Human Trafficking in Israel

In an otherwise undeveloped region, Israel stands out as a modern, market economy nation. It is a country where high tech is king, and this prosperity not only makes life attractive for those in the immediate countries but across the world. Some come in guest worker programs, eager to make extra money to send back home. They come as far as places like the Philippines or Thailand. With the Second Intifada, it was almost a requirement to bring in foreign workers. (Rosenthal, 372)


But this influx of foreign labor also led to a darker phase of human trafficking that was previously unheard of in Israel. Some of this is due to prostitution, which is legal in Israel, although brothels and pimps are not. (Rosenthal, 372) But it is also due to the need of labor, and above all greed.


Prostitution is nothing new in Israel. Many of Israel’s prostitutes before the 1990's were Israeli, and more Mizrachi than Ashkenazi. (Rosenthal 373) Many did so to support families. For a while the situation was manageable and more or less not an issue. But the dissolution of the Soviet Union  caused massive changes to not only Israel as a whole but the nature of vice in that country.

A massive amount of Soviet Jews, nearly a million, entered the country. While not all were Jews, they all had some sort of ties to their former countries. But a different kind of immigrant, the Russian Mob, also came. (Rosenthal, 374) To them Israel was a virtual paradise, untouched my organized crime. With absolutely no competition, and a weak government response (this was during Olso), the Mafia set up shop. Soon prostitution became a 'Russian' job, and many girls were not even Israeli anymore.

Of course this disrupted the business of the Israeli prostitutes, who saw their former clients rushing to the blondes. (Rosenthal, 373) But a more serious thing occurred besides a change of clientele. With the brothels came crime also associated with the Mafia: money laundering, drugs, pimping, and of course human trafficking. (Rosenthal, 378) All this was unknown to most Israelis, and even today its response is seen by the international community as not strong enough.

Yet it seems Israel does not want to stop it. The police are intimidated by the infamous Russian Mafia, who are known to make people 'disappear', regardless if they are government employees. But it is also the government itself who is complacent. Many officials visit the "massage parlors" and "health clubs". (Rosenthal, 370) Visas to Ukraine were suspended in 2007, facilitating the flow of women.

Whether its the poor foreign worker looking for a decent job, or the desperate Eastern European with children, Israel is seen as a great place to make money. It is estimated that anywhere between 1,000 to 3,000 foreign workers are prostitutes, but that over 20,000 are "subjugated to forced labor". But they must pay the traffickers $1,000 to $10,000 just to make the trip. Many women are duped into thinking that they will get jobs as maids or secretaries. They go to Egypt to enjoy a "vacation", only to be told that they 'owe' the mob now and smuggled across the border. (Rosenthal, 375) Instances of rape by their Bedouin handlers are not uncommon.

In Israel, they are treated like slaves, and in many cases they really are. Such crime is by now normal in the West, and while Ben-Gurion may have said that Israel will become a normal country when prostitution and drugs are common, it by no means justifies such things. In an age of intense media scrutiny, the last thing Israel needs is a bad reputation with human trafficking. But on a humanitarian note, these poor people, prostitutes and workers alike, are enslaved in a system which there is little to get out of.


It is my hope that not only will the police do their job, but that the government steps in and stops allowing such gross violations of human rights. If they really want they can keep prostitution, but the Mafia must be kicked out and these slaves freed, into the literal promised land. But it is big business in Israel, estimated to make over $62 million off of prostitution alone.

I find these sources very useful in getting me statistical facts on the situation. It is often under reported and when such revelations come up it makes the job of those concerned, like the Unites States and United Nations, much easier. Fox News of course is a well known news source . These sources also help fill in some of the blanks the Rosenthal book does not fully address. But it is my ultimate hope that such abuses end not just in Israel but worldwide.

Israeli Christians: A Minority in a Minority?

When one thinks of Israel in a religious sense, the image of the three great monotheistic religions come to mind. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all in one spot, and not always agreeing. (Rosenthal, 305) Worldwide, Christianity is the largest religion, followed by Islam, and with Judaism being the smallest. It is the complete opposite in Israel, the situation completely reversed. The Christian community in Israel is largely Arab, and by Israeli standards successful. They are by far much closer and much more Westernized than their Muslim brethren. (Rosenthal, 309) Yet it is not without its problems, whether it Jews thinking them as the same as the Muslim Arabs, or the Muslims targeting the "other" Arabs in their midst.

