David Remnick

On December 24 2010, Yediot’s Friday Political Supplement ran an interview with New Yorker editor David Remnick by Adi Gold. Most of the interview was dedicated to his new biography of Barack Obama. Gold did ask a political question on Israel and Reminck’s response was very blunt. Note that this is a reverse translation (Hebrew original of section here.)

Do you see a certain change in the US Jewish community?

“A new generation of Jews is growing up in the US. Their relationship with Israel is becoming less patient and more problematic. They see what has happened with the Rabbinical Letter [proscribing rental and sale of property to Arabs -- DR], for example. How long can you expect that they’ll love unconditionally the place called Israel [sic]? You’ve got a problem. You have the status of an occupier since 1967. It’s been happening for so long that even people like me, who understand  that not only one side is responsible for the conflict and that the Palestinians missed an historic opportunity for peace in 2000, can’t take it anymore.

“The US administration is trying out of good will to get a peace process moving and in return Israel lays out conditions like the release Jonathan Pollard. Sorry, it can’t go on this way. The  Jewish community is not just a nice breakfast at the Regency. You think it’s bad that a US President is trying to make an effort to promote peace? That’s what’s hurting your feelings? Give me a break, you’ve got bigger problems. A shopping list in exchange for a two month moratorium on settlement construction? Jesus [sic].”

Bibi and "the Boss"

Last night, Channel Ten TV News’s Raviv Drucker exposed a letter written to Benyamin Netanyahu in early 2009. The author, one Yisrael Yagel, a former executive in Netanyahu’s 2008 election campaign, penned an indictment of the Prime Minister’s management style, with particular emphasis on the role and influence of Ms. Netanyahu (“the Boss”).

This morning, Maariv also ran the letter, but as the first of a three-part series, with follow-ups from mid-2009 and early 2010. Ben Caspit, Maariv’s senior political columnist who has been a brutal critic of the Prime Minister’s Bureau, explains:

I have been in possession of these letters for more than a year. It was not Yagel who gave them to me. But it was Yagel who urged me not to publish them. After I got to know him, I made a very unreporterly-like decision and acceded to his request. I tried repeatedly to describe in this newspaper the dangers of the prime minister’s behavior. The weakness of his working environment. And most importantly: the degree to which the prime minister’s wife was involved in making most of the decisions, small and big, the power she wields, the terrible fear he has of her, the fact that some of the prime minister’s employees, who are actually our employees, are really her employees and are subordinate only to her will.

Below are translations of the letters as published in Maariv, the response provided by the Prime Minister’s Bureau and Caspit’s (separate) commentary. There’s a lot of “insider baseball”, but a lay reader will still get a sense of the Byzantine politics surrounding Israel’s helm. Here, for example, is a passage from the first letter:

“The matter reached an extreme level, which let a red light, a few days ago, in the debates on how the campaign should be run during the war in the south of the country [Cast Lead]. In a phone conversation, it appears (I only heard him) that Natan Eshel [a confidante of Ms. Netanyahu who was later appointed Netanyahu's first Bureau Chief] unsuccessfully tried to persuade you to ramp-up the campaign. At the end of the call Natan told Yisrael Bachar (I was also in the room) that  ’he (meaning you) doesn’t yet know that the campaign will change, because I’ve already settled the matter with the Boss (meaning Mrs. Netanyahu.’ So the process is run by an outsider (Natan) who operates you (through Mrs. Netanyahu) like a puppet??? This is the point I decided not to remain silent!!! Even if what Mr. Natan Eshel said was tinged with bluster, it reflects an extremely problematic situation.”

—-

The letters

A view from within

Ben Caspit, Maariv, November 30 2010

Titled “Because a country needs to be run,” Yisrael Yagel wrote a series of letters to the prime minister, in which he cited his impressions of the performance of Netanyahu’s inner circle, which he witnessed in the course of the 2009 election campaign, of which he was an integral part.

Yisrael Yagel is a former high-tech businessman, who worked as a volunteer for the Netanyahu campaign because he identifies with the right wing ideology, and since his good friend, Eli Ayalon, was the campaign manager. Yagel wrote his first letter to Netanyahu after a month on the campaign. After he failed to receive an answer, he wrote another two letters. “All of the people surrounding you point to your wife as the final approval-giver,” wrote Yagel, and added that Mrs. Netanyahu was referred to by the members of the campaign team as “the boss.” Following are the principal points that Yagel made in his letters. It is important to note that not all of the excerpts are transcribed here in full, word for word.

