Утром в четверг на воинском кладбище на горе Герцля в Иерусалиме началась государственная церемония поминовения («азкара») военнослужащих ЦАХАЛа, погибших в ходе войны 1973 года. Эта война началась в Йом-Кипур (6 октября по гражданскому календарю).
В ночь со вторника на среду умер Шимон Перес, бывший премьер-министр и президент Израиля. Англоязычная пресса в связи с этим обсуждает его наследие, а заодно отчасти и израильскую политику. The Economist посвятил Пересу некролог под заголовком «Интриганство во имя мира». Пересу, пишет автор, удалось пережить прочих отцов-основателей его государства, но не удалось добиться того, к чему он больше всего стремился – установить в стране долгосрочный мир. Вообще упущенные возможности были постоянной темой в карьере Переса. Он занимал высшие посты – был президентом, дважды премьер-министром, - но политические конфигурации все время были неудачными. Тем не менее, его достижения, особенно в сфере международных отношений и развития оборонной отрасли, оказали большое влияние на положение Израиля. Шимон Перес (на переднем плане слева) и Голда Меир на строительстве ядерного реактора в Сореке. 1958. Фото: www.soreq.gov.il Одним из важнейших его достижений автор считает секретную сделку с Францией, благодаря которой появилась возможность для создания израильского ядерного арсенала, существование которого никогда не было открыто признано. Только в этом году Перес косвенным образом подтвердил этот факт, когда заявил, что за счет этого арабы понимают, что уничтожить государство Израиль не получится, а это уже повод, чтобы установить хотя бы частичный мир. Также автор подчеркивает, что кулуарная политика давалась Пересу значительно лучше, чем публичная. Устанавливать личные политические связи ему тоже было трудно, потому что он не принадлежал к сообществу коренных израильтян, а иммигрировал из Польши в возрасте 11 лет. Кроме того, он все время был «человеком в пиджаке» в стране, где больше всего ценится военная доблесть. Шимон Перес. Польша, 1936. Фото: Government Press Office Wall Street Journal прежде всего напоминает, что Перес был лауреатом нобелевской премии мира за неустанные попытки наладить мир с палестинцами. Он занимался политикой более семидесяти лет и был последним из группы лидеров (в их числе были также Давид Бен-Гурион, Моше Даян, Голда Меир и Ариэль Шарон), заставших создание государства Израиль в 1948 г. Премию мира он получил на вершине своей карьеры в 1994 г., после того как он провел переговоры по израильско-палестинской мирной сделке, которая получила название «Соглашения в Осло». Эта сделка задала основу для развития решения по принципу «два государства для двух народов», при котором окончание конфликта достигается путем создания государства Палестины наряду с государством Израилем. NY Times подчеркивает, что хотя Перес был главным организатором израильской оборонной индустрии и, в частности, инициатором формирования ядерного арсенала, он же всегда был последовательным сторонником мирного урегулирования отношений с арабским миром. В последние годы эта его позиция стала довольно маргинальной, особенно после того как события «арабской весны» (2011 г.) привели к беспокойству на границах Израиля. Собственно сделка, заключенная в 1994 г. не дала устойчивого эффекта. Первое потрясение она испытала в 2000 г., после того как лидер оппозиции Ариэль Шарон посетил стену плача. На следующий день израильская полиция стреляла по протестующим, которые бросали камни. Таким образом началась новая волна насилия, ставшая известной как вторая интифада. Это не закончилось со смертью Ясира Арафата в 2004 г.
The former prime minister and president was a first-hand witness and often a central participant in every moment in his country’s history.
Не так труба кормит, как ее ответвления. Павел Бородин, управляющий делами президента Российской Федерации в 1993-2000 гг. Моисей водил нас по пустыне 40 лет, чтобы привести к единственному месту на Ближнем Востоке, где нет никакой нефти. Голда Меир, 5-й премьер-министр Израиля (1969 — 1974 гг.) Трюки с запасами не будут работать бесконечно. Точнее, они будут работать бесконечно, но будут всякий раз разными. Мы не можем знать, какими они будут в последующие разы, но в этот раз, почти наверняка, всех ожидающих нефть по 35 ждёт маленький сюрприз. Точно такой, как в прошлый раз: Теперь вы знаете, что делать: нужно купить котлету брента в 23.29 Мск и продать её на первой белой свечке после выхода статистики. С коротким стопом, Дамы и Господа, с коротким стопом!
Директор израильского Института стратегических исследований имени Голды Меир Альберт Фельдман заявил, что атака националистов на телеканал «Интер» в Киеве является терактом.
Украина может использовать израильскую систему ПВО «Железный купол» для защиты городов Донбасса от ракетных бомбардировок.
В Киеве прошли торжества по случаю 25-летия установления дипломатических отношений между Украиной и Израилем.
