RESPONSE TO ROGER COHEN'S LATEST DIATRIBE
Roger, once again you choose to look at one incident, at one person, at one issue and come up with one solution.
The issue of peace in the Middle East has nothing to do with settlements. Rather, peace is always dependent on the two parties openly recognizing each other's right to "be".
As soon as the leaders of Egypt and Jordan said to Israel we recognize the right of Israel to be in this region, peace became attainable. Towards that end Israel yielded the entire Sinai and dismantled whatever settlements were there and moved the people inside the new borders of Israel. In Jordan's case there was an exchange of some land and an agreement for some long term leases. But in each case the first step was a recognition that those of us living here have a right to be here.
As long as the Palestinians reject that truism, as long as they continue to maintain that every historical record of our 3,500 year existence in this land is a lie (witness their recent denial of any Jewish connection to the Western Wall) there cannot be peace. For sure, other causes will be given as the reason and settlements is one of those issues. But it is not the core issue. The core issue is an unwillingness to recognize our rights in this place even within the 1967 borders (which are not borders at all, but simply lines drawn on a map during a truce negotiation).
I remain unsure why you don't get this and why you think that the case of this young student has anything to do with the peace process. We, like every other country, have our issues with free speech but the issue of peace is, first and foremost, an issue of recognition.
Lordy would I love to debate you on this on one of my frequent trips to America.
Best regards and shabbat shalom
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
sherwin@atid-edi.com
=================================================================================
ORIGINAL ARTICLE APPEARS BELOW:
December 9, 2010
New York Times On Line
The 'Real Jew' Debate
By ROGER COHEN
LONDON — Ira Stup was raised in Philadelphia attending Jewish day school and camps. He found his home in the Jewish community and was “intoxicated with Jewish democracy” as framed in the ideals of Israel’s foundation. Now he has returned deeply troubled from a one-year fellowship based in Tel Aviv.
The worst single incident occurred on Ben Yehuda Street in central Jerusalem. Stup, 24, a Columbia graduate, was returning from a rally with a couple of friends carrying a banner that said, “Zionists are not settlers.” A group of religious Jews wearing yarmulkes approached, spat on them and started punching.
“About 20 people saw the whole thing and just watched. They were screaming, ‘You are not real Jews.’ Most of them were American. It was one of the most disappointing moments of my life — you can disagree as much as you want with a banner but to allow violence and not react is outrageous. For me it was a turning point. Nobody previously had said I was not a real Jew.”
The view that American Jews supportive of Israel but critical of its policies are not “real Jews” is, however, widespread. Israel-right-or-wrong continues to be the core approach of major U.S. Jewish organizations, from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
To oppose the continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank (“Zionists are not settlers”), or question growing anti-Arab bigotry as personified by Israel’s rightist foreign minister and illustrated by the “loyalty oath” debate, or ask whether the “de-legitimization” of Israel might not have something to do with its own actions is to incur these organizations’ steady ire.
Debate remains stifled, despite Peter Beinart’s important piece this year in the New York Review of Books describing growing alienation among young American Jews asked to “check their liberalism at Zionism’s door.” Oh, sure, you can find all sorts of opinions about Israel all over the place; America remains an open society. But Aipac has systematically shunned a debate with J Street, the upstart Jewish organization that supports Israel, opposes the settlements and attempts to reclaim the progressive ideals of Zionism by saying that the systematic oppression of the Palestinians undermines Israel.
“These organizations’ view remains essentially that any time you engage in an activity critical of Israel you are trying to destroy the state of Israel,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, told me. “Here are all these Jewish kids being raised on great liberal values at Hebrew schools — walks for the homeless, Darfur, AIDS — but God forbid we talk about what’s happening in Israel! It’s a dynamic that cuts off discourse.”
The issues are worth debating at the highest level. Middle East talks have just broken down again, precisely over settlements. President Barack Obama had virtually no domestic constituency for his attempt to denounce the continued growth of settlements as unacceptable and as undermining a two-state peace at its core: land.
Obama was left dangling, more so after the midterms, and had to retreat. This is not merely a failure of the parties. It is a failure of U.S. politics and the way those politics are straitjacketed by an Israel-right-or-wrong mantra that leads inexorably, over time, to one state with more Arabs in it than Jews. What then will remain of the Zionist dream?
Stup’s research took him often to the West Bank. He would come back to Tel Aviv and talk about Palestinian humiliation he’d seen and found that Israelis seemed unaware or unconcerned. He read in one newspaper that 53 percent of Israeli Jews would encourage Israeli Arabs to leave — “and I saw and felt that anecdotally.”
A painful question hardened: “Seeing what the occupation looked like, and given the ideals of Jewish democracy I was raised on, I wondered: Could Israel be failing and could we American Jews be defending that failure?”
It’s time to think again and, above all, think openly. Last month, Ben-Ami was scheduled to speak at a Reform Jewish synagogue, Temple Beth Avodah, in Newton, near Boston. At the last minute the event got canceled because of what the rabbi described as strong opposition from a “small, influential group” within the congregation.
Jewish groups, or Hillel societies, on U.S. campuses sometimes discover they will lose their biggest donors if they allow a J Street youth group to form within them.
Last month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking to the Jewish Federations of North America in New Orleans, was heckled by protesters holding banners suggesting the occupation and loyalty oaths de-legitimize Israel. Their banners were ripped (with teeth) and the young Jews dragged out. Where an important conversation could be held, confrontation prevails.
Stup, moved to act, has joined J Street. This decision caused tremendous pressure on his family back in Philadelphia. One very close family friend came over to his mother’s house recently and accused him of “poisoning the minds of young Jews.” The friendship has been strained to breaking point.
“Why,” Stup asked me, “is it poisoning minds to encourage them to think critically about the actions of the Israeli government?”
Friday, December 10, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Open Letter to Ambassador Kurtzer
The following is in response to the OpEd piece of former Amb. Daniel Kurtzer that appeared in the Wahington Post on November 21st. That piece appears below my letter.