So who are these Arab Christians? Citizens of Israel (we're not talking about the Palestinian Christians), they live in villages and mixed cities through the country. They live in an awkward position. Being Arab means distrust on the Israeli side. To get on the Jews' good side, some wear crucifixes to show that they are the "good" Arabs. (Rosenthal, 309) Yet as Arabs, they face to some extent even more distrust from the Arab Muslims, who continuously target and harass them.

A piece of graffiti on a wall illustrates what many Arab Muslims want: "After Saturday comes Sunday". This means after they deal with the Jews the Christians are next. (Rosenthal, 308)

Another problem Sunday brings to Christians in Israel is that it is the first day of the week their; its when work and school begins. This of course conflicts with the Christian Sabbath. But when work begins or ends is trivial compared to the frustration Christians have with the Jews. Many do not know about the Christian holidays, and many must explain to their bosses why they want the day off if a holiday comes up. (Rosenthal, 310) In contrast with the United States, even secularists and/or atheists know what Easter and Christmas is or when it is celebrated.

Yet they experience a uninque version of  the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Inter-Arab conlfict plays out along many lines, tribal and ideological amoung them. But it also can be religious. Many times this would lead to violent confrontation. Using extorition, threats, and violence, many Arab Christians are under seige by their own people, fleeing the violence and chaos.

When excavations uncovered what were the remains of Saladin's nephew in Nazareth, Muslims wanted to build a mosque on that site immediately. (Rosenthal, 312) It would have been one of the largest mosques in the world. The only problem was that it was right next to the Church of Annunciation, which would have been eclipsed by the proposed mosque's minarets. Aside from the actual church being in its way, the religious implications were strong: Islam is superior, and that it must conqueror the other holy sites. This offended many people, including the Pope himself, who was already worried about the deteriorating situation in the Middle East for Christians. It took the Israelis to stop the mosque's construction and to diffuse this situation. (Rosenthal, 314) Most confrontations between the Christians and Muslims are not of this size, but largely proportional to its own unique situation. The idea of evicting the Christians in the municipality achieves the same goals, even a more humble version of it.



Even so, not all Christians are Arab. Many in fact represent their church's country of origin ethnically (i.e. Ethiopian, Armenian). This can lead to tensions between churches thats origins are non-Arab when their flock is. The Greek Orthodox Church in Israel for instanse has an all Greek hierarchy. This exculsionist additude towards the Arabs leads to some refereing themselves as "Arab" Orthodox. (Rosenthal, 310)

In the Holy Land, almost every version of Christianity has some sort of physical presence. Some versions of Christianity have their own individual church, and are located in areas where the issue of significance to Christianity is not an issue (a church in Haifa as opposed to Nazareth). Yet certain churches are too important to let one sect have full control of. One such church is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.Here awkward arrangements sometimes lead to fights. (Rosenthal, 307)

I feel that the news article gives a good impression of what Israeli Christians face and deal with. Much of it parallels the Rosenthal book, which is also a very useful source of information. It is very neutral and does not easily sway to some political agenda or ideology. It is an honest look at who they are and what they feel must be done.

Secular Jews in a Jewish State?

Israel is the only nation with a Jewish majority. But within that majority it is mainly secular. (Rosenthal, 222) This may seem paradoxical, and on some levels it is. But what can be said is that even with this seemingly strange setup, they are still Jews, and depending on their level of religiosity, act accordingly.

A few questions pop up. Why are they secular, and how can they still be Jews? Is being secular in a Jewish state against what Israel stands for? It is an odd situation, but for Israelis, it almost makes perfect sense.

The reason for the majority of Jewish Israelis being secular has much to do with its history. A large number of secular Jews emigrated before the foundation of the State, and with their socialist attitudes, helped found the modern state. They were more concerned with things like building cities than maintaining the Sabbath. It is their legacy (and sheer numbers) and helps continue this trend in Israel.

But how can they still be Jews? Where is the line drawn? Can you be "more Jewish" than others? To be Jewish, one must perform the rituals and commandments of the Bible. You do not need to actually believe in God and still be Jewish. So while they may not actively do these deeds, it is almost like the state subsidizes it for them. You cannot be in Israel and not see how it is Jewish. From Biblical symbols in the government to the presence of Hebrew, it's everywhere. (Rosenthal, 222) Religious men walking down the street, bus ads wishing people a happy (Jewish) holiday, or encounters with synagogues. It's obvious.

Apart from simply seeing it, one can feel Jewish and almost do nothing. (Rosenthal, 223) In the USA, if one is not actively Jewish, you risk assimilating for good. No one will prompt you about it, remind you a holiday is coming up, or invite you to go to temple on Saturday morning. But we cannot assume all secular Jews are passive to Judaism.

