Dear Readers,
Our site is experiencing some issues, if you haven’t noticed. Apparently our CSS script has been hacked and we need to rework the coding…
Our apologies, we will try to fix the issues as soon as possible so we can continue posting.
-NZ
(Note: Even though I am a graduate student in Economics, I must admit that Monetary Economics and Monetary Policy is a field of economics that I know little about. My interest is in other fields in econ, so this post is based solely on my opinion. I will try to do my best to explain what is going on, to you and to myself, but please be kind as Monetary Policy is one of the more confusing and convoluted subjects. Definitely comment if you have better knowledge than I)
There has been a significant increase in economic turmoil over the past month, primarily stemming from the United States. While news coverage has been primarily about the possibility of a recession, the credit crunch, and subprime mortgages, the nature of a globalized economy is that whatever happens in one major player has a ripple effect on those players in the periphery. One of the biggest ripple effects that have been immediately felt is the rapidly decreasing strength of the dollar.
The recent confusion in the US has affected Israel in an interesting and unprecedented way. Last week Stanley Fischer, head of the Bank of Israel, announced that Israel would buy up $600M of US currency in the hope of propping up the quickly decreasing value of the dollar with respect to the Israeli Shekel. This event is quite unique in that a month ago Stanley Fischer went on record that the Bank of Israel would not intervene in the currency issues of the US. So why the reversal of policy?
In order to understand Fischer’s decision, or rather reversal, we need to dig a little bit deeper into the Israeli economy. Israel’s exports are overwhelmingly based on technology and high end finished goods. In addition, over 40% of Israel’s exports go directly to the United States. (The US accounts for roughly 6% of Egypt’s exports and 20% of China’s exports, just for a reference point). What this means is that, for a small country, a disproportionate amount of Israeli income is dependent on the United States. Now, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and the weak dollar does not mean that Israel will stop exporting to the United States. Actually, the weak dollar means that American goods are cheaper, and Israel can import American goods on the cheap.
So why buy up a crappy currency when you can just buy cheap goods instead? The answer lies in the fact that an overwhelming amount of Israeli firms deal only in dollars; they run their business in dollars, they trade on US stock exchanges in dollars, or they run their financial transactions in dollars. But, being Israeli based, eventually all of these business dealings need to be translated back to Shekels to pay salaries, pay rent, pay electricity bills, or whatever. So in effect every item that Israeli firms export is worth less and less.
Therefore, I think a large reason why Fischer reversed his previous statements is because the business community in Israel put pressure on the politicians, and on the Central Bank of Israel to stop the drop in the dollar. Buying dollars with Israeli shekels is not going to salvage the US economy, but the hope is that it will create some balance between the two currencies. And by hopefully stopping the drop of the dollar, Israeli businesses will not see the value of their products drop.
As interesting as this idea sounds, there is massive risk and potentially calamitous economic ramifications. First and foremost, the Bank of Israel simply does not have the financial resources to prop up the dollar. While it may help a little bit, six hundred million dollars is nowhere near a big enough boost. If the dollar keeps sliding, the Bank of Israel cannot keep continuing to buy as it will create massive inflationary pressure.
The second problem is that the risk of increased issues in the US economy has actually increased over the last week, dramatically in fact. The Bear Stearns fiasco, lowering mortgage requirements and increasing the risk of subprime issues, plus questionable actions from a Federal Reserve Board that seems to be more interested in avoiding recession than avoiding inflation. All of these issues have created massive insecurity about the US economy, which is going to further push down the dollar.
There is one other issue that might come in to play as well. Israel is not a very well diversified country when it comes to exports, and such heavy correlation to a potentially shaky US economy could spell trouble. The term that economists throw around is “decoupling”, which occurs when emerging markets increase economic interaction with each other, and decrease their reliance on heavy hitters like Japan, the EU, or the US. It is very similar to portfolio theory; by diversifying your investment you decrease the risk because any one bad investment will not ruin your whole portfolio. So while other emerging markets have been decoupling, Israel has maintained it status quo of putting most of its financial eggs in one American basket.
Because of these three reasons, the scope of the currency imbalance, the instability of the US economy, and the concentration of Israeli financial wellbeing in one location, Fischer’s decision to buy US dollars is rife with uncertainty. Already the results have been mixed. The day of the announcement there was a brief blip on the radar, but soon thereafter the same downward trend emerged in full force, which can be seen below.