Letter from June 15, 2009

“Because a country needs to be run”

“Mr. Prime Minister, my first letter to you has not received any response. After the elections I came see that no change had been made to your close working environment… since this is an issue of mortal importance, I was forced to take action… I turned to two of your confidants, Minister Yaakov Neeman and your economic adviser Uri Yogev. I sent detailed letters to both of them and appended my letter to you. I met for a long conversation with both Neeman and Yogev about the issue that troubled me and continues to trouble me up to this very day. Regrettably, I was not encouraged by my meetings with them. I do not normally quote third parties, but it  became evident to me that they were keenly and closely familiar with your weaknesses and the restrictions you are subject to from your family. Both of them underscored to me that the situation was more difficult and grave than I had described. In the first letter that I sent to you, I thought that the issue was critical to the proper functioning of the prime minister, that your inability to form a committed team was mortally important… pandemonium reigns about you.”

Yagel cited a list of flaws that he had witnessed up until that point: “The time it took you to man the position of the Prime Minister’s Office director general. What, didn’t you know that you were going to need a director general? Didn’t you have time to prepare?”

He also cited “Modi Zandberg’s hasty entry and exit from the post of cabinet secretary,” the preparations for Netanyahu’s first visit to the United States, the alarmed summons of Dov Weissglas, the drafting of the state budget and the cancellation of Naftali Bennett’s appointment as Moshe Yaalon’s staff director by the prime minister’s wife, executed by Natan Eshel.

Yagel wrote: “your job, Mr. Prime Minister, is the most critical, and the period at hand is critical as well. You need a quiet, professional, independent environment, a qualified office manager, and there are quite a few people in the State of Israel who meet those criteria and would be prepared to accede to your call… I cannot remain silent further, you must make a change in your surrounding… before you are difficult and complex questions [that pertain to] the continued existence of the Jewish people… and yet you are unable to make a far simpler decision… up until now you have not shown leadership or courage… this is of mortal importance…”

Letter from January 20, 2010

Regarding: Who needs to run the country — letter of continuation

[Yagel begins with the first passage of a humbling prayer recited by the prayer leader of Yom Kippur services as a prelude to prayer on behalf of others. Hebrew text here.]

“My name is Yisrael Yagel, I worked as a volunteer in the administration of your campaign in the last elections. After three weeks of intensive work on the team I wrote to you in the blood of my heart a letter about your behavior… I received no answer. Regrettably, no change has occurred in your behavior and the behavior of your surroundings. Out of a sense ofcommitment I continued to work hard and devotedly until the election campaign was over. Afterwards, it became evident that even once you were given the helm of the country you did not change your behavior, your surroundings did not change and the disturbances continued…”

Yagel describes his approaches to Yaakov Neeman and Uri Yogev, says that he presented to them the earlier letters and the materials he had collected since he wrote them, and repeats the assertion that the two told him that they were well aware of the issue, that they were worried at least as much as he was, and that the reality was even worse than the way it was described by Yagel.

Yagel writes that a few more months passed and “after the intervention of Natan Eshel, your Bureau Chief acting on behalf of your spouse, in preventing the appointmnet of Naftali Bennet as the Chief of Staff to Minister Bugi Yaalon, I couldn’t remain silent any longer and approached you on June 15 2009 with another, second, letter. This letter also did not recieve a response and I’m not completely certain you actually saw it, but I kept my promise from the first letter not to breach the trust I received from Eli Ayalon and, indirectly, from you. (I’m not naive, in political life a promise is intended to solve a local problem, with no real intent to keep it. I [however] behave differently.) But this week things have reached a new low, and I cannot remain silent any longer.

“I’m not talking about the Nanny Affair, that’s really a subsidiary issue. (I was astonished, for example, by the way Roni Rimon described Mrs. Netanyahu in a radio interview, but I remember well how he spoke about her during the [election] campaign and [am aware] of how low your sycophants can sink.) It was writing by commentators criticizing the silence of journalists regarding the way your Bureau is run and the involvement of your wife that awoke me from my slumber.”

“I have held a number of conversations in the past number of days with people in your immediate surroundings from the past and present, and the picture painted is not good, to understate matters… it is important to note that the truth, and only the truth, is what has motivated me. I wish to inform you that I am releasing myself from my commitment to keep this information to myself. I think that you ought to be the first to know that.”