Sherwin
=====================================================================================
Open Letter to Amb. Daniel Kurtzer
Dear Ambassador Kurtzer,
In reading your recent op ed in the Washington Post (11/21/10) I was reminded of a visit I paid to the Ambassadorial Residence in Herzlia a few years ago when you held the position of US Ambassador to Israel.
Your mother of blessed memory had just passed away, and you took a week off from your busy schedule at the time to observe the traditional weeklong shiva period in her memory. When I came to the residence and saw the many people lined up to pay their respects, Jews (both religious and secular), non-Jews, Arab dignitaries and others, I thought to myself that this was a real kiddush Hashem, a sanctification of God’s name. Why? Because it demonstrated to the entire community here in Israel that continuing the line of Jewish tradition was important to you and that even as busy as you were at the time with your official duties, you took the time to honor the memory of your mother by respecting the tradition. I was especially taken to see the tremendous pride on your face as you watched your son, a student at the Har Etzion Yeshiva (located in one of the “settlements” that you regard as an obstacle to peace) share his knowledge of Jewish subjects with those in the audience. No doubt your mother’s entry into the next world was accelerated in merit of his learning and this act of devotion on your part.
Why did your op ed remind me of this? Because I believe that the Washington Post piece, no doubt written with the best intentions, is exactly the opposite, a chillul Hashem, a desecration of God’s name.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions and your long years of experience in the region, both as US Ambassador to Egypt and later US Ambassador to Israel has given you a perspective that few others in the world enjoy. But that experience coupled with you, as an identified Jews from an observant family and the beneficiary of a religious education, places upon you an even greater responsibility for the continuation of the line of Jewish tradition than that of the average member of our faith.
Your words carry special meaning, your position gives you increased credibility and your ability to express ideas imbues you with the means to convey your thoughts in an intelligent and cohesive manner. As such you need to be especially careful about what you say and how you say it, recognizing that it is specifically because of whom you are that our enemies can use your words against us.
Somewhere in the near future we will read in the press that Daniel Kurtzer, the Jewish former Ambassador of the United States to Israel said:
• …the United States is poised to reward Israel for its bad behavior.
• …the United States has turned a blind eye to indirect U.S. subsidies for Israeli activities in the territories
• Israel’s security requirements are now merely a bargaining chip with which to negotiate what Jerusalem will or will not do to advance the peace process.
• …how seriously should our (i.e. the US’) defense planners and congressional budget watchers take Israel’s arguments about its security needs….
and, of course, they will be taken out of context, as I have done, and ultimately used against us.
Further, where is the balance? Where is the reference to the fact that the first freeze was in place for 10 months and for the first 9 months the Palestinians refused to come to the negotiating table? Where is the reference that in spite of continual efforts at peace by Israel the people now referred to as Palestinians have not budged one inch from the position taken on November 29th 1947 when partition was voted by the U.N.? Where is the reference that Chairman Abbas has now made it clear that the nascent Palestinian state, when it is established, must be Judenrein and that the same must apply to any international troops stationed there to maintain the peace. And what about the fact that the same U.S. that is now demanding continual freezes from us has never permitted Israel to win any war against our enemies who waged those wars in an effort to destroy us?
Ambassador Kurtzer, when intelligent, informed and well respected Jews write pieces like you wrote, they can only be classified as a chillul Hashem, because the result, however well meaning your intentions might be, is that the line of Jewish tradition maintained at such cost over the years, runs the risk of being broken. There are plenty of things that are wrong about Israel, but the thing that most challenges the Jewish people is our ongoing battle against the deniers of truth as they expediently rewrite historical facts to support their anti-Semitic instincts. We have seen enough examples of that this year in the Goldstone Report, Turkey’s response to the flotilla episode and similar diatribes.
The word is still out on whether the current US president has discarded the teachings of the Rev. Wright for a more worldly and universal approach to problem solving. There are, of course, well founded suspicions that he has not. But until we know, we Jews need not do his work for him.
As Jews, it is incumbent upon us to remember that this is the only country that we can call our own and, as such, all of is have an obligation to defend its long term viability. Nothing less will be acceptable.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
=====================================================================================
With settlement deal, U.S. will be rewarding Israel's bad behavior
By Daniel Kurtzer
Sunday, November 21, 2010;
It was only a little over a year and a half ago that the Obama administration demanded a freeze on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including even the "natural growth" of existing settlements. At the time, the administration called settlement activity "illegitimate" and appeared ready to go to the mat with Israel to show just how strongly the United States believed that settlements impede peace.
But now, the administration says it is prepared to pay off Israel to freeze only some of its settlement activity, and only temporarily. For the first time in memory, the United States is poised to reward Israel for its bad behavior.
Here's the offer that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is reported to have put on the table recently: The United States will provide a package of advanced weaponry and military assistance to Israel totaling several billion dollars, all in return for an Israeli commitment to freeze settlement construction for just three months, excluding construction in Jerusalem. During this period, the United States hopes Israel and the Palestinian Authority will negotiate an agreement on the final borders of a future Palestinian state. The Israeli cabinet is weighing the offer, having demanded a letter from Washington confirming the terms.
This is a very bad idea. And while Washington will almost certainly come to regret bribing Israel, Israel may regret receiving such a bribe even more.
Previously, U.S. opposition to settlements resulted in penalties, not rewards, for continued construction. Washington deducted from its loan guarantees to Israel an amount equivalent, dollar for dollar, to the money that Israel spent in the occupied territories. While it's true that the United States has turned a blind eye to indirect U.S. subsidies for Israeli activities in the territories - such as tax deductions for American organizations that fund settlements - the deal now being offered to Israel is of a totally different magnitude. If it goes forward, it will be the first direct benefit that the United States has provided Israel for settlement activities that we have opposed for more than 40 years.
It is not clear that Washington has thought through the implications. Will the United States similarly reward Palestinians for stopping their own bad behavior? Will Washington pay them to, say, halt the incitement against Israel and Jews in their public media and some educational materials - something that shouldn't have
been going on in the first place?
Will the rewards for Israel be automatically renewable? Meaning, if Israel is willing to continue the settlement freeze after three months, will another set of rewards be the price for that?
And what about enforcement? Will the United States demand its money back if it learns about construction during the freeze, even if that construction was not authorized by the Israeli government?
