But are things really so bad? Perhaps things are better than we think – and maybe, let's say it cautiously, they are even better than having a functioning government.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

In recent years, up until the political crisis created by Avigdor Lieberman a year ago, we had a functioning government. There was a finance minister, a defense minister, a social equality minister – everything was working well. And what was actually happening? Money was being wasted, lots of money. The "Kahlon net" doled out money like there was no tomorrow – to young couples, parents, students, haredim, farmers, the disabled. The government ministries were having a ball. The education budget spiked, as did the budgets of every other ministry. The "fat man" of the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the public sector, grew even fatter. Government employees were given raises, making their salaries far higher than the national average. But, as Margaret Thatcher said: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

The state deficit, which has ballooned to 3.7% of the gross domestic product, is a ticking economic time bomb. The large deficit means the state took out way too much loan to fund its expenses, loans we will have to pay off with high interest over the coming years. A smart functioning government could have reduced the deficit by slashing the national budget and lowering the salaries of government workers: Putting the "fat man" on a diet, so to speak, so that the "skinny guy," the private sector, can prosper more. Judging from the history of recent governments, and from the rhetoric in the populistic media, it's highly doubtful austere measures of this sort would have been implemented.

Anyone who is supported by the state struggles to envision success without it. Whether they are architects or artists, teachers or entrepreneurs seeking subsidies, all are used to receiving money through the secure government pipeline. The more the government siphons off taxes and passes out money, the more it increases the public's dependency and atrophies civilian entrepreneurship. And thus, any type of proactive move to cut the budget would likely have been met with broad opposition, and we can safely assume would never have been executed. Instead, they would have probably just raised taxes or redefined the deficit target, at the expense of future generations.

Therefore, it appears there's a silver lining to the government's present paralysis. The deficit isn't decreasing sharply but isn't growing. To be sure, some positive measures are frozen, but so are negative ones. Budgetary increases at the expense of the public are currently docked. There's no denying the anguish of those who have signed government contracts, but budget cuts would have resulted in similar anguish anyway. There's no getting around it: Ultimately, these same people will take their talents to the private and civilian sector, to the benefit of us all. This political paralysis is putting the government on a forced diet, without anyone to blame or to pressure, and the result could eventually be a blessing: a shift from relying on the government to relying on civil society and the free market which – unlike government mechanisms – form the basis for a healthy, vigorous society.

The post The silver lining to a third election appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

What's so bad about buying blue and white? Generally speaking, nothing is wrong with it. The problem begins when the public is forced to pay more for locally produced goods, thus harming Israelis far more than helping them. There's no logic behind it.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Take for example the Mandatory Tenders Law, which among other things prioritizes the purchase of Israeli-made goods, even if their price quotes are 15% higher than their competitors. Supposedly, this is a matter of patriotism and favoring Israelis over foreigners. In actuality, however, we need only ask ourselves: Who is footing the bill for this 15% difference? And the answer, of course, is Israelis – you and me.

Thus, under the pretext of helping Israelis, it is Israelis who are harmed. We don't always notice it, because the payer is often the "state," as if this entity is completely detached and independent of taxpayer money, and because the losses are dispersed over a great many people, each one of whom incurs only a minute loss.

On the other hand, the main beneficiaries are a clearly discernible and usually very exclusive group of people who make a large profit off the "blue and white" policy. The damage to regular Israelis, though, is undeniable.

Just last week we saw one example of this injustice when the Jerusalem District Court re-delayed public transportation tenders intended to ease the situation for commuters, add buses and improve service. The Transportation Ministry's tenders committee had decided that the Mandatory Tenders Law did not apply in this case and only stipulated a modicum of preference for Israeli companies. The court ruled in favor of "Haargaz," an Israeli company which demanded that the tender favor it in accordance with the Mandatory Tenders Law. The committee was forced to amend the tender and include such a preference, and add a "reciprocal procurement" clause against foreign companies that would necessarily make their bids more expensive (and again, award Haargaz a hefty payday).