“As noted, I have no desire to replace a prime minister who was democratically elected. Today too I think that you are the person best suited for the job, given our familiarity with the others. But I think that there is urgent need to do what is necessary so that your work environment should be the best and the best-suited and without noise, and I am prepared to do everything necessary so that happens… to continue to remain silent is not an option for me…I implore you please do what is necessary (I am confident that you know what is necessary) What is necessary here is great leadership as well as personal and public courage. When we elected you, we were convinced that you had those qualities. Were we wrong?”

Letter from January 1, 2009

The first letter that Yagel wrote to Netanyahu was published last night by Raviv Drucker on Channel Ten TV News:

“You aren’t a manager! Any financial organization that operated the away the meetings I attended were run or the way you try to run your staff and in practice create chaos, would go bankrupt within a short amount of time. Not only are you no manager. Your conduct doesn’t let the managers you appointed do their job.”

Further down, Yagel sharply criticizes the people surrounding Netanyahu: “There is now team spirit in the group that surrounds you. There is no shared goal motivating the people. Everyone manages his own (personal?) affairs. The sword of one is in the back of the other (literally.) The amount of time and energy devoted to [internecine] struggles is completely out of proportion. I’m anxious at the thought that in two months time that’s how the affairs of state will be run.”

Yagel also described his first meeting with Netanyahu: “Our first meeting took place when you visited the election campaign headquarters while it was under construction. You paced the corridors with an earpiece and with Shalom Shlomo (the political adviser) running after you, and talke to various people on your cell phone regarding primaries-related issues that a leader is not supposed to deal with.”

Perhaps the most incisive criticism was directed at Sara Netanyahu, the prime minister’s wife, and the manner in which she handles his affairs for him. “I would not be telling you anything you don’t know  if I were to tell you that the decisions that were made by the professionals you chose and which you approved were changed diametrically after your aide, Natan Eshel, called someone (when all the people around you point to your wife as the final approval-giver), something that casts you in a ridiculous light before the professionals you chose. The ridicule grew when we approached Bill, the American consultant, on the issue, and following a talk with him, you changed your decision again, after less than two hours.”

The last and most significant section of the letter: “The matter reached an extreme level, which let a red light, a few days ago, in the debates on how the campaign should be run during the war in the south of the country [Cast Lead]. In a phone conversation, it appears (I only heard him) that Natan Eshel unsuccessfully tried to persuade you to ramp-up the campaign. At the end of the call Natan told Yisrael Bachar (I was also in the room) that  ’he (meaning you) doesn’t yet know that the campaign will change, because I’ve already settled the matter with the Boss (meaning Mrs. Netanyahu.’ So the process is run by an outsider (Natan) who operates you (through Mrs. Netanyahu) like a puppet??? This is the point I decided not to remain silent!!! Even if what Mr. Natan Eshel said was tinged with bluster, it reflects an extremely problematic situation.”

—-

Response from the Prime Minister’s Bureau

Prime Minister’s Bureau reacts

Maariv, November 30 2010

The prime minister’s media advisors respond: “The claims in the letter are lies. We are speaking about a person who served in a junior position, who did not participate and was not a member of any decision making forum. He made up these things after he failed to attain an official role. The fact is that as opposition leader, Binyamin Netanyahu stood firm in his decision not to criticize the government during Operation Cast Lead. That continued after the operation as well. That was his decision, that’s what happened and no one can change that. The prime minister’s wife did not and does not take part in these issues, and Yagel’s claims are little more that libelous rumors.”

Yogev responded: “These things never happened. I never met the man and I certainly never told him the things he’s attributed to me.”

Minister Yaakov Neeman did not respond by press time.

—-

Commentary

Working for her

Ben Caspit, Maariv, November 30 2010

The three letters from Yisrael Yagel that are here before us are an important document. Their power stems, first and foremost, from their author. Yagel is a man devoid of any malice. He wears a knitted kippa, the salt of the earth, the father of four combat soldiers, a true right wing ideologue, who is no personal political agenda. As a personal friend of Eli Ayalon, the man who directed Netanyahu’s election campaign in 2009, he came to help. He was appointed the deputy campaign director and worked full time on the job on a volunteer basis. He didn’t even ask to be reimbursed for his travel expenses.