The list of problems is so long that it would not be surprising if the administration were already experiencing buyer's remorse. But the arrangement has an even more serious long-term implication, one that should worry Israel profoundly.
If it goes through, this deal will shake the foundation of the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership. Since the early 1980s, the two countries have cooperated closely on assessing Israeli security, and Washington has promised to ensure Israel's "qualitative military edge" over any combination of potential Arab adversaries.
This commitment has been insulated from the vicissitudes of politics and diplomacy. Whatever the state of U.S.-Israeli relations or the peace process, America's commitment to Israel's security has been manifest. Not so, if this deal materializes. By subjecting Israel's defense needs to the political demands of an American administration, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has done something quite dangerous for Israel - he has made those needs contingent, negotiable, optional. Israel's security requirements are now merely a bargaining chip with which to negotiate what Jerusalem will or will not do to advance the peace process.
Today, the United States has "purchased" a short-term settlements freeze; what will be for sale tomorrow? For that matter, how seriously should our defense planners and congressional budget watchers take Israel's arguments about its security needs when it is prepared to market different elements of its policy for another squadron of advanced aircraft? Does anyone really believe that there is a substantive connection between a three-month settlement freeze and Israel's professed need for more airplanes?
These short-sighted tactics will lead both the United States and Israel into a long-term bind. Washington will be left fending off a landslide of demands from others who hope to be rewarded for their bad behavior, to be paid for stopping what they should never have been doing. Israel, meanwhile, will be left struggling to explain how precious its settlements really are if a payoff - albeit a high one - is enough to see them frozen.
And both countries will need a new rationale for the exceedingly steep price of what Israel calls its security requirements, but which will now look more like poker chips used to secure American aid.
This bargaining exercise has been unseemly all along. If it proceeds, both sides will probably regret it. But the deal has not yet been sealed. And it is not too late to start over.
(Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, teaches Middle East politics at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.)
Sherwin
=====================================================================================
Open Letter to Amb. Daniel Kurtzer
Dear Ambassador Kurtzer,
In reading your recent op ed in the Washington Post (11/21/10) I was reminded of a visit I paid to the Ambassadorial Residence in Herzlia a few years ago when you held the position of US Ambassador to Israel.
Your mother of blessed memory had just passed away, and you took a week off from your busy schedule at the time to observe the traditional weeklong shiva period in her memory. When I came to the residence and saw the many people lined up to pay their respects, Jews (both religious and secular), non-Jews, Arab dignitaries and others, I thought to myself that this was a real kiddush Hashem, a sanctification of God’s name. Why? Because it demonstrated to the entire community here in Israel that continuing the line of Jewish tradition was important to you and that even as busy as you were at the time with your official duties, you took the time to honor the memory of your mother by respecting the tradition. I was especially taken to see the tremendous pride on your face as you watched your son, a student at the Har Etzion Yeshiva (located in one of the “settlements” that you regard as an obstacle to peace) share his knowledge of Jewish subjects with those in the audience. No doubt your mother’s entry into the next world was accelerated in merit of his learning and this act of devotion on your part.
Why did your op ed remind me of this? Because I believe that the Washington Post piece, no doubt written with the best intentions, is exactly the opposite, a chillul Hashem, a desecration of God’s name.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions and your long years of experience in the region, both as US Ambassador to Egypt and later US Ambassador to Israel has given you a perspective that few others in the world enjoy. But that experience coupled with you, as an identified Jews from an observant family and the beneficiary of a religious education, places upon you an even greater responsibility for the continuation of the line of Jewish tradition than that of the average member of our faith.
Your words carry special meaning, your position gives you increased credibility and your ability to express ideas imbues you with the means to convey your thoughts in an intelligent and cohesive manner. As such you need to be especially careful about what you say and how you say it, recognizing that it is specifically because of whom you are that our enemies can use your words against us.
Somewhere in the near future we will read in the press that Daniel Kurtzer, the Jewish former Ambassador of the United States to Israel said:
• …the United States is poised to reward Israel for its bad behavior.
• …the United States has turned a blind eye to indirect U.S. subsidies for Israeli activities in the territories
• Israel’s security requirements are now merely a bargaining chip with which to negotiate what Jerusalem will or will not do to advance the peace process.
• …how seriously should our (i.e. the US’) defense planners and congressional budget watchers take Israel’s arguments about its security needs….
and, of course, they will be taken out of context, as I have done, and ultimately used against us.
Further, where is the balance? Where is the reference to the fact that the first freeze was in place for 10 months and for the first 9 months the Palestinians refused to come to the negotiating table? Where is the reference that in spite of continual efforts at peace by Israel the people now referred to as Palestinians have not budged one inch from the position taken on November 29th 1947 when partition was voted by the U.N.? Where is the reference that Chairman Abbas has now made it clear that the nascent Palestinian state, when it is established, must be Judenrein and that the same must apply to any international troops stationed there to maintain the peace. And what about the fact that the same U.S. that is now demanding continual freezes from us has never permitted Israel to win any war against our enemies who waged those wars in an effort to destroy us?
Ambassador Kurtzer, when intelligent, informed and well respected Jews write pieces like you wrote, they can only be classified as a chillul Hashem, because the result, however well meaning your intentions might be, is that the line of Jewish tradition maintained at such cost over the years, runs the risk of being broken. There are plenty of things that are wrong about Israel, but the thing that most challenges the Jewish people is our ongoing battle against the deniers of truth as they expediently rewrite historical facts to support their anti-Semitic instincts. We have seen enough examples of that this year in the Goldstone Report, Turkey’s response to the flotilla episode and similar diatribes.
The word is still out on whether the current US president has discarded the teachings of the Rev. Wright for a more worldly and universal approach to problem solving. There are, of course, well founded suspicions that he has not. But until we know, we Jews need not do his work for him.