There are different "levels" of Judaism, just as there are divides in almost any religion (Catholics vs Protestants, Lutherans vs Baptists, Sunnis vs Sufi). It ranges from the most lenient Reform, moves onto the more Conservative movement, and finally enters the Orthodox. Yet even within the Orthodox there are many layers. And seemingly the deeper you enter Orthodoxy the more Jewish one is. If there is any way to "measure" one's Jewishness, consult how much they perform their rituals and commandments.

Yet many try to remain Jewish in creative ways. Communities organize reenactments for their children, not only to have fun but to teach them of their history and holidays. Another more common activity is a sort of "alternative service". In an age when it is too easy to lose track of many things, including one's religion, it is important to be ever more active, even if not in the traditional ways. Many of those who partake in the very loosely acted reenactments (we're not expecting the sets for "The Ten Commandments") and services feel that they are the in the middle of Judaism, and that the traditional ways of dividing the Jews (aside from backgrounds) do not apply. And their voice is spreading.

I used the Rosenthal book and a news article to help articulate my thoughts on Israel's secular majority. The book is very useful in giving a large general picture. The news article, although speaking about a particular event and thing, helps demonstrate how a particular group of secular Jews in Israel keep the religion. I find the article trustworthy and reliable since it deals with the material in the book well and only helps my point of view on the issue.

The IDF, a people's army

Some countries, like the United States, see the military as a part of the government, but not themselves. Unless of course they enlist. But overall it's a thing, like astronauts, that we can like, watch on the news, but not truly interact with. In Israel, this is different. Over there, military service is mandatory for most of the population (religious Jews and Arabs get an exemption). It is a country in which many of its borders and neighbors are in a state of war with it. Where tensions run high. Where the Army is one of the most important aspects of the state. It can always be called upon to do its duty.

History and geography have much to do with it. Since it's founding, its been fighting. Whether other armies or insurgents, something is causing problems. But we must take into account its size. It's a small nation, in which its major cities are reachable within an hour. Thus its relatively small population and its sizable army in proportion to it makes the Israeli presence much easier to find. It is not uncommon to see soldiers off guard with a rifle loaded in the mall or on the street.

But there, since conflict is so normal, the military is also normal. In the United States, police are common, and only in high value places like an airport or government buildings would I see men armed with rifles. But even so they do not seem to be military. But with a full time force of 140,000, I am not surprised that soldiers are just so common in Israel. In total numbers though, its army can reach up to around three million, with reserves. This is a huge number in proportion to population as stated earlier.

But some aspects of the military are rather unique to Israel. Take its air force. Seen as one of the best in the world, it is trained to fight all sorts of enemies. It is normal to expect a jet fighter to fight other jets, or watch out for anti aircraft fire. But not birds. Since Israel is not only small but within the the crossroads of Africa, Asia and Europe, birds get funneled into this narrow corridor. It has lost more aircraft to birds than all the wars it fought combined. But even so they find ways to avoid bird concentrations and minimize damages (each jets costs millions of dollars).

It is also unique in that it is under constant scrutiny and criticism from the world. Every raid, every patrol, every mission, every operation is seen negatively in the international media. Whether or not they commit actual atrocities is irrelevant. To the best of the IDF's efforts, civilian casualties are minimized, and collateral damage to be low. But modern warfare, let alone urban warfare, makes this very hard. When it comes to destroying bunkers or weapons caches, how is an army meant to get rid of it without destruction? Can a tunnel just be simply filled up? No you blow it up and that's it.

Overall, the sources I used I feel are reliable. The main source was the Rosenthal book, and I trust her views and information. It is a well thought out and written book, and does not seem to contradict what I know about the Israeli military or its actions. The CIA World Factbook on the other hand is all about numbers, and if the Cold War and the War on Terror has taught us anything, it's that they know their stuff on a global scale. Not everything, but most of it.

What's the Name of the Game?

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said that it is none of the Palestinian's business what Israel whats to call itself. Speaking in Ramallah with Finnish President Tarja Halonen, he also wished to see a Palestine in 1967 borders living peacefully with Israel. "Our position is that we recognize Israel...", says Abbas. Abbas, a member of the Fatah party, seems to want to push towards peace, and to deal with trivial issues like the name of Israel for later. Fatah is a more moderate faction within the PA, and this contrasts with factions like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which do not recognize Israel and call for its destruction.

Inter Israeli-Palestinian issues still remain strong, and things like the right of return, settlements, occupation, terrorism, and probably most importantly, recognition are still on the discussion table. Abbas's recent gestures are good to promote and ultimately achieve peace, but it seems that a long road is still ahead of both peoples.