He is financially independent, made a nice sum of money selling a high-tech company, and is busy with his own affairs. He seeks nothing for himself. He admired Netanyahu, he is a member of the right wing, as noted, and, most importantly, he wrote these letters in real time. The first was written while the election campaign was still under way, on January 1, 2009, three weeks after coming on board the campaign. He was so deeply stunned by what he saw, that he felt duty-bound to write to Netanyahu. Of course, he received no answer. He wrote the second letter on June 15, 2010, after the entire public had already come to witness the catastrophe. He wrote the third on January 20, 2010.

Incidentally, what was Netanyahu’s reaction after the first letter? He demanded that Eli Ayalon fire Yagel. Ayalon said: if Yagel goes, I go.  So Netanyahu went. He stopped coming to the campaign headquarters. That is how he solved the problem. Incidentally, Ayalon also quit at least once during the campaign. He submitted a letter. In the end he stayed out of a sense of responsibility. But he too—a person who hasn’t spoken and probably never will—saw terrible things there.

I have been in possession of these letters for more than a year. It was not Yagel who gave them to me. But it was Yagel who urged me not to publish them. After I got to know him, I made a very unreporterly-like decision and acceded to his request. I tried repeatedly to describe in this newspaper the dangers of the prime minister’s behavior. The weakness of his working environment. And most importantly: the degree to which the prime minister’s wife was involved in making most of the decisions, small and big, the power she wields, the terrible fear he has of her, the fact that some of the prime minister’s employees, who are actually our employees, are really her employees and are subordinate only to her will.

Some people call this “gossip.” But there is nothing gossipy about this information. Other people believe that it is motivated by “Bibi hatred.” They are entitled to think that. There is neither love here nor hate; mainly there is profound concern about the quality of this country’s leadership. It is enough to read  description of the circumstances under which Mrs. Netanyahu made critical decisions in the course of the election campaign, to her husband’s displeasure, to realize just how deep and severe the problem is.

Natan Eshel, a shopkeeper who serves as the chief of staff in the Prime Minister’s Bureau, and discusses with Netanyahu a critical decision that needs to be made: whether to re-intensify the campaign before Operation Cast Lead is over, or to continue to remain supportive of the Olmert government. Netanyahu objected to raising the pitch of the campaign. Eshel hung up and said to the people in the room, one of whom was Yagel, that despite what Bibi said, “the real boss” has already decided. The real boss, incidentally, is a she-boss.

And there is something else that is not in the letter: the angry uproar she raised when the negative campaign slamming Tzippi Livni was aired. “It’s too much for her,” was the slogan, remember? Well, the thing that grabbed Mrs. Netanyahu’s attention at that point was the photograph of Livni on the billboards at the time. That photograph cast Livni as “too pretty,” as per Mrs. Netanyahu.

They all saw that. They, the chickens, have kept that to themselves. They believe that this terror attack, which occurs every day in the most sensitive place in the State of Israel, can remain a secret. The important thing is that everything stay quiet. That’s what Bibi likes, quiet. For the dirty laundry to be kept well out of sight.

But Yisrael Yagel, an honest man who really cares about Israel, couldn’t stay silent any more. No, it was not he who leaked the letters to the media. Raviv Drucker published the first one yesterday. An admirable report. Anyone who loves this country should read the letters and learn where things stand. The reality described therein is the reality in which our most sensitive affairs are managed. The contents of those letters reflect perhaps just one percent of what actually happens there. And I am quoting the people who work on the inside. This isn’t gossip. This isn’t hatred. This isn’t politics. This is about life and death. Our life and death.

The second season of the Israeli version of the reality show Beauty and the Geek is an even bigger hit than the first. Not least because the producers constantly prove that, in Israel 2010, reality outdoes satire.

In the second episode, broadcast Tuesday evening, the girls are quizzed in the Channel Ten TV News studio on the Israeli-Arab conflict by high-brow interviewer Yaron London and mythical Palestinian affairs reporter Yoram Binur. Most of the section is heart breaking. At one point, however, viewers are treated to a dose of honest wisdom that would never be broadcast on a “serious” venue [watch the entire episode here; the passage translated below starts at 48:14].

Yaron London: We’ve talked enough about wars. Let’s talk about peace. What’s the difference between the Oslo Accords and the Road Map, Lital?

Lital: The Oslo Accords were an agreement that was meant to give them the feeling that at end of the day they will have a state on their own lands. But it didn’t really happen.

London: Meaning that we were cunning…is that what you’re saying?

Lital: We were…a kind of hoodwinking.

Lital won the quiz.