As Jews, it is incumbent upon us to remember that this is the only country that we can call our own and, as such, all of is have an obligation to defend its long term viability. Nothing less will be acceptable.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
=====================================================================================
With settlement deal, U.S. will be rewarding Israel's bad behavior
By Daniel Kurtzer
Sunday, November 21, 2010;
It was only a little over a year and a half ago that the Obama administration demanded a freeze on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including even the "natural growth" of existing settlements. At the time, the administration called settlement activity "illegitimate" and appeared ready to go to the mat with Israel to show just how strongly the United States believed that settlements impede peace.
But now, the administration says it is prepared to pay off Israel to freeze only some of its settlement activity, and only temporarily. For the first time in memory, the United States is poised to reward Israel for its bad behavior.
Here's the offer that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is reported to have put on the table recently: The United States will provide a package of advanced weaponry and military assistance to Israel totaling several billion dollars, all in return for an Israeli commitment to freeze settlement construction for just three months, excluding construction in Jerusalem. During this period, the United States hopes Israel and the Palestinian Authority will negotiate an agreement on the final borders of a future Palestinian state. The Israeli cabinet is weighing the offer, having demanded a letter from Washington confirming the terms.
This is a very bad idea. And while Washington will almost certainly come to regret bribing Israel, Israel may regret receiving such a bribe even more.
Previously, U.S. opposition to settlements resulted in penalties, not rewards, for continued construction. Washington deducted from its loan guarantees to Israel an amount equivalent, dollar for dollar, to the money that Israel spent in the occupied territories. While it's true that the United States has turned a blind eye to indirect U.S. subsidies for Israeli activities in the territories - such as tax deductions for American organizations that fund settlements - the deal now being offered to Israel is of a totally different magnitude. If it goes forward, it will be the first direct benefit that the United States has provided Israel for settlement activities that we have opposed for more than 40 years.
It is not clear that Washington has thought through the implications. Will the United States similarly reward Palestinians for stopping their own bad behavior? Will Washington pay them to, say, halt the incitement against Israel and Jews in their public media and some educational materials - something that shouldn't have
been going on in the first place?
Will the rewards for Israel be automatically renewable? Meaning, if Israel is willing to continue the settlement freeze after three months, will another set of rewards be the price for that?
And what about enforcement? Will the United States demand its money back if it learns about construction during the freeze, even if that construction was not authorized by the Israeli government?
The list of problems is so long that it would not be surprising if the administration were already experiencing buyer's remorse. But the arrangement has an even more serious long-term implication, one that should worry Israel profoundly.
If it goes through, this deal will shake the foundation of the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership. Since the early 1980s, the two countries have cooperated closely on assessing Israeli security, and Washington has promised to ensure Israel's "qualitative military edge" over any combination of potential Arab adversaries.
This commitment has been insulated from the vicissitudes of politics and diplomacy. Whatever the state of U.S.-Israeli relations or the peace process, America's commitment to Israel's security has been manifest. Not so, if this deal materializes. By subjecting Israel's defense needs to the political demands of an American administration, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has done something quite dangerous for Israel - he has made those needs contingent, negotiable, optional. Israel's security requirements are now merely a bargaining chip with which to negotiate what Jerusalem will or will not do to advance the peace process.
Today, the United States has "purchased" a short-term settlements freeze; what will be for sale tomorrow? For that matter, how seriously should our defense planners and congressional budget watchers take Israel's arguments about its security needs when it is prepared to market different elements of its policy for another squadron of advanced aircraft? Does anyone really believe that there is a substantive connection between a three-month settlement freeze and Israel's professed need for more airplanes?
These short-sighted tactics will lead both the United States and Israel into a long-term bind. Washington will be left fending off a landslide of demands from others who hope to be rewarded for their bad behavior, to be paid for stopping what they should never have been doing. Israel, meanwhile, will be left struggling to explain how precious its settlements really are if a payoff - albeit a high one - is enough to see them frozen.
And both countries will need a new rationale for the exceedingly steep price of what Israel calls its security requirements, but which will now look more like poker chips used to secure American aid.
This bargaining exercise has been unseemly all along. If it proceeds, both sides will probably regret it. But the deal has not yet been sealed. And it is not too late to start over.
(Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, teaches Middle East politics at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.)
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Recognizing Truth and Praising It
The following piece appeared in the Jerusalem Post on November 3rd to which I responded. My response is below the piece by Ray Hanania who is an American of Palestinian origin and an outspoken activist for peace. His syndicated pieces appear regularly throughout the US and in the Jerusalem Post as well. I felt that this particular item needed a strong response and that even Hanania had to know the differences between Israel and its neighbors, whose blatant violations if human rights rarely make it into the world press.
================================================================================
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=193732
JERUSALEM POST
11/032010
Yalla Peace: Unfazed and unafraid
By Ray Hanania
The case of Haneen Zoabi exposes flaws in Israeli democracy. Israel claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East, but sometimes it doesn’t really act like it. A case in point is the growing animosity in Israel toward Haneen Zoabi, an Arab member of Knesset from Balad who insists on testing Israel’s democracy.
Zoabi was among those on the Mavi Marmara – part of the flotilla which attempted to break the Gaza blockade in May. She is resolute in speaking about what she calls discriminatory policies against Arab citizens. I caught up with Zoabi during one of her stops in a tour of the US where she made the case that Israel talks the talk when it comes to democracy but fails to walk the walk.
“I am not afraid of what the Israelis are trying to do to me,” Zoabi told me at a Chicago convention of Palestinian Americans.
“The attacks by right-wing members of Knesset and politicians do not bother me. I am not afraid to stand up to them. I am strong.”
Zoabi is defiant, and her views can’t easily be brushed aside.
The first woman elected on an Arab slate to the Knesset in March 2009, and the third Arab woman elected to the Knesset altogether, Zoabi comes from a long line of Arab Israelis from Nazareth who have engaged in politics.
She is related to Seif el-Din e- Zoubi, a former mayor of Nazareth who served in the Knesset between 1949 and 1959, and from 1965 until 1979, and to Abed el-Aziz el-Zoubi, a deputy health minister and the first Arab member of an Israeli government.
But none of her relatives faced the anger and hostility that has been directed against her over the past year. Her support for the flotilla ignited a wave of harsh criticism. Jewish Knesset members have called for her to be prosecuted and stripped of the immunity that Knesset members enjoy.