Yet such a statement is still something which Palestinians may not accept. But as negotiations continue, and both sides face new realities, compromise it seems is key. Abbas also stated that the Palestinians recognized Israel ever since the Oslo accords in 1993. But as the situation stands, not all within Palestine accept this. Clearly, its most extremist wings consider this all a sham, and want nothing to do with this agreement. So whatever efforts the more mainstream elements of Palestinian society offer and carry out, it will be these extremists that will test everyone.

This statement is a counter point to Israel, which will soon vote on a loyalty oath. The oath is seen to be mainly aimed at non-Jews, and Arabs in particular. Some have said it is essential for security reasons and to maintain Israels' status as a Jewish State. Others have called it racist, claiming that since over 20% of Israel is Arab, including other minorities, that such declarations are unrealistic and ultimately counter productive. Either way, this is a new issue that some, like Abbas, must deal with.

Of course, there are certain things which must be also addressed in the eyes of the Palestinian leadership, including stopping the growth of settlements. As Abbas stated, the Palestinian state should be within the 1967 borders. He is referring to the West Bank and Gaza, which were captured by Israel in 1967. After the war, Israel then began to move settlers into the region. The presence of settlements is a big issue for Palestinians, for they would be within the supposed new Palestinian state.

But there are fears that Israel also wants to maintain these settlements to redraw the maps in its favor. But should these settlements remain, there would be many Jewish enclaves within Palestine. What laws would affect them and how they would be within the greater Palestinian context is yet to be seen. Bigger questions like if the settlements will be dismantled have yet to surface, but because of security reasons, it is unknown how such a plan would be implemented.

Israelis on their part are more reluctant to pull out of the settlements. As Gaza has shown, land for peace is not guaranteed, but instead met with rocket fire, after Israel's withdrawal of all of its settlements from the Gaza Strip in a unilateral move. Such a scenario is unthinkable in regrades to the West Bank, for it sits right in the middle of Israel, and all of Israel's cities, including its capital Jerusalem, would be under attack.


For Abbas, the best option is to prevent the continuous settlement growth. If the settlements are an issue, they should not grow into a bigger one. Thus, if these settlements are curtailed, the continuation of the peace process would be assured.

I find this article reliable and in line with the on going Palestinian Authorities position in regards to the above issues. Abbas's speech was made during a conference, and a head of another state, Finland, was present.  Also, the Jerusalem Post is an established and well respected newspaper in Israel with extensive and professional research staff.

Lieberman and the UN

Recently at the UN, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman gave a speech regarding the peace process. For him, peace is not something that will occur recently. He states that as both Israel and Palestine currently stand, peace cannot occur. He argues that it is best that a temporary solution be reached, in which further negotiations will spring from. Furthermore, he proposed that when peace will arrive, that the borders should be redrawn to accommodate current demographics, and not to a population transfer. This would mean that Arab settlements in Israel will be turned over to Palestine, and Jewish settlements in Palestine would become a part of Israel. To underscore his views that peace will not achieved any time soon, he stated that any peace treaty will not be singed in the next few decades.

This led to a number of reactions. In Israel, the Prime Minister's Office stated that "Lieberman's address was not coordinated with the prime minister." Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a member of the Likud Party, distanced himself from the foreign minister's statements, but did not oppose them.

Ehud Barak, Minister of Defense and a member of the Labor Party, has stated that Mr. Lieberman's statements do not represent the government. The Kadima Party has also used this as an opportunity to criticized the Likud Party, stating that the Prime Minister and his party cannot even coordinate a unified foreign policy. Mr Lieberman is a member and founder of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party, which currently is part of the ruling coalition government with the Likud.

In the United States, many Jews were outraged, mentioning that such proposals can only weaken Natanyahu's government, and only give the Arabs more reasons not to take the Prime Minister seriously.

But why doesn't Lieberman believe in the peace process, and what exactly is his land proposal? For some Israelis, peace is a fantasy, and at best elusive. Those on the right wing of politics usually have this view, and since many also support the settler movement, they naturally would not want them to be evicted from their homes. But why oppose peace, or seemingly delay it? Well, as almost everyone has said, it has much to do with these settlements. The Palestinians would not want large Jewish enclaves within their new state, and Israelis living within these settlements want to stay a part of Israel, or at the very least not be a part of Palestine.

So Mr Lieberman proposes that instead of evictions and population exchanges, that simply redrawing the map to conform to current demographics is the best option. Not only is this legal in regards to international law, but each side can remain homogeneous and without these seemingly thorns in their stomachs. Just how the new map will look, and how this will effect things like the regional economy or defense within these countries, has yet to be discussed. At any rate, the new borders will most likely not conform to the 1949 Green Line. But as one can guess, not everyone believes in such a plan, and there is much opposition from both sides.