Leura Fine Featured on Forbes' 2016 30 Under 30 list, Leura Fine is the founder and CEO of leading online interior design service Laurel & Wolf. Driven by the desire to connect clients and designers through a digital platform, Leura launched Laurel & Wolf from her home dining room in 2014. Two years later, she has a rapidly growing team of more than 60 employees and a marketplace of more than 1,000 interior designers. Born and raised in Alabama, Leura grew up with a passion for design;; she began her career at a top design firm and then started her own company, Leura Fine Interiors, before ultimately launching Laurel & Wolf. Named one of Business Insider's "25 Hot Los Angeles Startups to Watch" and featured in notable publications such as Forbes, TechCrunch, Inc., Refinery29, and Elle Décor, Laurel & Wolf has disrupted the traditional model of the interior design industry. As the company's hands-on leader, Leura transforms the way thousands of people live, work, and love through the power of great design. How has your life experience made you the leader you are today? My path has been one rich with diverse experiences and, although it has certainly not been traditional, it has led me to where I am today. I am a Jewish southern girl who grew up in Alabama and moved to Montreal to study at McGill University. After graduating early, I then moved to Los Angeles where I worked for a world famous Burlesque dancer, built a career as an interior designer and continued to then launch a tech company, of course now known as Laurel & Wolf. I was also born blessed as I have exceptional parents who taught me with enough hard work and dedication I could do anything. They supported my every endeavor and helped me not only believe that the world was mine for the taking, but also that "normal" was "only a setting on a washing machine." There was no value placed on being like everyone else and I think this belief that unique is beautiful is what helped me through so many transitions in my life and makes me a stronger leader today. How has your previous employment experience aided your tenure at Laurel & Wolf? My previous career as an interior designer is what inspired the idea for Laurel & Wolf. More importantly, I learned from my previous experiences that in life and in business you must evolve or die and most people inevitably follow the status quo. They are structured the same way, they have the same office environment, they think about growth in the same manner, and they are ultimately afraid to rock the boat. For me, it is truly exhilarating creating a business that looks to the future while simultaneously changing the future for so many people. The passion and drive I have for the design industry and for life finally has the opportunity to thrive through Laurel & Wolf. What have the highlights and challenges been during your tenure at Laurel & Wolf? A major highlight is definitely my team! I love coming to work everyday and feel beyond blessed that I get to work with such incredibly creative, intelligent, and dedicated individuals. As far as a greatest challenge goes, when leading a startup, you are faced with obstacles on a daily basis. No matter what the challenge may be, I believe the most valuable takeaway is learning from these experiences in order to evolve and grow as a leader. What advice can you offer to women who want a career in your industry? Oscar Wilde said: "Be yourself. Everyone else is taken." I love this quote because I believe that staying true to who you are is incredibly important as a woman in any industry. In your career, it is critical to embrace your strengths and your weaknesses and learn how to leverage them to the best of your ability as opposed to trying to conform to what you think someone in your field should act or look like. What is the most important lesson you've learned in your career to date? Determination, focus, and hard work matter more than anything. You can have the best idea in the world but if you don't know how to execute, then you don't have anything. You have to always be pushing forward if you want to win. How do you maintain a work/life balance? I certainly aim for work/life balance although I don't know I would say I've fully achieved it. More than anything, having friends and family who are understanding and supportive of your endeavor is critical when you start a company. I do try and make time to be active, enjoy the outdoors, cook, travel and have days where I only check my email once (or twice). I think aspiring to have a balance is more than half the battle! Just like any other goal, there are times when it is easier to accomplish than others. What do you think is the biggest issue for women in the workplace? I have no idea to be honest. I think every individual has different challenges (either personal, societal or both) faced at work and some of our greatest challenges can simply exist in our head. It is possible certain insecurities arise as a result of what we've been exposed to or perhaps our upbringing; however, this doesn't mean we should allow them to surface and it definitely doesn't mean they cannot be overcome. My perspective is definitely skewed as I've gone to work in an era where space was already created for me to thrive as a female professional. I appreciate the hard work and tremendous challenges faced by women who came before me and my hope is to continue to expand the conversation until we no longer need to address this question or deal with sexism or any type of prejudice in the workplace. I'm incredibly proud of Laurel & Wolf and fellow founders as we have successfully created empowering, diverse, and equal opportunity places of employment. How has mentorship made a difference in your professional and personal life? I don't know that I've ever had one specific mentor but there are many people I've admired greatly and gotten to spend time with. More than formal mentorship, I believe listening to people's stories can dramatically impact your career and your decisions. The best stories are the ones that tell the story of failure. It is fascinating to see how people not only overcome obstacles but also rise above and succeed. Which other female leaders do you admire and why? Historically, I have always greatly admired Golda Meir. She was brilliant, dedicated, tough, and not afraid to go after what she wanted and what she knew was right. She was a revolutionary and a visionary. Contemporary females I admire are Martha Stewart and Shonda Rhimes. They have both taken traditionally female traits and interests and created empires out of them. They are also both selfmade women, which makes me respect and admire them even more. What do you want Laurel & Wolf to accomplish in the next year? Our long term goal is to create a global design brand. While we can't accomplish that in the next year, we are focused on continuing our rapid growth in North America and continuing to transform people's lives through the power of great design. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Газета «Исраэль ха-йом» посвятила одну из своих статей теме американо-израильских отношений. Автор статьи Йорам Эттингер убежден, что отношения между двумя государствами не зависят лишь от того, кто находится в Белом доме. Это доказывает вся 68-летняя история связей между США и Израилем.
ТАСС приводит список 10 наиболее влиятельных женщин в мировой политике XX – XXI веков.