It is very hard to predict what will happen in the near future, and it is even harder to predict what will happen in the long run. There are too many variables and too many unknowns. My personal disposition on Fischer’s decision is pessimistic. In the worst case scenario the US economy continues its downward spiral into recession, taking the Israeli economy with it (now more so considering the additional $600M payload), and in the best case scenario Israel will find itself holding a bunch of dollars that are worth less than what they were bought for.
(Additional info on currency rate fluctuations from the Chicago Fed here)
(Additional info on decoupling from a recent Economist article here)
I wanted to share some thoughts I have about the recent shooting at Merkaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem.
First, to refresh our memories, late last week, on the 6th, a lone Palestinian gunman of allegedly Eastern Jerusalem origin opened fire on a on a bunch of young students at the Merkaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem. The gunman was shot and killed, but not before emptying 500 bullets in the place and killing eight people.
There is plenty about the event in the news, so I won’t get in to the details, but I did want to point out some thoughts I have on this horrific tragedy.
First, this event immediately struck me as different from other terrorist attacks in that it wasn’t the typical suicide bomber, and none of the usual suspects claimed responsibility for it. As the news has pointed out, the situation was really a “lone gunman” type of situation, where one person took it upon himself to lash out without any outside influence. To me, this represents a different class of terrorism, one that, frankly, I’m rather shocked doesn’t happen more frequently. The motivation seems to be radically different. A Hamas-sponsored suicide bomber is indoctrinated with years of fanatic education and extremist rhetoric. A lone gunman comes from the perspective of deep individual frustration and desperation.
Secondly, what struck me is the symbolic specificity of the shooting. Merkaz Harav Yeshiva was founded in 1924 by Rav Kook, and has since been an active proponent of the Religious Zionist movement in Israel, and the more right wing settler Hardal supporters as well. Most terrorist acts are random attacks on strangers, without any consideration of who will be there and what their nationality is. Yet here the shooter chose to attack the same people who are looking to move his family out of Eastern Jerusalem. Therefore the symbolism of attacking Merkaz Harav cannot be ignored, and arguably is a major factor in why the shooter snapped.
Thirdly there is the response of the religious movements. I was reading a number of talk-balks and comments about the tragedy on a number of more religious online sites. The bulk of the comments are calls for vengeance and frightening Kahane-style militancy, which is not surprising, but there were also a second group of comments that caught my attention. Specifically, the comments where asking things like “Where is Hashem?” and “Why doesn’t Hashem protect the religious?” (paraphrasing). Now, this is the first direct attack on a religious establishment that I can recall (again the symbolism), and the religious movements are rightfully questioning the meaning of such an attack. I don’t really know how to predict the outcome of this, as I am well removed from the Yeshiva spheres of Jerusalem, but it seems to me that this event will cause people to either strengthen their faith dramatically or leave the faith dramatically.
Lastly, there is the political issue. Even though the shooting is an isolated incident, in that it is not backed by any one of the usual Anti-Israel terror supporters of the region, the response is immediately political. There have been extreme reactions to the politicians, as many are correlating this event to the decision to rekindle peace talks, and the whole issue of dividing Jerusalem. Olmert has been called on to resign, and Education Minister Tamir was practically driven away when she went to visit the Yeshiva.
Some people equate this terrible event to Columbine, or the more recent incident at Virginia Tech, while others equate this event to Baruch Goldstein. The reality is somewhere in the middle. Incidents like Columbine really are the acts of lone gunmen, those who take out their own personal issues on the public, choosing targets that symbolize their frustration. The backdrop of the Baruch Goldstein shooting was one of politics and politicization, where the lone gunman was not acting on his behalf, but on behalf of a whole movement. Yes, Goldstein pulled the trigger, but he pulled in on behalf of a larger establishment.
The Merkaz Harav shooting is somewhere in between. Yes, it was a lone gunman who took out his frustration, but on the other hand the lone gunman was influenced by the politics around him, and one cannot say that he truly acted alone without any outside sway.