Zoabi brushed aside the rising criticism as “a reflection of the new realities in Israel” that have pushed the Jewish state from the center to the extreme Right.
“Actually, this bothers the [Jewish] Israelis more than it bothers me. The criticism and anti-Arab hatred has become more severe, growing in intensity since the second intifada. It escalated even more after the Lebanon war,” Zoabi said.
She said the backlash against Arabs citizens challenging Israeli policies started with Azmi Bishara, a Knesset member who was very critical. Following the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Bishara was accused of high treason and charges were brought against him following allegations that he aided the enemy during wartime, was in contact with a foreign agent and involved in money-laundering activities. After being stripped of his immunity, Bishara fled Israel and resigned from the Knesset in 2007 via the Israeli Embassy in Cairo.
“The deterioration between Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis began with Bishara,” Zoabi said. “But it has reached a tipping point.”
CRITICISM IS a hallmark of true democracies.
The more Israel tries to silence Arab critics, the more it exposes the limits of its democracy.
“Israelis have always been racist against Arab citizens. It is growing,” Zoabi argued. “But I don’t see that as a threat to me as a Palestinian. It is a threat to the normalcy of life of the Israelis themselves. At one time, the racism was rational, a part of the Jewish character of the state. Today, that racism is more and more irrational.”
The only satisfaction that Israelis might get from all this is that Arabs in America are politically dysfunctional.
Although they can draw large crowds to conferences marked by angry speeches, like the one held in a suburb of Chicago this past weekend, the events get little or no coverage in the mainstream media. Americans are not hearing Palestinian complaints. Yet.
Palestinians in America do most of their talking to themselves. But one day that will change and Americans will look more closely at Israel’s policies toward its Arab citizens. Zoabi symbolizes a crack that continues to grow in the wall of Israel’s claim to the “only democracy in the Middle East.”
===============================================================================
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Letters/Article.aspx?id=193909
JERUSALEM POST
November 4, 2010
She should thank her lucky stars
Sir, – When Ray Hanania speaks about MK Haneen Zoabi and her claim that Israel only claims to be a democratic state (“Unfazed and unafraid,” Yalla peace, November 3), he misses a major point.
If Zoabi was a citizen of any other country in the region, whether Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq or Iran, and then boarded a boat to break a blockade that the country maintained against an enemy entity, she would probably disappear one day and never be heard from again.
Even American citizens, living in that great democracy of the West, would have been arrested 10 years ago if they attempted to travel to Cuba.
Our legislators have to understand that being a Knesset member carries with it certain obligations to uphold the laws of the country they serve. Attempting to run a government blockade is nothing less than the willful breaking of the law.
Zoabi should be arrested and tried for treason – that’s what real democracies would do. So I guess she is right, this is not a real democracy and she should thank her lucky stars for that.
SHERWIN POMERANTZ
Jerusalem
================================================================================
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=193732
JERUSALEM POST
11/032010
Yalla Peace: Unfazed and unafraid
By Ray Hanania
The case of Haneen Zoabi exposes flaws in Israeli democracy. Israel claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East, but sometimes it doesn’t really act like it. A case in point is the growing animosity in Israel toward Haneen Zoabi, an Arab member of Knesset from Balad who insists on testing Israel’s democracy.
Zoabi was among those on the Mavi Marmara – part of the flotilla which attempted to break the Gaza blockade in May. She is resolute in speaking about what she calls discriminatory policies against Arab citizens. I caught up with Zoabi during one of her stops in a tour of the US where she made the case that Israel talks the talk when it comes to democracy but fails to walk the walk.
“I am not afraid of what the Israelis are trying to do to me,” Zoabi told me at a Chicago convention of Palestinian Americans.
“The attacks by right-wing members of Knesset and politicians do not bother me. I am not afraid to stand up to them. I am strong.”
Zoabi is defiant, and her views can’t easily be brushed aside.
The first woman elected on an Arab slate to the Knesset in March 2009, and the third Arab woman elected to the Knesset altogether, Zoabi comes from a long line of Arab Israelis from Nazareth who have engaged in politics.
She is related to Seif el-Din e- Zoubi, a former mayor of Nazareth who served in the Knesset between 1949 and 1959, and from 1965 until 1979, and to Abed el-Aziz el-Zoubi, a deputy health minister and the first Arab member of an Israeli government.
But none of her relatives faced the anger and hostility that has been directed against her over the past year. Her support for the flotilla ignited a wave of harsh criticism. Jewish Knesset members have called for her to be prosecuted and stripped of the immunity that Knesset members enjoy.
Zoabi brushed aside the rising criticism as “a reflection of the new realities in Israel” that have pushed the Jewish state from the center to the extreme Right.
“Actually, this bothers the [Jewish] Israelis more than it bothers me. The criticism and anti-Arab hatred has become more severe, growing in intensity since the second intifada. It escalated even more after the Lebanon war,” Zoabi said.
She said the backlash against Arabs citizens challenging Israeli policies started with Azmi Bishara, a Knesset member who was very critical. Following the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Bishara was accused of high treason and charges were brought against him following allegations that he aided the enemy during wartime, was in contact with a foreign agent and involved in money-laundering activities. After being stripped of his immunity, Bishara fled Israel and resigned from the Knesset in 2007 via the Israeli Embassy in Cairo.
“The deterioration between Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis began with Bishara,” Zoabi said. “But it has reached a tipping point.”
CRITICISM IS a hallmark of true democracies.
The more Israel tries to silence Arab critics, the more it exposes the limits of its democracy.
“Israelis have always been racist against Arab citizens. It is growing,” Zoabi argued. “But I don’t see that as a threat to me as a Palestinian. It is a threat to the normalcy of life of the Israelis themselves. At one time, the racism was rational, a part of the Jewish character of the state. Today, that racism is more and more irrational.”
The only satisfaction that Israelis might get from all this is that Arabs in America are politically dysfunctional.
Although they can draw large crowds to conferences marked by angry speeches, like the one held in a suburb of Chicago this past weekend, the events get little or no coverage in the mainstream media. Americans are not hearing Palestinian complaints. Yet.