Early in the creation of our Constitution, Abigail Adams in March 1776 wrote to her husband John Adams, a leading Founding Father, and famously appealed to him: to "Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors." John Adams, otherwise a wise man who would become a wise President, in this instance was dismissive and mocking in reply: "As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh." Two hundred and forty years later, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in securing the requisite number of delegates to win the Democratic presidential nomination and become the first woman of any party to do so in American history, took to the stage last Tuesday night and, in her opening remarks, paid silent homage to Abigail Adams and remembered the ladies (video here). Specifically, Clinton remembered the women, and men, who worked on behalf of the rights of women, who climbed into the arena to do political and cultural battle: "Tonight's victory is not about one person. It belongs to generations of women and men who struggled and sacrificed and made this moment possible." Continuing in a historical vein, Clinton noted: "In our country, it started right here in New York, a place called Seneca Falls, in 1848, when a small but determined group of women and men came together with the idea that women deserved equal rights, and they set it forth in something called the Declaration of Sentiments, and it was the first time in human history that that kind of declaration occurred. So we all owe so much to those who came before, and tonight belongs to all of you." In including men among those honored in the struggle for women's rights, Clinton showed more magnanimity than John Adams did in his role as Constitution-shaper. In his defense, John would plead the exigencies of rebellion against the British, with "the bands of Government" loosened all about. In his response to Abigail, he cited children and apprentices grown "disobedient." He complained---fatefully for the country's future---that "Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters." And now his wife brings "the first intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerfull than all the rest were grown discontented." It is the height of counter-factual history, and yet imperative to consider: If the conceptual framework of the U.S. Constitution had been less "tribal" (that is, white) and more focused on power-sharing, think of the lives not lost and not deformed because of tyranny. Abigail herself pointed to the problem: "Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could." In a way, it is apt that it took another woman to deliver on Abigail's demand to remember the ladies, even if it took 240 years: Abigail threatened rebellion from the ladies if their interests were not included in the Constitution. In that famous letter to John, she wrote (these spellings are hers): "If perticullar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation." Thus it is altogether fitting and proper that Hillary Clinton, in achieving the highest peak in national life a woman has scaled to date, saluted those who struggled and sacrificed for women's rights, those of us who made the long-running "Rebelion." Some of us recognized that, if things went better for us collectively, things would go better for us individually. We looked around us, in our workplaces and public spaces, and where we saw imbalance, we sought balance. We got nervy and organized; we made speeches when we might have preferred listening; we called ourselves feminists and never forsook the term. We endured the shrugged shoulders and rolled eyes of friends and coworkers, including other women, who thought we were fools. We suffered the scorn of more traditional women who thought we were radicals. We abided stern lectures from our elders, and from other "Guardians" and "Masters," on the sacrilege of upending the natural order. For we knew "the natural order" was not right, not natural. The full rights and dignity of women had yet to be affirmed, there was more organizing and lobbying and legislating to do. We climbed into the arena to make History by altering History. Which is why Hillary's historic win of the presidential nomination last week, while not treated in the media as a particularly big deal, was a big deal to some of us, and so moving. It felt like History-making hard work was rewarded at last, while also reminding us of all the female talent that was held back or thwarted throughout the ages because of "tribal" stereotyping. Of course, winning the nomination does not mean winning the White House. The general election coming up, pitting Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump---misogynist, xenophobe, tyrant---promises to be brutal. While I am not convinced Hillary playing the "woman card" is sound strategy (just as Barack Obama did not play the black card in his campaign), rest assured Mr. Trump will employ his entire arsenal of insults and smears, much of it aimed at womanhood while simultaneously reinforcing his own (white) manhood. Complicating the ascent of this particular woman is the fact that many women reportedly do not like Hillary (also here). To whom I would say: Remember, Ladies, your sisters in political life have to leap many more hurdles than their male cohorts do. A little sympathy, please? And to the media: Why isn't the likeability standard applied to male politicians? Of course, if we are truly grown up, why is likeability even a standard? Meanwhile, the world wonders at our struggle: Currently, eighteen (18) countries are led by women. Examples in the recent past include Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher. The world's oldest democracy hasn't produced one yet? Back into the arena, Troops! Our "Rebelion" is not done. For full text of the Adams' letters quoted above, see here. For my earlier post titled "The Speech Hillary Clinton Should Give to the 1 Percent on Capitalism and Income Inequality," see here. Carla Seaquist's latest book is titled "Can America Save Itself from Decline?: Politics, Culture, Morality." Also a playwright, she published "Two Plays of Life and Death." In an earlier career she helped organize the women's caucus at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. ('72 -76) and served as Equal Opportunity Officer for the City of San Diego ('77-80). -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
I'm a Startup Founder Who Is About to Become a Dad. Here's Why I'm Taking Two Months of Paternity Leave.
