Kissinger
Ami Ayalon Quoted Clauswitz several times this week, that there have to be Political Aims to the War not just use Force.
During his service as Secretary of State in the 1970s, Henry Kissinger once stated that Israel did not have a foreign policy, it had only domestic policy. By that he meant that Israel’s foreign policy is primarily the result of internal conditions and constraints.
General Carl von Clausewitz: ON WAR.
On War: ("war is the continuation of politics through other means").
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the treatise on military strategy; for the controversial manga series, see Neo Gomanism Manifesto Special - On War.
On War (German Vom Kriege) is a book on military strategy and tactics by Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, written mostly after the Napoleonic wars, between 1816 and 1818, and published posthumously by his wife in 1832. It is one of the most important treatises on strategy ever written, and is prescribed at various military academies to this day.
On War is actually an unfinished work; Clausewitz had set about revising his accumulated manuscripts in 1827, but did not live to finish the task.
Contents [show]
1 History
2 Synopsis
3 Notes
4 Editions
5 See also
6 External links
[edit]
History
Carl von Clausewitz was a disillusioned Prussian officer among those baffled by how Napoleon's army had changed the nature of war through his ability to motivate the populace and thus unleash war on a greater scale than was generally fought previously. Von Clausewitz spent a considerable part of his life fighting against Napoleon and there is no doubt that the insight he gained from his experiences provided much of the raw material for the book. On War represents the compilation of his cogent observations published after his death by his wife.
[edit]
Synopsis
Among many strands of thought, three stand out as essential to Clausewitz' concept:
War must never be seen as a purpose to itself, but as a means of physically forcing one's will on an opponent ("war is the continuation of politics through other means").
War presupposes human weakness and is directed against it.
The laws of war will always favour the party devoting more resolve and resource ("total war").
The West's modern perception of war is based on the Clausewitzian principles taught in On War. Its military doctrine, organization, and norms are all based on Clausewitzian premises, even to this day.
On War has been seen as the place where the concept of total war was made explicit and has been blamed1 for the level of destruction involved in the First and Second World War, whereas it seems rather that Clausewitz had merely foreseen the inevitable development starting with the huge, patriotically motivated armies of the Napoleonic wars and resulting (though not ending) in the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with all forces and capabilities of a state devoted to destroying forces and capabilities of the enemy state (thus "total war").
The book contains a wealth of historical examples used to illustrate the various concepts. Frederick II of Prussia (the Great) figures prominently for having made very efficient use of the limited forces at his disposal. Napoleon also is a central figure.
On War is a work rooted solely in the world of the state. Martin Van Creveld states that Clausewitz takes the state "almost for granted" as he rarely looks at anything previous to Westphalia. He does not address any form of intra/supra-state conflict, such as rebellion, because he could theoretically not account for warfare before the existence of the state. Previous kinds of conflict were demoted to criminal activities without legitimacy and not worthy of a declaration of war. Clausewitz explains that war requires the state to act in conjunction with the people and the army, the state becoming a massive engine built to exude military force against an identical opponent. This statement is easily verified by looking at the conventional armies in existence throughout the 20th century.
During his service as Secretary of State in the 1970s, Henry Kissinger once stated that Israel did not have a foreign policy, it had only domestic policy. By that he meant that Israel’s foreign policy is primarily the result of internal conditions and constraints.
General Carl von Clausewitz: ON WAR.
On War: ("war is the continuation of politics through other means").
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the treatise on military strategy; for the controversial manga series, see Neo Gomanism Manifesto Special - On War.
On War (German Vom Kriege) is a book on military strategy and tactics by Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, written mostly after the Napoleonic wars, between 1816 and 1818, and published posthumously by his wife in 1832. It is one of the most important treatises on strategy ever written, and is prescribed at various military academies to this day.
On War is actually an unfinished work; Clausewitz had set about revising his accumulated manuscripts in 1827, but did not live to finish the task.
Contents [show]
1 History
2 Synopsis
3 Notes
4 Editions
5 See also
6 External links
[edit]
History
Carl von Clausewitz was a disillusioned Prussian officer among those baffled by how Napoleon's army had changed the nature of war through his ability to motivate the populace and thus unleash war on a greater scale than was generally fought previously. Von Clausewitz spent a considerable part of his life fighting against Napoleon and there is no doubt that the insight he gained from his experiences provided much of the raw material for the book. On War represents the compilation of his cogent observations published after his death by his wife.