Palestinians in America do most of their talking to themselves. But one day that will change and Americans will look more closely at Israel’s policies toward its Arab citizens. Zoabi symbolizes a crack that continues to grow in the wall of Israel’s claim to the “only democracy in the Middle East.”
===============================================================================
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Letters/Article.aspx?id=193909
JERUSALEM POST
November 4, 2010
She should thank her lucky stars
Sir, – When Ray Hanania speaks about MK Haneen Zoabi and her claim that Israel only claims to be a democratic state (“Unfazed and unafraid,” Yalla peace, November 3), he misses a major point.
If Zoabi was a citizen of any other country in the region, whether Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq or Iran, and then boarded a boat to break a blockade that the country maintained against an enemy entity, she would probably disappear one day and never be heard from again.
Even American citizens, living in that great democracy of the West, would have been arrested 10 years ago if they attempted to travel to Cuba.
Our legislators have to understand that being a Knesset member carries with it certain obligations to uphold the laws of the country they serve. Attempting to run a government blockade is nothing less than the willful breaking of the law.
Zoabi should be arrested and tried for treason – that’s what real democracies would do. So I guess she is right, this is not a real democracy and she should thank her lucky stars for that.
SHERWIN POMERANTZ
Jerusalem
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Insulting God
Insulting God
The pictures at Ben Gurion Airport of last week’s migration of Jews traveling to Uman for Rosh Hashona to be in the city where Rabbi Nachman z’l is buried generated a mixed reaction in me.
On the one hand, to see close to 18,000 people traveling to one place to join together in celebrating the Jewish New Year is, as the Yiddishists among us might say, Gevaldik (i.e. loosely translated as “grand:).
On the other hand some male travelers chose to wear a scarf under their traditional hats, with nothing but the slimmest of slits for their eyes, while others made original use of airlines’ sleep masks to cover their eyes. The move, according to a report in Yedioth Ahronoth, was meant to “protect” their eyes from immodest views, read “women.”
The Hasidim involved went through the entire airport security check with the covers on or briefly off and looking down, followed by what can only be described as a mad dash towards the safety of the plane, as reported in local papers. The makeshift blindfolds were taken off only when they were seated on the plane. They were put back on when the female flight attendants began making the rounds with the food carts.
The Kiev airport saw a repeat performance, to the surprise of its security personnel, especially, of course, the females among them.
After the shock of seeing this mimicry of the Taliban, I thought about it a bit more and realized how insulted God must be by the behavior of those who, in the name of religion, tamper with His creations.
According to tradition, God created man in his own image (Genesis 1:27). Although, according to biblical text, man sinned very early in the game, as it were, the fact is that man remains created in God’s image albeit now with the ability to judge right from wrong, to make choices and to attempt to live the kind of righteous life that God intended. To live righteously God provided all of us with the tools necessary to make judgments and avoid temptations, so as not to stray off the straight and narrow as it were. Given all that has been bequeathed to us as human beings, why do we need to insulate ourselves further from supposed temptations by tampering with God’s work?
It seems to me that putting on a scarf to shield one’s eyes from looking at women, is nothing more than an insult to God and his work. After all God endowed us with the capacity to keep such things in perspective. By adding a scarf, for example, those who do so are basically saying to God “you really did not create such a perfect being and I am too weak to carry out your injunctions without such an addition to my clothing.”
No doubt those who chose to dress themselves in this manner will object to this line of thinking on my part. They may say that they are doing this in an attempt to observe God’s laws. But the obvious fact is that by dressing thusly, they are putting the final nail in the coffin of our people’s ability to observe God’s laws without multiple physical aids which, by their use, testify to their belief that man, as created by God, does not have the ability to live the kind of life that God intended for him.
What a sad commentary on the status of religious life today and what an insult to the Creator. How disappointed He must be in some of his children.
The pictures at Ben Gurion Airport of last week’s migration of Jews traveling to Uman for Rosh Hashona to be in the city where Rabbi Nachman z’l is buried generated a mixed reaction in me.
On the one hand, to see close to 18,000 people traveling to one place to join together in celebrating the Jewish New Year is, as the Yiddishists among us might say, Gevaldik (i.e. loosely translated as “grand:).
On the other hand some male travelers chose to wear a scarf under their traditional hats, with nothing but the slimmest of slits for their eyes, while others made original use of airlines’ sleep masks to cover their eyes. The move, according to a report in Yedioth Ahronoth, was meant to “protect” their eyes from immodest views, read “women.”
The Hasidim involved went through the entire airport security check with the covers on or briefly off and looking down, followed by what can only be described as a mad dash towards the safety of the plane, as reported in local papers. The makeshift blindfolds were taken off only when they were seated on the plane. They were put back on when the female flight attendants began making the rounds with the food carts.
The Kiev airport saw a repeat performance, to the surprise of its security personnel, especially, of course, the females among them.
After the shock of seeing this mimicry of the Taliban, I thought about it a bit more and realized how insulted God must be by the behavior of those who, in the name of religion, tamper with His creations.
According to tradition, God created man in his own image (Genesis 1:27). Although, according to biblical text, man sinned very early in the game, as it were, the fact is that man remains created in God’s image albeit now with the ability to judge right from wrong, to make choices and to attempt to live the kind of righteous life that God intended. To live righteously God provided all of us with the tools necessary to make judgments and avoid temptations, so as not to stray off the straight and narrow as it were. Given all that has been bequeathed to us as human beings, why do we need to insulate ourselves further from supposed temptations by tampering with God’s work?
It seems to me that putting on a scarf to shield one’s eyes from looking at women, is nothing more than an insult to God and his work. After all God endowed us with the capacity to keep such things in perspective. By adding a scarf, for example, those who do so are basically saying to God “you really did not create such a perfect being and I am too weak to carry out your injunctions without such an addition to my clothing.”
No doubt those who chose to dress themselves in this manner will object to this line of thinking on my part. They may say that they are doing this in an attempt to observe God’s laws. But the obvious fact is that by dressing thusly, they are putting the final nail in the coffin of our people’s ability to observe God’s laws without multiple physical aids which, by their use, testify to their belief that man, as created by God, does not have the ability to live the kind of life that God intended for him.