In Hebrew, Shira means "poetry" and "song." But to me, Shira is a symbol of everything I believe in. That's the name my wife, Sara, and I picked for our first daughter, who is due right after Father's Day. As the day gets closer, our blurry sonograms are coming into focus -- and so too are the things we care about. Because of my daughter, I'm taking two months off from Gusto to go on paternity leave. Becoming a parent is a celebration. All of a sudden you and your partner take on this incredible responsibility over someone's life, and that experience changes your family forever. However, sometimes the sheer beauty of it all can get buried. We live in the only developed country where parents aren't guaranteed to stay on payroll when they have a child. Fathers are commonly left out of the picture altogether. Only 12 percent of private companies give new dads paid leave, and 70 percent of fathers who took it were gone for fewer than ten days. I believe this is wrong and unfair. New parents -- both mothers and fathers -- should have the flexibility to take time to enjoy and adjust to their growing families. They should feel confident and completely fearless. So at Gusto, we decided to do something about it. We now offer a "bundle of joy" benefits package for new parents, which includes 16 weeks of paid maternity leave, eight weeks of paid paternity leave, plus extras like diapers, food delivery, house cleaning and sleep coaching during the time away. While not every company takes this approach, there are still many things people can do. Here's how everyone can inspire more meaningful leave options for all the amazing new parents out there. Work and life: The remix My favorite dessert is a bowl of coffee and mint chocolate chip ice cream. Sometimes all I want is the soothing mint, sometimes that zap of coffee, and other times, I just want to swirl it all together. This is also how I think about the relationship between work and life -- it has to be mixed. My philosophy is that we should try to enjoy all special moments, in life and work, right as they happen. Whisking together these different parts allows us to appreciate every second. If there's a chance to spend time with my family, I'll grab it. If there's an opportunity to jump into a meaningful project at work and devote nights and weekends to it, I'll do that with just as much passion. Everything can connect. That's why when something significant happens, like a birth, we need to make sure that we use it as a chance to truly commit to its magnitude. We need to enable mothers and fathers to bond with their newborns without feeling sorry about it. This is something everyone can do, but we need to talk about it to encourage more people to really do it. And progress is happening. Every time a company offers leave and a person takes it, we all become a little more accepting of the separate spheres that make up a whole life. Lead by example One of the biggest reasons I'm going on paternity leave is to signal to my team that this is normal, expected behavior. It shouldn't make you feel guilty, or as if you're not as committed to your work. Once people see that I'm out for two months, I hope they feel comfortable doing the same if they choose to. This is also how I act when I go on vacation. Inside every email, meeting, and Slack message, I not-so-subtly announce my plans because I want people to cozy up to the idea that time off is healthy. Research has shown that my brazen tactic is actually effective. When men see other men going on leave, also known as the peer effect, it raises the chances that they'll do it too. I believe people are born with an innate desire to do good things. So when you see someone else doing something good, like spending time with their child, it just kind of feeds into your goodness. And hopefully, it also pushes you to do the same. True partners As the future parent of a girl, I care a lot about equality. I grew up in a place where it wasn't just cool to talk about, it was rooted in our identity. This is also why I think creating equal opportunities for parents is so elemental for us as a society. In 1969, Golda Meir became the first female Prime Minister of Israel -- the third woman in the world to ever assume the position. That egalitarian spirit lives on today, especially when it comes to parental leave. Israeli parents get a minimum of 14 weeks off for leave, which the couple shares. It doesn't seesaw because of someone's gender or whether they actually carried the child. When a company hires an employee, they expect the same work ethic, and the same leave, regardless of that person's gender. As a result, mothers and fathers are more likely to reach their potential since they're the ones who define the entire experience. This can happen everywhere -- if we allow it. My dream is for parental leave to turn into a decision that's made together by both parents. I deeply admire mothers and the sacrifices they make, along with the partners that support them through it all. I try to thank Sara every day for giving so much to our future daughter. She's already an amazing mom. One day, my daughter will read this. And when that day comes (love you, Shira!), I'm confident that things will be better. I want my daughter to live in a world where me taking two months of paternity leave isn't a big deal. I want her to live in a world where she can freely find the things that move her, even if those things are new and different. If my wife and I do our job correctly, Shira will also find that world within herself -- one that we helped build, but at its core, is all her own. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
The scene was startling -- Senator Barbara Boxer, who has staked -- and sometimes risked -- her entire career on being a unapologetic progressive, shouted down at the Nevada Democratic convention by supporters of Bernie Sanders. It is far from the first time that Barbara Boxer has faced open hostility -- including angry protesters in Florida during the visceral days of the 2000 recount. But this episode, as she described it to me, was "uncontrollable and vicious." On this occasion, she was speaking out for Hillary Clinton. In truth, the stakes at the convention were small -- a handful of delegates chosen under complex rules, decried by Sander supporters, in a state where Clinton had already won the caucuses. But it suggests an increasingly bitter rift which, unless composed, enhances the electoral prospects not of Bernie Sanders, but of Donald Trump. The images on television were memorable -- angry Sanders partisans throwing chairs, charging the stage and cursing at speakers, including California's very liberal senator. Next came a torrent of obscene and threatening text messages directed at another woman, the Nevada State Democratic chairperson, as well as at her family. All this is evidence of an outrage which, at its worst, transcends disagreements over process and issues, trampling reason in the process. Seasoned though she is, Senator Boxer found the chaos deeply troubling. While at times she worried for her safety, she stood her ground, as always. The worst part for her, she says, was that for the first time in her career she could not break through the anger to be heard. Nonetheless, she remains optimistic that the party will ultimately unify. The protesters, she notes, were a minority of Sanders supporters. After several attempts to reach him, she had a "warm conversation" with her friend and fellow progressive Bernie Sanders who, she says, seemed "genuinely disturbed " by what had happened. In the fall, she believes, Senator Sanders will do precisely what he has promised -- work hard to ensure that Donald Trump never becomes president. But I am not writing this piece because of the tumult in Nevada, or even because today happens to be the publication date of Barbara Boxer's zesty and candid political memoir, The Art Of Tough. I had planned to write about her anyway -- after 34 years as one of the most gutsy and consistent liberals in Congress, Barbara Boxer is retiring from the Senate. In this year, of all years, her life in politics holds important lessons for Democrats and progressives. An admission of bias: Barbara Boxer is my spiritual leader -- by which I mean that she officiated when I married Nancy. More important, she's the Jewish big sister I never had: loyal, honest, caring, very funny and completely partial to my best interests. Family really matters to her -- her family, and