[edit]
Synopsis
Among many strands of thought, three stand out as essential to Clausewitz' concept:
War must never be seen as a purpose to itself, but as a means of physically forcing one's will on an opponent ("war is the continuation of politics through other means").
War presupposes human weakness and is directed against it.
The laws of war will always favour the party devoting more resolve and resource ("total war").
The West's modern perception of war is based on the Clausewitzian principles taught in On War. Its military doctrine, organization, and norms are all based on Clausewitzian premises, even to this day.
On War has been seen as the place where the concept of total war was made explicit and has been blamed1 for the level of destruction involved in the First and Second World War, whereas it seems rather that Clausewitz had merely foreseen the inevitable development starting with the huge, patriotically motivated armies of the Napoleonic wars and resulting (though not ending) in the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with all forces and capabilities of a state devoted to destroying forces and capabilities of the enemy state (thus "total war").
The book contains a wealth of historical examples used to illustrate the various concepts. Frederick II of Prussia (the Great) figures prominently for having made very efficient use of the limited forces at his disposal. Napoleon also is a central figure.
On War is a work rooted solely in the world of the state. Martin Van Creveld states that Clausewitz takes the state "almost for granted" as he rarely looks at anything previous to Westphalia. He does not address any form of intra/supra-state conflict, such as rebellion, because he could theoretically not account for warfare before the existence of the state. Previous kinds of conflict were demoted to criminal activities without legitimacy and not worthy of a declaration of war. Clausewitz explains that war requires the state to act in conjunction with the people and the army, the state becoming a massive engine built to exude military force against an identical opponent. This statement is easily verified by looking at the conventional armies in existence throughout the 20th century.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Preetika on Peace
Hi there, You have received a message from Pree:
Hi Samuel,
May the great god(s) be with you on that.....
I hope there is some kind of lasting resolution to this conflict soon.
Regards,
Preetika
P.s. Here is one of my favourite poems by Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941)
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high
Where knowledge is free
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
By narrow domestic walls
Where words come out from the depth of truth
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
Where the mind is led forward by thee
Into ever-widening thought and action
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.
Hi Pree,
Samuel C. has sent you the following introduction. This system allows only brief introductions. If you would like to respond to this person, simply reply to this message.
Doing what I can for Peace in the Middle East.
Hi Samuel,
May the great god(s) be with you on that.....
I hope there is some kind of lasting resolution to this conflict soon.
Regards,
Preetika
P.s. Here is one of my favourite poems by Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941)
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high
Where knowledge is free
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
By narrow domestic walls
Where words come out from the depth of truth
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
Where the mind is led forward by thee
Into ever-widening thought and action
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.
Hi Pree,
Samuel C. has sent you the following introduction. This system allows only brief introductions. If you would like to respond to this person, simply reply to this message.
Doing what I can for Peace in the Middle East.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Sunday, July 30, 2006
UN Resoltion 1559 all Lebanese militias to disband...
UN Resoltion 1559 all Lebanese militias to disband... 3:56 AM
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on September 2, 2004. It called upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and It called upon Syria to end their military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called on all Lebanese militias to disband.
Nine countries voted in favor: Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Six countries abstained: Algeria, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Pakistan, the Philippines and Russia.
The resolution was sponsored by France and the United States. The cooperation between these two nations on an issue concerning the Middle East was seen as a significant improvement in their relationship, compared to their earlier bitter disagreement over the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Due to the fact that Lebanon was governed by France as a League of Nations mandate 1919-1943, France has long taken a special interest in Lebanon.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on September 2, 2004. It called upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and It called upon Syria to end their military presence in Lebanon by withdrawing its forces and to cease intervening in internal Lebanese politics. The resolution also called on all Lebanese militias to disband.
Nine countries voted in favor: Angola, Benin, Chile, France, Germany, Romania, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Six countries abstained: Algeria, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Pakistan, the Philippines and Russia.
The resolution was sponsored by France and the United States. The cooperation between these two nations on an issue concerning the Middle East was seen as a significant improvement in their relationship, compared to their earlier bitter disagreement over the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Due to the fact that Lebanon was governed by France as a League of Nations mandate 1919-1943, France has long taken a special interest in Lebanon.
Friday, July 28, 2006
David or Goliath?
It is my hope that the Israeli Army will learn fast
and will behave like David, Not Goliath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath
and will behave like David, Not Goliath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)