What a sad commentary on the status of religious life today and what an insult to the Creator. How disappointed He must be in some of his children.
Friday, August 13, 2010
A Cautious Vote for Co-Existence.
August 12, 2010
I was shot by a Palestinian terrorist nine years ago on the pre-1967 side of the so-called green line marking the 1949 armistice line between Israel and Jordan, so no one has to persuade me that a terrorist attack can occur at any time or any place and that the relative quiet which has prevailed in the past few years is a fragile one that could evaporate in an instant.
It was August of 2001, one of the worst months of the Intifada. A half dozen other shooting incidents occurred on that same night and most victims didn’t fare quite as well I did escaping with relatively minor wounds. Survivors of the horrendous suicide bombing at the Sabarro restaurant were on the same floor of the hospital as I was. I also know that while the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the world are carried out by Moslems, probably 99% of Moslems would never themselves engage in a terrorist attack. I know sadly though that a large number would cheer the others on. Nonetheless while I remain very cautious, I have never really given up on the notion that perhaps some kind of co-existence can work here in this volatile part of the world. Arabs and Jews seem destined to live side by side for a long time and ultimately we ought to find a way to make that work.
The other night on my way home from an evening work-out, I stopped to get gas at the Gush Etzion intersection not far from Efrat where I have lived for 16 years. Efrat is what people refer to as a settlement, though to me, it is simply a community on land which has been Jewish owned long before Israel was established, about ten miles south of Jerusalem which is home to something on the order of ten thousand people in the midst of a block of communities with about sixty thousand people. It is an area with a long and intensive Jewish history going back to period of the Bible.
The entrance to the gas station was backed up quite a distance and on getting a bit closer I could see that the reason was a line up of cars trying to get in to the recently opened branch of a discount supermarket adjacent to the gas station. It was a Tuesday night and not usually the busiest shopping night of the week, especially not at 9:15 in the evening. Once I got a bit closer I could see that most of the cars bore Palestinian license plates and I remembered that this was the end of the first day of Ramadan, the holiest month in the Moslem calendar. A month from now, it will be Israelis shopping for the Jewish New Year.
In fact, from the moment the supermarket opened it has been something of an island of co-existence, though not without some generating some controversy. Palestinians and Israelis, Jews and Moslems, and Christians from nearby Bethlehem, shop and work at the store. Interestingly the opposition to this has not focused mainly on security worries even though there was a nearly catastrophic attempt by a Palestinian to blow up a supermarket in Efrat in 2002. Security is a concern of course and it seemed to me that the security guards at the entrance took their job seriously. I certainly hope so. Most of the noise has been about the possibility that the mingling of young Jewish and Arab employees could lead to inter-marriage. If that will be the biggest worry that Israelis face in this increasingly hostile world, I think we can handle it.
It’s an experiment of course, and God forbid like any experiment it could fail. I actually hope it succeeds and becomes one more place among the paltry few were Jews and Arabs can face each other as neighbors and not as enemies.
Benjamin Dansker
August 12, 2010
I was shot by a Palestinian terrorist nine years ago on the pre-1967 side of the so-called green line marking the 1949 armistice line between Israel and Jordan, so no one has to persuade me that a terrorist attack can occur at any time or any place and that the relative quiet which has prevailed in the past few years is a fragile one that could evaporate in an instant.
It was August of 2001, one of the worst months of the Intifada. A half dozen other shooting incidents occurred on that same night and most victims didn’t fare quite as well I did escaping with relatively minor wounds. Survivors of the horrendous suicide bombing at the Sabarro restaurant were on the same floor of the hospital as I was. I also know that while the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the world are carried out by Moslems, probably 99% of Moslems would never themselves engage in a terrorist attack. I know sadly though that a large number would cheer the others on. Nonetheless while I remain very cautious, I have never really given up on the notion that perhaps some kind of co-existence can work here in this volatile part of the world. Arabs and Jews seem destined to live side by side for a long time and ultimately we ought to find a way to make that work.
The other night on my way home from an evening work-out, I stopped to get gas at the Gush Etzion intersection not far from Efrat where I have lived for 16 years. Efrat is what people refer to as a settlement, though to me, it is simply a community on land which has been Jewish owned long before Israel was established, about ten miles south of Jerusalem which is home to something on the order of ten thousand people in the midst of a block of communities with about sixty thousand people. It is an area with a long and intensive Jewish history going back to period of the Bible.
The entrance to the gas station was backed up quite a distance and on getting a bit closer I could see that the reason was a line up of cars trying to get in to the recently opened branch of a discount supermarket adjacent to the gas station. It was a Tuesday night and not usually the busiest shopping night of the week, especially not at 9:15 in the evening. Once I got a bit closer I could see that most of the cars bore Palestinian license plates and I remembered that this was the end of the first day of Ramadan, the holiest month in the Moslem calendar. A month from now, it will be Israelis shopping for the Jewish New Year.
In fact, from the moment the supermarket opened it has been something of an island of co-existence, though not without some generating some controversy. Palestinians and Israelis, Jews and Moslems, and Christians from nearby Bethlehem, shop and work at the store. Interestingly the opposition to this has not focused mainly on security worries even though there was a nearly catastrophic attempt by a Palestinian to blow up a supermarket in Efrat in 2002. Security is a concern of course and it seemed to me that the security guards at the entrance took their job seriously. I certainly hope so. Most of the noise has been about the possibility that the mingling of young Jewish and Arab employees could lead to inter-marriage. If that will be the biggest worry that Israelis face in this increasingly hostile world, I think we can handle it.
It’s an experiment of course, and God forbid like any experiment it could fail. I actually hope it succeeds and becomes one more place among the paltry few were Jews and Arabs can face each other as neighbors and not as enemies.
Benjamin Dansker
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Building Rawabi
Building Rawabi
In mid-January of this year I was in Tel Aviv for a presentation by Bashar Masri, President of Massar, a Ramallah-based holding company with investment interests in a number of projects in what may one day become a Palestinian state. Masri, having lived in America most of his life, moved to Ramallah some years ago to share his business acumen, know how, and connections with the locals in order to assist in building the economic trappings of a new Palestinian society.