A captivating journey to the antiquities of the ancient city of Tadmor.

Syria, from $329, including flights, three-star hotel and a vehicle for four days.

The ad is pricey (at least $15,000) and is obviously a teaser — there is no phone number, URL or any identification of the advertiser. The question is, a teaser for what? A travel agency, perhaps, or, more likely, a full-blown campaign calling for resumption of peace-talks with Syria.

H/T Dana Zimmerman

For adults only

Zvika Brott, Yediot, May 26 2010 [Hebrew original here and at bottom of post]

There is no adolescent who doesn’t wonder about the question when his “first time” will be.  A new initiative in the Knesset seeks to put an end to this deliberation, and simply decide for Israeli teenagers: You cannot have sexual relations before age 16.

The “abstinence bill” initiated by Deputy Knesset Speaker MK Carmel Shama (Likud) aims to toughen the currently existing law in Israel, which forbids having sexual relations before age 14.  It states that sexual relations under age 16 will be forbidden, even among partners of the same age.  “The lower the age that people begin to have sexual relations, the greater the physiological and psychological risks it entails,” MK Shama writes in the bill.  “The age currently determined by law is too low, we must not forget that we are talking about children.”

It should be noted that the model proposed by Shama is in force in many countries around the world such as the US, Canada, Britain, Holland, Norway and Finland.  However, there are also many countries that follow the rules that apply in Israel, including Spain, Hungary, Moldova, Croatia, Chile and Albania.

The bill does not specify the penalty that will be imposed on minors who have sexual relations beneath the permitted age, but it states that this will be proportional and coordinated with the welfare authorities.

[…]

The “abstinence bill” is important to MK Shama not only as a parliamentarian but also as a concerned parent.  “Last week, my eldest son turned 14.  I am horrified by the thought that he and his friends will have sex at this age, and with the consent of the State of Israel’s law book,” he explains.  “There is no intention to go into the teenagers’ bedrooms, and certainly not to punish, but rather to convey the message that this is forbidden and has dangers.  In the world of online acquaintance and liberal norms of partying and drinking, there are grounds for guiding intervention by the state.”

The bill enjoys the support of many MKs from the coalition and opposition, and it will be officially submitted to the Knesset secretariat this morning.

Below is a Maariv article on the legal battle on this issue waged by one Palestinian-Israeli, Dannan Maarouf, and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) against the Israeli GSS (General Security Service.)

Not a pleasant flight

Shmuel Mittelman, Maariv, November 18 2009 [page B8]

Dannan Maarouf can be quite pleased. Recently the courts instructed the Airports Authority to compensate him with NIS 1,000 plus NIS 250 in court fees. This was because of the inappropriate behavior of the inspectors in Ben-Gurion Airport before he flew out of the country. Maarouf alleged in his lawsuit that the inspection resulted in damage to both his property and his dignity, because it took place before everyone and took longer than necessary. The Magistrates Court ruled that the inspectors’ behavior was indeed discourteous, although Maarouf’s behavior was also out of place.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the security procedures were followed correctly in this instance, and that there was no evidence that Maarouf was discriminated against in the course of the inspection, but added that the Airports Authority officials ought to have conducted the inspection patiently.

If the promises delivered by the GSS are to become reality, than the flight and landing experience of Maarouf and other Israeli Arabs in the country’s main airport may become a great deal more pleasant. This follows many complaints by Arab Israelis over delays in flights, suitcases inspected before everyone, affronts to their dignity and public humiliation upon entering and exiting the country.

The GSS, with the aid of the Airports Authority, revealed this week that it has formulated a plan to significantly alter its security inspections. These changes will, within two to three years, reduce the “the differential component of inspection” — both in extent and in essence, thus minimizing and blurring the discriminatory inspection of passengers based on their groupings. This way the organization hopes to terminate or significantly lessen the damage caused to the Arab population, while maintaining a proper level of security. These important steps will require the purchase of equipment, new technologies and logistical preparations in Ben-Gurion Airport, which are expected to amount to some NIS 300 million.

However, even after the changes and steps aimed at easing [the passengers’ situation], GSS sources clarify that in light of the danger of terror to civil aviation in Israel in general, and in light of the great fear of an aerial mega-terror attack in particular, they will not be able to refrain from carefully checking certain populations that will be segmented by various data, while building a “risk profile” of a potential terrorist.