mine. Friends don't come any better. She's also candid, passionate and pretty much an open book -- not many people in public life are as bad at concealing their feelings. Caution is not Barbara's first language, or even her second. So after two decades of friendship I know very well what a warm and large-spirited person she is. None of which keeps her from being as determined as she needs to be in pursuing what she thinks is right -- even when her chosen course is unpopular or risky. Her career defines political toughness in the service of principle and progressive politics. Politics is a hard business. Too often we stereotype our politicians as spoiled, timid, and mendacious sellouts mortgaged to special interests and concerned with their own survival. But the good ones -- like Barbara Boxer -- are something else entirely: attuned to their constituents, rooted in real beliefs, and focused on the common good in the face of more unpleasantness than most of us could take. Because, in truth, the life is a grind. Members of Congress are trapped in an endless round trip to Washington, Groundhog Day in midair. They are caught in a demeaning marathon of fundraising -- our fault, not theirs. They are forced to listen to idiots -- not just donors or constituents, but colleagues. In public, they are never off the job -- not at a restaurant, or grocery shopping, or even a kid's dance recital. They are fair game for insult -- often in person, incessantly in the media. The intoxication of office is way overrated; far more important is a level of toughness which is close to supernatural. But from the outset Barbara Boxer had to be tougher than most -- in ways which are good to remember at a time when the participation of women in politics is, all too often, taken for granted. In 1972, when she ran for Supervisor in the supposedly liberal bastion of Marin County, her most formidable opponent was her own gender. Though her male opponent had kids and a full-time job, voters berated her for neglecting her family. In one memorable highlight her opponent showed up at her home, unannounced, to inform her that running against him would set women back because "men have to free you." She kicked him out. She lost that race, but won the next. Indispensable to her resolve was her husband's determination to support her whatever it took. This wasn't the original plan: when they met as teenagers at Brooklyn College, Barbara was a cheerleader, Stewart the one with definitive ambitions. As Barbara wryly remarks: "Stew married Debbie Reynolds and woke up with Golda Meir." But Stewart rolled with it through two kids, his own busy law career, 40 years in public life, and 50+ years of marriage. Their son and daughter can't imagine them any other way. But things could have been very different had not both of them decided to break the mold. Together, they epitomize how feminism has changed us for the better. But 34 years in Congress have confirmed for Senator Barbara Boxer that sexism is like weeds, preternaturally hardy and tough to kill. The battle for women's rights -- including the right to claim a place in our politics -- has been a long slog up a very steep hill. Barbara Boxer took it on, whether the issue was reproductive rights, women's health, equal pay, child care, family leave, violence against women, or rape and abuse in the military. This accounts for her most painful moment in Congress -- the isolation of Anita Hill. When then-Representative Boxer learned of Hill's charges against Clarence Thomas, she and six female colleagues marched to the Senate with cameras in tow, demanding of Majority Leader George Mitchell that Hill be given a fair and thorough hearing. When Hill was called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she thought they had succeeded. Only later did Barbara learn that other women were prepared to testify about sexual harassment by Thomas, but never called as witnesses. To this day she blames herself for having turned too soon to other matters. But she achieved many more successes on behalf of other women, and her own career is one of them. When she decided to run for the Senate in 1992, she was an asterisk in the polls, unknown outside her district and given no shot in a state as large and diverse as California. She ran as an uncompromising advocate for reproductive choice, equal rights, environmental protection, healthcare, gun control, and cutting military spending -- issues which have defined her public life. When she was elected, the number of woman Senators quintupled -- from 1 to 5. Now there are 20. During Barbara's career in the Senate her successor in Congress, Nancy Pelosi, became Speaker of the House. The two leading candidates to succeed her as a senator are women. And a former colleague, Hillary Clinton, is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. Here, an ironic coda. After Barbara clobbered two male opponents in races for reelection, in 2010 the GOP cleverly decided to oppose her with a woman -- Carly Fiorina. Regrettably, Fiorina prefigured Donald Trump's sexist crack about her own appearance by getting caught on tape mocking Barbara's hairstyle. That November, Senator Boxer performed a national service by trouncing Fiorina, a decisive setback for same-sex sexism. That's progress. But then progress is the point of Barbara Boxer's career. Her accomplishments have a common theme -- improving people's lives. 1 million kids getting after-school care. 1 million acres of California land which are now protected wilderness. The first ever comprehensive casually care center in California, so that physically and mentally wounded veterans can receive the care they need. Setting clean water standards to assure the health and safety of pregnant women and kids. Protecting women in the military from sex offenders. Looking out for society's most embattled members -- minorities, the poor, immigrants, and those our economy leaves behind. At times that was a pretty solitary job. In 1996, she was one of only 14 votes against the Defense Of Marriage Act. In 1993, she tried to stop "don't ask, don't tell." She and seven colleagues voted against repealing Glass-Steagall. In 2004 she was the only senator who protested the blatant irregularities which skewed Ohio's electoral votes. She was one of 23 votes against the Iraq war resolution. And in 2015 she stood with a minority in the Senate to support the Iran nuclear deal. In every instance she chose principle over expedience -- and was prescient in the bargain. One should contemplate how rare this combination of smarts and conscience really is. Her vote against the Iraq war captures this. She was mocked, vilified and inundated with calls for her resignation. Instead, she doubled down. "What would it be like," she asked, "if every person in the cabinet lost a child? ...