Therefore, the Merkaz Harav shooting is unique in that it represents a different type of terrorist attack, one where the attack does not need Hamas or Hizbullah for training and arms. Unfortunately, as incidents in the United States can show, these types of attacks are much easier to carry out, logistically and financially, than suicide bombings or hijackings. Whether the person truly acts alone or as a proxy for a larger entity the result is loss of life and senseless violence. My hope is that extremists from any side don’t see this as a calling card, and that this event does not become a tipping point for other such acts.
Bradley Burston had a fantastic little piece recently in Haaretz that I wanted to echo and add on to briefly. His article talks about the threat of a Palestinian 5th Column, and how Israel has no way to really deal with a threat that big. What he was referring to specifically is not the threat of increased violence, but rather the threat of non-violence, in the vein of the 1963 March on Washington, or the Salt March of 1930.
Imagine what would happen if one million Palestinians from the West Bank just got up and marched to the Knesset instead of sending suicide bombers. Imagine if half a million Palestinians from the Gaza Strip walked up to the security fence and camped out there indefinitely instead of firing rockets on Sderot. Not only would they receive massive international and media support, but they would also put Israel in a position where they truly would have to come up with a solution, instead of delaying a solution under layers of bureaucracy and futile negotiations.
Why doesn’t this happen? The answer is that the Palestinians are too fractionalized internally to ever join arms together in acts of non-violent resistance. As Burston reports, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip attempted such an act recently, in the hopes of getting 40,000 participants to march toward the security fence. Instead they got a few hundred, and those hundred were overshadowed by the continuous barrage of rocket fire into Israel going overhead.
The irony of this is that Israel is the exact same. The 5th column of Israel, whatever that may be, will never truly be able to make drastic policy changes because the 5th column is too busy drinking coffee at Saturday brunch in Tel Aviv. Imagine if two million Israel’s marched up the hill toward the Knesset and demanded change. Back in 2003 Viki Knafo walked 200 kilometers to Jerusalem by herself to demand for support for single mothers and made national headlines.
I think the saddest part of the whole situation is that the 5th columns of both Palestine and Israel pretty much want the same thing: some sense of normalcy, and some sense of real progress toward a two state solution. I also think that both 5th columns are disenfranchised, and becoming more so, with the whole process. After years of stagnation, it is easier to stop fighting and just let the status quo prevail. Unfortunately, the status quo on both sides is determined not by the moderate members of the 5th column, but by extremists like Hamas. So while fighting in Gaza quickly escalates, and threats from both sides fill the airwaves, the real people who get screwed are the majority in the middle that choose to opt out and pray it will pass over.
When news about Israel, or the greater Middle East, is continuously negative and worrying, the good news tends to get buried in the back pages. That is why I wanted to write about what could be one of the more under-valued news stories of the year, which also happens to be one of the few positive news stories.
About a month ago the New York Times ran an interesting article about how Israel is planning on making itself into a test ground for a new venture to introduce electric cars in to widespread circulation, and subsequently greatly reduce oil dependency. The idea comes from Project Better Place, a start up run by Israeli ex-pat Shai Agassi, with the support of Renault and the Israeli government. In addition, the project has extensive financial backing, allegedly $200M, from major individual investors like James Wolfensohn and Edgar Bronfman Jr., as well as major institutional investors like Vantage Point and Morgan Stanley.
The electric car experiment has been attempted many times in the past, going on the way back to 1907, and was even outselling internal combustion cars in the 1920s. Since then, the economics of oil simply outpaced that of electricity, and the electric vehicles became limited pretty much to golf carts. Electricity simply could not stand up to the needs of consumers, who were driving longer distances and for longer periods of time. In addition, the cost-benefit ratio was simply in favor of gas.
Then, in the early 1990’s, the electric car made a short-lived punctuated comeback, as battery technology and California auto regulated gave General Motors an opportunity to release the EV1. Due to a number of factors, including shady government and car-industry intervention (see Who Killed the Electric Car?), the project was scrapped. In recent years hybrid vehicles have seen increased popularity (like the Prius), as they represent a happy, cost-effective, middle ground between polluting gas guzzlers and uneconomical pure electric vehicles.
Then, most recently, the third iteration of the electric car experiment has taken form. Companies like Tesla Motors, usually the passion projects of Dot-Com millionaires, have been pushing the envelope of technology, making electric cars more cost-efficient and ascetically attractive. While the effort has been technologically impressive, the end results have been limited to the very eccentric, the very wealthy, or both.