So can peace be achieved? That is the hope of the current peace process, but others are preparing a 'Plan B' in case it doesn't. Although such skepticism might not help the peace process as it stands, it is always smart to be prepared if the current negotiations fail.

I believe that these are reliable articles for a number of reasons. The authors work for well respected newspapers, like Haaretz, and have researched their reports well. The main thing they are reporting on, a speech, is a very concrete event that can be used to analyze. That and combined with reactions from Israel and without add depth to it. Overall, the articles are both fair and balanced too, presenting not only what he said but what its implications are as well.

Growing Tensions on Israel's Northern Frontier

Political rallies like this one are common in Turkey.

Recently, Turkey passed a referendum on changing it's constitution. This is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is meant to make the country more democratic, and thus more in line with the EU, which it wants to join. President Abdullah Gul said, "All the articles in the constitutional amendment package are about bringing Turkey's standards to the European level under Turkey's European Union membership process.” (Arutz Sheva, 9/13/10) But when it comes to internal politics, this is a big boost to the current ruling party, which is Islamist. The referendum recently took more power away from the judiciary as well, which is seen as the defenders of secularism in an increasingly visible Islamic nation.

When it comes to diplomacy though, this gives Turkey a huge boost. And this could lead to worse news for Israel in the long run, according to the author of the Arutz Sheva article. He reasons that now Turkey will try to implement a peace treaty between Syria and Israel, which has French backing. Although on the surface this seems like a good thing, being forced to sign for peace is never good. This could also lead to signing away the Golan Heights, which is vital for Israeli security to the north.

Israeli commandos boarding the flotilla.

Turkey's aim seems twofold: to not only gain EU membership and support, but to increase it's power in the Middle East. Thus, if it becomes more aggressive with Israel, as the Gaza Flotilla has shown, the world will in a sense care less. This could be very dangerous, and considering Turkey and Israel were once close allies, hurtful for Israel as well. That and a potential alliance between Iran, Turkey and Hezbollah, and you have one very explosive concoction.

Syria has much to gain as well. Signing a peace treaty will give them closer ties with Europe. And as mentioned previously, if they gain the Golan Heights, territory they claim, it is simply the icing on top of the cake. For some time Syria has been seeking a 'just and comprehensive' peace with Israel, with Turkey to be the key mediator, and possible French and EU observations. How permanent this peace will be if it comes is yet to be seen.

Israeli troops on their way to the front, 1973.

The Golan Heights are extremely important for Israel strategically. A hilly area on the Syrian-Israeli border, whoever controls the heights could very well control the war. As seen in 1973, this lead to deadly results on both sides, but Israel was able to maintain it's hold on the area. But there is another advantage; it would bottleneck any potential future Syrian attack. It is very narrow, and Syria's large army would not be able to use their numbers to the fullest potential, something which would give Israeli forces an immense advantage. And since one on one Israel overall is a much more effective fighting force, as seen by previous engagements between the two countries, this all the more important. Lastly, since it is elevated ground, it makes it much easier to detect Syrian troop movements, thus negating any element for surprise.

A UN soldier keeping watch in the Golan.

For Syria, Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli strike on Gaza in 2008, has severely crippled any chances of peace. So now that they seem to be putting the past behind them so quickly, including how in 2007 it's quite possible Israel bombed a Syrian nuclear site, it brings up questions of motives.

Overall, these developments on Israel's northern frontier are worrisome. On the one hand, peace seems possible, and tensions that have been perpetual on the borders could finally end. This could also mean they could concentrate diplomatically on things like Iran or Hezbollah and finally move on. On the other hand, the current peace deal could very well be against Israel's interests, and actually slow down their abilities to deal with the growing Iranian threat. And if it also means giving away a very important piece of land, that could leave them militarily vulnerable, something that could be followed up on if war does break out again.

Peace, it seems, can be quite international.

Although there is bias in the first article, there defiantly seems to be congruence in regards to the first articles claims and what the other articles were stating. A lack of contradiction and since it comes from a reliable news source means I can trust the source, even if it requires a bit of skepticism and a bit background reading. That is because the first article was relating the Turkish referendum and other events surrounding the Middle East at large, thus making the article holistic in it's views. And like I stated previously, an understanding of current events and the past together are essential to understanding even news articles like the first one. What sense would German reunification in 1989 have made if the readers did not understand WWII and it's impact?