[W]ho's paying the price now? Our military families." When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appeared before a Senate committee to seek more troops for Iraq, Senator Boxer again bluntly noted the cost of war: "I'm not going to pay a personal price. My children are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a personal price... So who pays the price? The American military and their families -- not me, not you." She was pilloried -- and right. The war has produced a tsunami of veterans wounded in body and spirit -- maimed, traumatized, brain-damaged, and ridden by alcoholism, addiction and suicide. Not to mention the dead. One wishes that Barbara Boxer could have asked this question of Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, unable as they were to ask it of themselves. Now she lists the lessons of that experience. War must be the last resort, not the first. Don't enter a war of choice with faulty information. Don't go it alone unless there is no other option. Don't stick American troops in the middle of a civil or religious war. Don't want something more for another country than it wants for itself. Don't get our soldiers killed for oil. And the last -- "Don't tell lies." Public life is filled with lessons. And so writing her memoir has occasioned much reflection. She will miss her colleagues -- at least the good ones. Asked to name the best, she answers briskly: "Ted Kennedy, by far and away." For her, Senator Kennedy embodied what a senator should be -- an attentive mentor and generous colleague, for whom the work mattered much more than taking credit for it. If you're the wrong person to lead the fight, he taught her, find someone else and back them every way you can. And never be afraid to battle for what you believe -- staying strong is the only way to become the senator you should be. Another valued colleague was Barack Obama. Here she tells a story at her own expense: the moment of political genius wherein she explained to then-Senator Obama why Hillary Clinton would wipe him out should he challenge her in 2008. With remarkable stubbornness, Obama did not listen to his wiser and more experienced colleague. And Barbara counts watching him become our first black president as one of the most moving experiences she's ever had. But she rues the degree to which Obama's presidency has confirmed the persistence of racism. She cites as another instance of this voter suppression laws directed at seniors, students and low income voters -- and, especially, minorities. As she puts it: "Passports are fine, but you don't need a degree in voter suppression to know who has those." Still more reason, she emphasizes, to support Democrats in the fall. Still another is the Senate, her political home for nearly a quarter century. Bluntly, she says that it is a markedly worse place than when she entered -- too polarized to address our most pressing problems. Take climate change -- it is now close to impossible to find a Republican who will concede that this is a genuine concern. Her GOP colleagues live in fear of being primaried by right-wing extremists, or overrun by special interest money unleashed by Citizens United. Which, in turn, explains the stonewalling of Merrick Garland. But she is adamant that voters own a piece of this. Our political paralysis will only change, she warns, if people decide that they care enough about a clean environment -- as one example -- to make it a voting issue. But when only 40 percent of eligible voters participate in a non-presidential election year, the special interests win. "Until the American people wake up to their own power," she says, "and overcome cynicism, people with money will always dominate the process." Which brings her to the stakes in 2016 -- "nothing less than saving our country and the world." She names three issues, each requiring presidential leadership. Climate change -- "if we lose our environment we're not getting it back." Defeating terrorism -- "we don't win by isolating the very people we need to help us win." And rebuilding our sense of common citizenship -- "we can't have a great country unless we care about each other." That last, of course, alludes to Donald Trump. But she also has a word for his chief opponent: "Ted Cruz is a truly bipartisan figure -- both sides can't stand him." Asked for her reaction to Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee, she answers, "When he first started running, I said I couldn't imagine him as the nominee or president," adding wryly, "I stand by that." And the election of 2000 taught her all she ever needed to know about how much a president matters. So she has little patience with those who would throw away their votes or sulk on the sidelines. In her book, she minces few words in excoriating Ralph Nader for saying that there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush in terms of their corporate, military or supposedly "anti- environmental policies" "Either he was smoking something," she writes, "or he wins the prize for 'Best Rationalizer' in the world." And she quotes the late Barbara Jordan: "Some people say that it makes no difference who is elected president of the United States. You must say to those cynics: You are perpetuating a fraud." It is hard to argue with this. Al Gore lost Florida by a certified 537 votes out of 6 million cast. If a few hundred Nader voters had supported Gore, we would have been been spared the Iraq war, the rise of climate change denial and, quite possibly, the great recession of 2008 -- not to mention a list of other setbacks deplored by any supporter of both Clinton and Sanders old enough to remember. Only a man as self- absorbed as Ralph Nader would claim that this outcome made no difference. But in 2016 a generation of first-time voters are too young to recall the disaster of 2000. So Barbara Boxer will campaign hard for Hillary Clinton and other Democrats in the fall, then leave the Senate content. She always hated raising money for herself; now she won't have to. "If I want to get into a good argument," she says with a laugh, "I'll just call John McCain." And she will continue to be engaged with the issues she cares about "as long as I'm vertical." That's one reason she wrote The Art Of Tough -- to capture what it's like to deal up close with the issues which define what kind of country we are. Another, of course, is to emphasize that individual voters must elect the leaders most likely to tackle those issues -- in November, Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump. And, beyond that, to participate in our public life as fully as they are able. Knowing all she knows, would she advise young people to run for office? "Absolutely", she replies. But first they need to find issues they care about, and get involved -- "running for office is not about wanting to be something, but wanting to do something." And so, she concludes, you have to carry the issues in your heart, not just your head. If you don't have that passion, don't run -- the job requires too much. But if you truly care that we have a government that serves people, not just special interests, elective office is an obvious place to be. Her own life in public office holds a final lesson. 34 years ago, she won election to Congress on the slogan "Barbara Boxer gives a damn." She still does. So should we. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Good evening, everyone. Erev tov. Thank you, Ambassador Dermer, for that kind introduction. And thanks to you and Rhoda for inviting me to share Yom Ha’atzmaut with you. It’s great to see so many distinguished Members of Congress—from both sides of the aisle—as well as members of the diplomatic community. And to any Minnesotans in the audience, I want to give a shout-out to the “Frozen Chosen.” I have to admit, for a guy named McDonough, I feel very much at home. As many of you know, I’ve been fortunate to work closely with the Jewish community during my time at the White House. Last December, Kari, two of our kids and I even had the great privilege of celebrating Hannukah on the South Lawn of the White House. I got to ride in a cherry picker with Rabbis Abraham and Levi Shemtov, 30 feet up in the air, to light the national menorah. That was pretty neat—and more than a little bit reassuring—even celestial—being surrounded by clergy as I elevated from the earth. I’m honored to join you to mark this anniversary of Israel’s independence. It was 68 years ago, as the Sabbath sun set, that David Ben-Gurion proclaimed to the world a state “based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel.” Persevering through centuries, the people of Israel have created a vibrant and diverse democracy. They have forged a future of astounding possibilities. They have truly made the desert bloom. For as long as the state of Israel has existed, the United States has been Israel’s unwavering friend and ally. It took President Truman only 11 minutes to recognize Israel after it declared independence—over the objections of some of his own advisers. I can’t recall anything in Washington happening in just 11 minutes. It is a testament to the deep and enduring bonds between our two countries—bonds that stretch across administrations and political parties, across oceans and generations, across families and faiths. I’m not the first to observe that the United States and Israel are, in many ways, a family. And, like any big and boisterous family, Americans and Israelis disagree at times. As the ninth of eleven children, I speak from vast experience. But I also know that, at the end of the day, we care for each other, look out for each other, and protect each other. I’m proud to serve a President who understands that—a President whose commitment to Israel has been unprecedented. For President Obama, Israel is not just another foreign policy issue. It’s not a political football. He feels this in his kishkes—in his gut. I was with then-Senator Obama when he traveled to the holy city of Jerusalem in 2008. I watched him bow his head in prayer at the Western Wall. He also traveled to Sderot, where he saw the devastation wrought by Hamas-launched rockets and met with Israelis living under the threat of attack. Israel is not an abstraction to him. Earlier this year, President Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to speak at the Israeli Embassy, where he honored the Righteous Among the Nations. It was my favorite speech by the President, maybe ever. Of Master Sergeant Roddie Edmonds, who refused to tell the Nazis which of his fellow soldiers were Jews, the President said: “It’s an instructive lesson, by the way, for those of us Christians. I cannot imagine a greater expression of Christianity than to say, I, too, am a Jew.” I remember thinking as I listened to that speech, “If I get that call, I hope I have the courage of Sergeant Edmonds.” In that speech, the President also reaffirmed that “America’s commitment to Israel’s security remains, now and forever, unshakeable.” These are not just words. We are backing up that unshakeable commitment with unparalleled action. Since President Obama took office, the United States has provided Israel almost $24 billion in military aid to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge. We’ve invested in missile defense systems, like Iron Dome, that have saved Israeli lives. Later this year, we’ll begin delivering the cutting-edge F-35 fighter jet, making Israel the only Middle Eastern nation to obtain this advanced aircraft. And we’re in the process of discussing a new agreement to guide our military assistance for the next decade. This would be the largest military aid package in American history—with any country—and this Administration continues to work it hard. And even as we acknowledge that the Iran deal has stirred strong passions, we firmly believe that continuing to implement this deal is the best way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and keep Israel safe. America’s commitment to Israel motivates the United States to speak out and take action whenever anti-Semitism and bigotry arise. That’s true on the floor of the United Nations, in the streets of Europe, or here in our own country. Because, as Secretary Pritzker said so powerfully last week, “hate speech has a friend in silence.” Each of us has a responsibility to continue calling out and working against hatred wherever we see it. And we will. Our commitment to Israel and its long-term security also calls us to continue pursuing a path to peace—to seek two states for two peoples, living side by side in peace and security. We are under no illusions that this will be easy. History has proven otherwise. For both Israelis and Palestinians, the hurt and heartache run deep. At the same time, we continue to believe that peace is necessary, that it is just—and that it is possible. We will continue urging both sides to take meaningful action towards this vision of two states. That is our solemn promise, and the future we hope to help build together. Just a few weeks ago, the President hosted his eighth and final Seder at the White House. Like so many Jews here and around the world, the President and his guests ate the bread of affliction and dipped greens into salt water. They retold the tale of the Exodus—of an oppressed people wandering for years before finding redemption. Because of Theodor Herzl’s dream and Ben-Gurion’s determination, because of Golda Meir and Chaim Weizmann and so many others, that yearning to return to Israel was fulfilled. That 2,000-year-old hope for a homeland has become reality. Israel is now strong, and independent, and thriving. And, together, we will continue working to keep Israel flourishing in the years to come. Toda rabah, and chag sameach.
Прокуратура Иерусалима передала 9 мая в столичный окружной суд обвинительное заключение против 19-летнего жителя Каландии Хусама Ашхава. Он обвиняется в сбыте огнестрельного оружия и патронов к нему.
One of the themes in the critiques of Hillary Clinton that one hears from progressives of an anti-Hillary bent is that she's a superhawk. The assertion is that, as president, she will pursue the kind of "neo-con" foreign policy that, in our times, has embroiled this country in ugly and unsuccessful military ventures abroad. My purpose here in addressing that reading of Hillary's record is modest. It is not my intention, for example, to pass any overall judgment of Hillary's hawkishness. That would require more detailed knowledge than I possess. But I do have a couple of observations to offer that, in my view, should lessen the weight of evidence for this characterization of Hillary as a superhawk. One key piece of evidence for that characterization has been Hillary's vote, in 2002, in support of the authorization for the use of force in Iraq. We've heard a lot about that vote: Barack Obama wielded it against her in 2008, and Bernie Sanders has done so again this time around. But the chances are that Hillary's Iraq vote tells us little about her hawkishness. That vote, tather, was probably about something else. To understand that vote, we need to understand the political context within which it was cast. It is in that context that we can understand this striking fact: every Democrat in the Senate who was a potential serious contender for the presidency voted for the resolution. That includes not only Hillary Clinton (who was not actually to run until 2008) but also John Kerry (the eventual 2004 nominee), John Edwards (who ended up on the 2004 ticket), and Joe Lieberman (the VP candidate with Gore in the 2000 election). Not a single Democrat, then in the Senate, who voted against the resolution ever ran for