This, incidentally, was not the first time the public paid the price for favoring Israeli factories over Israeli importers. Two years ago, too, Haargaz and another Israeli bus-making company, "Merkavim," won an Egged bus tender in which their buses were chosen – even though the chassis they use for their buses are imported from abroad and are considerably more expensive, and just as good as buses that could have been imported from China.

You'll say: But we want to help local factories. Which is all well and good; but are importer jobs not local? Do they not employ workers who want to make a living? What's the difference between a company that employs Israelis to import buses and a company that imports bus chassis and builds the rest here? And if you argue that one company employs more people than the other – then the numerical advantage of an entire public, which has to pay to for this difference, is certainly overwhelming.

Imagine a family in which the parents require all their children to buy expensive furniture from one sibling, even though he himself purchases the raw materials from abroad. This would certainly be viewed as discrimination, not fairness. Support from family is important, but the other siblings are equal members of the family, so why should they suffer for the sake of their brother's business? And if his company can't survive without his family's help, perhaps it's a sign that he needs to choose a new, more profitable line of business?

The state's deference to "blue and white" products at a huge mark-up is equally discriminatory and outrageous, even if comes nicely wrapped in noble rhetoric. In essence, the state is favoring a small group of Israelis over another group – the importers – and an entire public that must foot the bill.

The post When the few are favored over the many appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A probe by data analyst Nehemia Gershuni-Aylho* indicates that only four of the 11 were killed by cops. The rest committed suicide, and their deaths are claimed to have been the result of police violence. But unfortunately, suicide is all too common among Ethiopian Israelis – from 1981-2005, 234 Ethiopian Israelis have committed suicide. While this is an undeniably tragic statistic – which points to a serious problem that must be addressed – it also indicates that it is not certain that the suicides included in the list of "the 11" were actually caused by how the victims were treated by the police.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

So we are left with four cases of police shootings, one in 1996, one in 1997, and two more from 2018. In each case, we could debate whether or not the police officer in question could have avoided firing the shots, but in all the cases the claim that the cops shot the victims because of their ethnicity is a hasty conclusion. In three of the instances, the police officers were not found guilty of unjustified shootings.

So, is it true that "only black people get shot?" Here, too, the answer is no. Gershuni-Aylho looked into 31 cases of police shooting civilians over the past 16 years and found that most of the victims were not of Ethiopian descent. In most of the cases of fatal shootings of civilians, no grounds were found to indict the police officers. In cases in which indictments were filed, the police officers were exonerated. In the rare instances where it was found that the police officers had no cause to fire their weapons, the officers in question were found guilty of death by negligence or manslaughter.

Therefore, the data do not indicate any tendency by the police to "kill Ethiopians." Very rarely, police fire at and kill civilians. That is a tragedy that should be prevented but is not always possible. If police officers hesitate too long when firing their weapons, their lives or the lives of those around them could be in danger. And as we've seen, in most cases, the shootings were found to be justified. The claim that the Police Internal Investigations Department whitewashes cases like these is bewildering. The Internal Investigations Dept. is not a unit of the Israel Police – it is part of the Justice Ministry and therefore has no interest in covering up police violence.

If there are no police killings, are Ethiopian Israelis the target of "overpolicing"? The accepted answer is yes, but the reason for that is not necessarily racism, but rather the unfortunate fact that there is a higher crime rate in the Ethiopian community, mostly among its younger members. That is not something invented by the police or the legal system. That's the reality, and it's not necessarily the result of institutionalized racism either. When a traditional community cut off from a modern way of life is suddenly dropped into the hustle and bustle of modern-day Israel, an intergenerational gap develops, and with it additional social issues. Often, government plans to help the community create institutionalized racism. It's a fact that most of the Ethiopians who arrived not as part of the large organized aliyah missions integrated into Israeli society with relative success, and avoided many of the troubles that afflict their brethren.

A difficult social situation does not have to be the result of discrimination or intentional racism. It is often the result of historical circumstances, and occasionally the result of good intentions. It might be less convenient to admit because there are no specific people to blame, but that appears to be the truth.

*Nehemia Gershuni-Aylho is the writer's brother.

The post 'Cops only shoot black people'? Not exactly appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.