In steps Agassi, who has decided to take the entire business model of electric cars and turn it on its head. The ingenuity of Project Better Place is not in improving the technology of Lithion-Ion, but rather in addressing the limitation of the market for electric cars as a whole. The issue is not in improving the miles per gallon, or miles per recharge, but rather in the fact that there is simply no infrastructure in place to support electric cars. According to their website:
“Project Better Place’s business model for electric cars will look like the model used for mobile phones. Mobile phone operators arrange cell towers to create coverage areas. Similarly, electric cars will be able to travel throughout a network of charging spots and battery exchange stations, with easy access to electricity.”
In other words, the issue with electric cars isn’t inferior technology, but rather that the whole grid does not support electric cars. There are countless gas stations in every country on the planet, but no “electric stations”. Project Better Place, plans to attack the problem by simply a large number of charging stations where electric car drivers can quickly go in and swap out their dying battery for a freshly charged battery in a number of minutes and get right back on the highway.
So why choose Israel? To begin with, Israel has a grid that can quickly be adapted for an influx of charging stations. Secondly is that the habits of Israeli drivers are adequately matched to the limitations of electric cars. Even with all the technology at hand, the reality is that electric cars are limited by the miles they can travel without needing a recharge. Luckily, 90% of Israelis drive less than 70 kilometers a day, and the major cities are all less than 150 kilometers away from each other; two factors in favor of not needed gasoline. Next, gas in Israel is painfully expensive when compared to average salaries, creating a definite financial incentive for drivers to switch to electric cars. Finally, there is the geopolitical consideration. The Israeli government has long been an advocate of reducing oil dependency as a way to reduce the cash flow to anti-Israeli actors in the region. After meeting Agassi, Israeli President Peres pledged unequivocal support for the idea, stating that “Oil is becoming the greatest problem of our time. Not only does it pollute, but it also supports terror and violence from Venezuela to Iran.”
While Project Better Place sounds fantastic on paper, there are two important things to remember. First, Israel, much like every other country, will never be independent of oil. Oil, or rather petroleum, is not just limited to vehicular use. Petroleum is a key component of many other end uses, from plastic to fertilizer and Vaseline, but also as the primary energy source for other more complex forms of energy. In addition, F-16s and Merkava Tanks, which run on jet fuel and diesel, will never be electric. Therefore, while the prospect of 2 million Israeli cars converting to electricity will definitely alleviate much of the oil dependency of Israel, one has to be realistic about the degree.
Another goal that needs to be addressed more rationally is the environmental implications of Project Better Place. Nearly 50% of Israel’s electricity comes from coal, which is one of the dirtiest (and cheapest) forms of energy. Massive punctuated production of electricity will result in massive amounts of environmental damage as well. Unless Israel makes some strides in cleaner forms of energy, like solar or nuclear, there are going to be much dirtier skies over Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Therefore, the drivers of the same 2 million Israeli cars will be financially better off in the long run, there might be dire long term effects unless some other form of energy is pursued.
Considering these two issues, there is still much to be touted about Project Better Place. It is the first plan to promote the use of electric cars on a wide scale. Agassi, plans to have 100,000 such vehicles on the road by 2011, which is a massive increase over the few hundreds or thousands that were planned for predecessors like GM’s EV1. In addition, Agassi is challenging the entire system. If the project is successful in Israel, there is no reason why it can’t be successful in other countries with similar driving characteristics, like the Netherlands, Belgium, or Denmark. Furthermore, the business plan could easily be accommodated to major metropolitan areas as well, where people drive short distances for short amounts of time. There is no reason why Los Angeles, which has nearly 2 vehicles per household, cannot become a center of electric car use, where families can use their electric car in the city, and their gas guzzler for longer treks where the cost-benefit ratio of electricity is not as attractive.
Ultimately we will have to see if the Israeli government decides to prioritize the plan, as Peres promised, as the project will require massive infrastructural overhaul and support. Hopefully unique solutions will emerge for dealing with the potential environmental costs of the plan as well. While it is doubtful that Agassi will reach his goal of 100,000 electric cars on the road by 2011, hopefully he can reach that number by 2015 or even 2021. Until then the best Israel can do to decrease oil dependency is to encourage bike riding, improve public transport options, and try to educate the populace that you don’t need to consume so much in order to have a normal life.