president. (Barack Obama was an Illinois state legislator at the time. Bernie Sanders was in the House, as an Independent, and did actually vote against the resolution. But I doubt that even Bernie had any idea that he'd ever make a serious run for the presidency.) And it's not hard to understand why someone with presidential ambitions would feel strong pressure to vote yes. At this point, in the wake of the trauma of 9/11, President Bush was riding high in the polls. American nationalism -- not to say jingoism and militarism -- dominated the national mood. Cheney and Rumsfeld still enjoyed a reputation of competence in military affairs. And there was a long history, dating back to Vietnam, of Republicans successfully beating Democrats over the head for being "soft on national security." The Bush forces were already pounding the Democrats, in this post-9-11 circumstance, with being "soft on terrorism." The Republicans were in the process of unseating Georgia's Democratic Senator, Max Cleland, who left three of his limbs in Vietnam, by running ads against him connecting him with Osama bin Ladin. In that context, the most reasonable presumption would be that a vote against the coming Iraq war would prove considerably more risky for a Democrat seeking the presidency than a "yes" vote. It would not have been unreasonable for a seasoned political advisor to have told a Democratic Senator, "If you ever want to be elected president, you'd better support this resolution." That advice, though reasonable at the time, has worked out badly because the war proved unexpectedly disastrous (in part because Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld proved unexpectedly incompetent), and thus the politics played out in unexpected ways. From the outside, there's no way of knowing whether any of the ambitious Democrats of 2002 voted yes out of conviction. (We might assume that Joe Lieberman was glad to vote yes; with John Kerry it is more doubtful.) But I would bet that what Hillary chose was what seemed to her the politically prudent course. That vote likely says less about her hawkishness than about her ambition. It could be argued that this would be just as damning. Maybe. But politics is not always morally simple. Hillary may have figured that she could not stop Bush's march to war anyway, and that -- by not creating the political vulnerability that voting against the measure would have brought upon her - she might someday have a chance to do more than enough good to make up for such a compromise of principle. Politicians are forced to make such judgments, and such compromises, all the time. Lucky is the elected official who has climbed the political ladder by standing by all that they believe in all the time. One finds such compromises in the biographies of all of America's greatest leaders. But, in our public arena, no one is allowed to admit to the political that political reality. We want to believe that there's no conflict between purity and power. We do not want to confront the regrettable implications of the fact that elected officials are by definition people who have done what is necessary to get elected in a flawed society. So Hillary is left looking like a hawk, looking like she had bad "judgment," but we don't really know whether either of those judgments is valid. One more thing. Ever since Vietnam, Democrats have felt vulnerable to Republican attacks that they are not tough enough to protect America. Mostly, those attacks have been bogus, but they've been effective. (Perhaps now, with all the military failures, that line of attack will not work as well.) But for Hillary, the need to prove toughness has been doubly imposed on her. She's not only a Democrat, but she is also a woman. Old stereotypes put an additional burden on women to prove that they are tough enough to be "commander-in-chief." (This extra burden on women remains a factor in American politics - as Donald Trump will doubtless seek to exploit - despite the modern record of Maggie Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and Golda Meir all winning wars as leaders of their nations.) Whether, once she became president, such pressures to prove her toughness would push President Hillary Clinton to go further in a hawkish direction than she might naturally wish to go, I don't know. But if the question is how hawkish are her own proclivities in dealing with the world's problems, these two factors - that a vote against the Iraq war seemed to every Democrat with presidential ambitions a dangerous vote, and that as a woman she has an especial need to prove her toughness -- should lighten the weight of apparent evidence for the super-hawkishness of which her critics accuse her. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
1904. Голда Меир, первый известный портрет в Пинске 1911. Голда Меир в 8-м классе в 4-й школе в Милуоки, Висконсин 1914. Голда Меир с Сэди Гершон в Милуоки 1916. Голда Меир и преподаватели еврейской народной школы в городе Милуоки 1916. Голда Меир и школьники еврейской народной школы в городе Милуоки 1917. Голда Меир 1918. Голда Меир с мужем Моррисом Майерсоном 1919. Голда Меир (как Статуя Свободы) на конкурсе в «Поалей Цион» (Рабочие Сиона) 1919. Голда Меир на конкурсе в «Поалей Цион» (Рабочие Сиона) 1919. Голда Меир на конкурсе в «Поалей Цион» (Рабочие Сиона) в Милуоки 1920. Голда Меир 1921. Голда Меир в кибуце Мерхавия 1921. Голда Меир кормит кур в кибуце Мерхавия 1930. Голда Меир в гостях у британской лейбористской партии 1932 Голда Меир во время своей миссии в США 1932. Голда Меир в Милуоки для выступления с благотворительной речью 1935. Голда Меир на заседании Лейбористской партии в Палестине 1947. Голда Меир в качестве председателя политотдела Еврейского агентства 1947. Голда Меир и футбольная команда Апоэль 1948. Голда Меир вручает свои верительные грамоты Власову 1948. Голда Меир подписывает провозглашение независимости Израиля 1948. Голда Меир с Иваном Алексеевичем Власовым, заместителем председателя Верховного Совета СССР 1948. Голда Меир с Моше Шаретом и советским послом Ершовым 1948. Голда Меир с Моше Шаретом после ее назначения послом в СССР 1949. Голда Меер 1950. Голда Меир и Беба Идельсон на Генеральной Ассамблее ООН . 5 февраля 1950 1950. Голда Меир и дети Шфаима 1950. Голда Меир, министр труда 1956. Голда Меир с Элеонорой Рузвельт в ООН 1956. Портрет Голды Меир, министра иностранных дел 1958. Голда Меир в Организации Объединенных Наций 1958. Голда Меир и министр иностранных дел Селвин Ллойд 1959. Голда Меир с российским послом Бодровым на дипломатической приеме 1960. Голда Меир танцует с миссис Джомо Кениятта в Кении 1962. Голда Меир с президентом Джоном Ф. Кеннеди в Белом доме. 1968. Голда Меир садится в автобус 1969. Голда Меир в Белом доме на торжественном ужине с президентом и миссис Никсон 1969. Голда Меир с Залманом Шазаром, президентом Израиля 1969. Голда Меир, новый премьер-министр, Игаль Алон и президент Шазар 1969. Голда Меир, премьер-министр 1969. Дети приветствуют Голду Меир в аэропорту Филадельфии 1969. Голда Меир и Ричард Никсон 1970. Голда Меир в своем офисе 1970. Голда Меир с министром обороны Моше Даяном 1970. Голда, разглядывает новорожденного в больнице 1972 . Голда Меир и астронавт Джеймс Ирвин 1972. Голда Меир в Хоральной синагоге в Бухаресте 1972. Голда Меир и Николае Чаушеску 1973. Голда Меир 1973. Голда Меир и Папа Павел VI в Ватикане 1973. Голда Меир и раненые израильские солдаты во время войны Судного дня 1974 Голда Меир с Генри Киссинджером на прощальном вечере в Израиле