It would appear that this profile will also include the term “Arab,” but in reference to a smaller risk group than until today.  This step does not satisfy the human rights organizations.  The GSS is relying, on this matter, on the United States, where the court has permitted the use of risk profiles on the basis of ethnicity or race, in order to protect national security.

Cosmetic changes

The GSS revealed the expected changes in a detailed response that it submitted to the High Court of Justice following a petition of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI).  The petition said that the security checks were wrongful because they “discriminated against Israel’s Arab citizens on grounds of national and ethnic affiliation.”  The GSS and the Airports Authority have asked the High Court of Justice to reject the petition and enable implementation of the changes in a gradual manner.

Human rights organizations, however, have cast doubt on this, and say that the new measures are insufficient and that they are only “cosmetic.”  ACRI says in its petition, submitted by Attorneys Auni Bana and Dan Yakir, that the security checks at airports in Israel “puts an entire population group into the circle of suspicion, and exposes all its members to special checks due to their national affiliation.”  These checks, ACRI says, are “painstaking, invasive, troublesome and long,” and unlawfully infringe upon their constitutional rights.  Therefore, ACRI demands that security checks be carried out for all citizens, “on the basis of equal, substantive and uniform criteria.”

In a comprehensive response submitted by the GSS (by means of representatives of the State Attorney’s Office, Attorneys Osnat Mandel, Einav Golomb and Gilad Shirman), it insists that the system of security checks at Ben-Gurion Airport—“with all the changes that have been incorporated in it and will be incorporated in the near future”—is very different from the descriptions of the petitioner, and is conducted with a balance between security needs and the need to minimize the resulting harm to the population.

[…]

The GSS emphasizes that in order to thwart such terror attacks, it cannot base itself only on objective information and data about the passenger.  This is due to the limitations of intelligence information and the possibility of manipulations and exploitation of the passenger by terror organizations, even without his knowledge.

Conversely, an identical system of checks cannot be instituted for all passengers, since if such checks are “average,” this will lower the standard of checking that is currently employed.  However, if the level of checks is stringent, it will greatly burden all the passengers and critically damage the functioning of the airport and service to the passengers.  [The GSS] says that contrary to the assertion of the petitioner, there is no uniform stringent level of checks for all of Israel’s Arab citizens.  “In practice, most of this population undergoes quick checking procedures that do not cause an undue burden or delay,” it states.

[…]

• November 16, 2009: The interview was given just before the Gaza withdrawal, when the country was in extreme turmoil. It was Peres’s birthday and the interviewer closed with a jocular “so what’s your secret?”. Instead of a short and lighthearted answer, the (then) Minister provided a long and rambling lifestyle prescription on a hard-news program on prime time. This kind of insular self-absorption may help put his latest condescension (noted here, here, here and here) in perspective.

ORIGINAL POST

Shimon Peres: The secret for a long life

“Ha-kol Diburim” [prime time news show], IBA Radio, July 20 2005

[...]

Shimon Peres: In my view, food. I’ll tell you exactly what I do every day. I get up in the morning, and the first thing I do is exercise five-to-ten minutes. I’ve been doing a few exercises for the last 40 years. That includes a few hundred jumps of different kinds. I bounce, jump. Forty years ago, I suffered from back pain. Since then, I’ve never known back pain. I also suffered from headaches, by the way. I stopped smoking, and I haven’t had headaches since. It’s, first of all, the simplest of things. Then, I eat breakfast, which is made up of a little fresh lemon, every morning. In my opinion, this has a big effect on a person’s digestion. Afterward, I eat fruit – an apple, peach or banana – no more. And I drink tea, usually weak tea, light tea, because dark tea, in my opinion, is harmful to many things, including your color. And I leave for work after reading the newspapers. Usually by 7:30 a.m., I’ve already eaten, had something to drink, exercised, anything you could ask for. I wake up at 5:30 a.m., and in the afternoon I eat again – chicken or fish with salad, a vegetable salad and a lettuce salad. If I’m very hungry, I eat another piece of fruit, perhaps watermelon, cantaloupe, or some other fruit. Then I go back to work. And I eat a very light supper, usually cottage cheese or whole wheat bread, or something else, and leben [slim yogurt]. And I also drink a glass of wine. I really like drinking a cup of wine or two per day. But, in my opinion, the essence of a person stems from his curiosity, from the meaning in what he does. You have to be a person who is always active. I always say, you are as large as the size of the interests you are serving. And you will be small if you serve only your own interests.

[...]