(tasty)
(We present to you the final part of the series by Dr. Dov Frishberg, entitled Is Israel a Burden. Please check out Part 2 and Part 1 as well)
Is Israel a Burden, Part 3
by Dr. Dov Frishberg
Despots rule through bogeymen. One of the oldest of these in the Arab world is the threat of “the next Crusade.” Were the U.S itself to try and attempt anything political that Israel achieved for it militarily, the specter of that “next Crusade” would immediately unite the masses around the brave Arab leader that chose to resist. The U.S. would have been seen, among others, as a Christian force and a likely proselytizing threat. Israel on the other hand was a land of Jews. They are forbidden to proselytize, and they certainly are not interested in forceful conversion. Whatever their ‘faults’ in declaring Israel a land for all Jews, it was not lost on the Arab world that there are less than 20 million Jews in the world, many of whom were happily and immovably ensconced in the U.S. and other modern, wealthy nations. Calling all of them to immigrate to Palestine may be cause for great concern but all else being equal, it is still better than calling on 1 billion Christians to either immigrate to, or support with all their heart and purse, a reoccupation of the Holy Land. Thus Israel, by its mere identity as a Jewish state has rid the Arab ruler of a cherished, age old tool for incitement of the masses and with that Israel existence has made the Middle East that much more stable.
Israel’s influence on Arab society toward stability and plurality does not end with simple fact that it is a ‘Jewish’ state. By now many thousands of non-Palestinian Arabs have visited Israel. They have seen a society that is the envy of Arab modernists. Israel is not only Jewish, they found. It is also predominantly secular, in ways hinting even of the hedonistic. In other words, it is not Jewishness that made Israel successful but the manner in which the Jews in Israel govern themselves and conduct their affairs. Arabs, they are quick to conclude, could do the same. No single factor except possibly for television has more emboldened the Arab modernist than Israel’s existence and success, and these modernists are the true allies of America and its cohorts in western civilization.
Today, in the coffee shops of Cairo and the executive departure lounges of Dubai’s airport one can hear an Arab businessman or academic freely regaling his wonderful experiences on his last visit to Israel. Trade between Israel and some of its neighbors is preceding apace, and in its current state has recently sprouted joint ventures aimed at exporting to third countries.
Not long ago but, and as will become apparent, before the Second (recent) War on Hizbullah I was talking to a young IDF lieutenant and we quickly got to the point where I asked her what she does. She told me her full-time assignment was “to control the brides and grooms.” When I showed surprise she quickly concluded that I did not know that in recent years a growing wave of betrothals had emerged in which young Lebanese Muslim women would be engaged to young Israeli Arabs at favorable conditions (e.g., a limited dowry) and the full support of their families and clan. Obviously entered into via the traditional intra- and inter-clan process of matching couples by elders in their families, the young couple found themselves with an overwhelming urge to see from across the border their future spouses. The premarital peak at one’s future spouse has become an accepted, almost whimsical part of the modern Muslim marital sequence around the Israeli-Lebanon border, but of necessity one that is coordinated in secrecy by young men from the couple’s villages assisting the future bride and groom in their plight. Thus, the need to coordinate an activity that is neither military nor commercial (the Lebanese border with Israel had long been an active smuggling venue) though highly informal and one that could – without a delicate hand and a knowledge of the lay of the land – get out of hand quickly. As I learned, the purpose of every couple was to settle in Israel and prosper. Virtually no Israeli Arab women were known to seek a mate from across the border and settlement in Lebanon. The assignment of the lieutenant was to get to know the process and establish a working relationship with the “fixers” who control each affair. Then the events can be coordinated so as to eliminate any unpleasant incident or military mishap.
This endearing episode of human will and homespun statecraft should, on second thought, come as no great surprise even to the casual observer. One need only note the discussions in the debates of future Israeli-Palestinian peace settlements regarding the citizenship status of Israeli Palestinians. There are none. Anyone of consequence knows that Israel’s Arabs wish to remain Israel’s citizens, even with (but preferably without) the persisting disadvantages they endure. As an indication of Palestine realizations and Arab acquiesces, the silence is deafening. Plainly, may Arab prefer Israel. At least one demographer has claimed that despite Israel’s parliamentary actions to arrest such developments, more than 100,000 Palestinians have sought and acquired Israeli citizenship since the Six Days War, and that the recent pace has picked up considerably since president George W. Bush declared the latest American initiative to bring peace into the Palestinian-Israeli divide.
One of the staple points in any discussion of Israel as burden to the U.S. is the annual financial support of three billion dollars or so that Israel receives under the Camp David accord. More often then not the rejoinder is simply a reminder that much of these funds (and in the past, the majority of these fund) must be spent on U.S. military hardware. What is seldom mentioned is that as Israel became fully equipped and, later, reduced the sizes of its military forces, much of the funds were spent on coordinated research and development efforts. Largely driven by Israel’s needs, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as other, less mentioned clashes) found such equipment invaluable. Of necessity the scope and details of these technological advances and tested designs are cloaked in secrecy, but in broad details some of them have come to light in recent years. Mine-resistant armored personnel carriers, unmanned flying drones, electronic jamming and airborne surveillance, surface radar and detection equipment, rapid-deployment water desalination faculties, and command and control methods are just a few of the areas in which Israel’s alleged shared technological contributions are a daily advantage to the U.S. military. As a result of this technological cooperation, Israeli military products and systems have become so intertwined with U.S. technologies that sorting out the impact of selling Israeli military products to third countries has become a minor administrative and political nightmare, as was forcefully demonstrated when Israel tried to sell China electronically retrofitted C-130 Hercules aircraft.
The Arab world’s acceptance of “Israel the American ally” as a legitimate contributor to the Middle East’s modernistic aspirations is palpable. The average American citizen, fed with gory scenes on the evening news, does not have the information to recognize and appreciate Israeli contribution to pro-American sentiments that are percolating throughout the Arab educated and commercial classes. When a demonstrating Arab or Iranian, in the midst of rallying frenzy, states before the news cameras they he loves the American people but not the policies of its government, the U.S. viewer assumes that there is some nefarious logical trick behind the words. There is not. If anything, they are seeing a citizen who has found a way to publicly praise Israel without getting arrested. The ways of the West are increasing admired in the Middle East and Israel’s unique adaptation of modern mores and methods is an inspiration to many Arabs. In this and other ways, Israel is more than an advantage to the U.S in the Middle East. It has become indispensable.
I stumbled across a little article in Haaretz recently about how European Jews are pushing to have a larger say in Israeli politics. Moshe Kantor, head of the European Jewish Congress, recently stated that “Israel’s leadership should recognize that all the Jews in the world have the right to vote in Israel elections”. He continued to summarize his reasoning by stating: “If anyone with at least one Jewish grandfather or grandmother has the right to make Aliyah within the framework of the Law of Return, then we need to grant them equal rights”
Now, while Kantor does make an interesting point that maybe Israel might be wise to listen to views from the Diaspora, but the correlation between Aliyah and Voting is spurious at best. First, voting is a privilege given to citizens of any democratic state. As a trade-off, citizens pay taxes. It’s really that simple. If European Jews started to pay Israeli taxes then they would qualify for voting privileges, until that day comes, there isn’t even a debate. Just because you are Jewish does not give you an automatic default to vote in Israel. Just because my grandfather is German does not automatically give me right to decide if they should improve the Berlin S-bahn.
What is up for discussion, and what Kantor is hinting at behind his words, is that European Diaspora might be sick of constantly supporting Israel, fighting European Anti-Semitism, and donating their money. It could be that Jews in France or England feel like they put themselves on the line for Israel, emotionally and financially, and Israel simply does not show any appreciation. On top of that, the role of European Diaspora in shaping Israeli policy is practically nil, especially when compared to Diaspora Jews in the States.
So even though European Jews do not deserve the right to vote, maybe there is a way to give them a bigger say, or at least deeper involvement, in what goes on in Israeli policy. Maybe there is some way to create an institutional body, with some sort of consulting role, as part of the Knesset. Maybe European Jews can have more say as to where their donations go to.
Now, many arguments can be made both for and against more Diaspora intervention in Israel in general, and maybe there are certain more existential issues that do require the input of all Jewry. For example, the current comments by Kantor are related to the fear that Jerusalem might some day have to be divided. But for the most part, I don’t see any reason to give European Jewry a vote in Israeli politics. On the other hand, they may have some unique ideas that Israel could adopt, if only someone would listen to them.
(Who would Kantor vote for in the California Primary?)