The purpose of the meeting in Tel Aviv was to hear about the new Palestinian city of Rawabi north of Ramallah. Rawabi will be the first ever Palestinian municipality built according to a master plan which, when completed, will provide housing, work and recreation for 40,000 people. At the time I clearly saw the positive ramifications of this project for those interested in seeing the development of responsible Palestinian governmental leadership.
The planned City of Rawabi is a major undertaking of the Palestinian leadership funded in great part by the Qatari government through one of its real estate arms.
This morning’s Jerusalem Post carries a story headlined “Settlers [I really don’t like that term] Protest New Palestinian City” which says the following:
Settlers who believe a Palestinian state is being unilaterally built in their backyard plan to march on Thursday afternoon, to protest against what will soon be the new Palestinian city of Rawabi. Rawabi is 9 km northwest of Ramallah, 25 km south of Nablus and 20 km north of Jerusalem. …..Settlers have opposed the city’s construction, fearing that it is part of a plan by PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to unilaterally seek statehood.”
My reaction is that we simply cannot have things both ways.
For years those of us living in Israel have lamented the fact that the Palestinians have no visionary leadership, that the leaders they do have allow their people to live in squalor and that the only objective of the leadership is to stay in power. Now along comes Salam Fayyad with an actual plan to create something that begins to look like progress and development, and yet we still complain.
I, for one, applaud the plan to build this new city because for the first time in the 62+ years of the history of the State of Israel, our neighbors who, for the moment, live under our control, are actually doing something constructive about creating a framework that bespeaks economic and social progress.
As for where they will build this city, of course it will be near existing population centers. After all, we share a small land mass that, at its widest in the center of the country only spans 66 km or 40 miles. So no matter where the city would be built, if it is close to Palestinian population areas it will be close to Israel as well. And as for the inclination of the Government of Israel to cede 50 hectares of land to the project in order to build a decent access road, that is an absolute necessity as the present 1-lane Ottoman-built cow path is hardly sufficient to handle the regular arrival of building materials and construction vehicles.
Again, we cannot have things both ways. We cannot continue to complain that the Palestinians are guilty of letting their people live uneducated and in squalor and then complain, yet again, when they try to do something constructive about the situation.
True, that Salam Fayyad may not be the great white hope. True, that he may not even be such a great friend of Israel. True, that the city will be built close to existing settlements such as Ateret. All that may be true but what is also true is that someone has finally come along with a reasonable plan to begin addressing some of the social and economic issues of Palestinian society and is prepared to do without using Israel as an excuse why it cannot progress. Regardless of our discomfort, we should support such initiatives as economic progress remains the only hope for peace.
Sources tell us that Ezra the Scribe urged his disciples not to shy away from a task simply because they knew, in advance, that they could not complete it. The lesson has meaning for us today as well. The task of peace may very well not be completed in our time but we, nevertheless, have an obligation to pursue it.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem, August 11, 2010
In mid-January of this year I was in Tel Aviv for a presentation by Bashar Masri, President of Massar, a Ramallah-based holding company with investment interests in a number of projects in what may one day become a Palestinian state. Masri, having lived in America most of his life, moved to Ramallah some years ago to share his business acumen, know how, and connections with the locals in order to assist in building the economic trappings of a new Palestinian society.
The purpose of the meeting in Tel Aviv was to hear about the new Palestinian city of Rawabi north of Ramallah. Rawabi will be the first ever Palestinian municipality built according to a master plan which, when completed, will provide housing, work and recreation for 40,000 people. At the time I clearly saw the positive ramifications of this project for those interested in seeing the development of responsible Palestinian governmental leadership.
The planned City of Rawabi is a major undertaking of the Palestinian leadership funded in great part by the Qatari government through one of its real estate arms.
This morning’s Jerusalem Post carries a story headlined “Settlers [I really don’t like that term] Protest New Palestinian City” which says the following:
Settlers who believe a Palestinian state is being unilaterally built in their backyard plan to march on Thursday afternoon, to protest against what will soon be the new Palestinian city of Rawabi. Rawabi is 9 km northwest of Ramallah, 25 km south of Nablus and 20 km north of Jerusalem. …..Settlers have opposed the city’s construction, fearing that it is part of a plan by PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to unilaterally seek statehood.”
My reaction is that we simply cannot have things both ways.
For years those of us living in Israel have lamented the fact that the Palestinians have no visionary leadership, that the leaders they do have allow their people to live in squalor and that the only objective of the leadership is to stay in power. Now along comes Salam Fayyad with an actual plan to create something that begins to look like progress and development, and yet we still complain.
I, for one, applaud the plan to build this new city because for the first time in the 62+ years of the history of the State of Israel, our neighbors who, for the moment, live under our control, are actually doing something constructive about creating a framework that bespeaks economic and social progress.
As for where they will build this city, of course it will be near existing population centers. After all, we share a small land mass that, at its widest in the center of the country only spans 66 km or 40 miles. So no matter where the city would be built, if it is close to Palestinian population areas it will be close to Israel as well. And as for the inclination of the Government of Israel to cede 50 hectares of land to the project in order to build a decent access road, that is an absolute necessity as the present 1-lane Ottoman-built cow path is hardly sufficient to handle the regular arrival of building materials and construction vehicles.
Again, we cannot have things both ways. We cannot continue to complain that the Palestinians are guilty of letting their people live uneducated and in squalor and then complain, yet again, when they try to do something constructive about the situation.
True, that Salam Fayyad may not be the great white hope. True, that he may not even be such a great friend of Israel. True, that the city will be built close to existing settlements such as Ateret. All that may be true but what is also true is that someone has finally come along with a reasonable plan to begin addressing some of the social and economic issues of Palestinian society and is prepared to do without using Israel as an excuse why it cannot progress. Regardless of our discomfort, we should support such initiatives as economic progress remains the only hope for peace.
Sources tell us that Ezra the Scribe urged his disciples not to shy away from a task simply because they knew, in advance, that they could not complete it. The lesson has meaning for us today as well. The task of peace may very well not be completed in our time but we, nevertheless, have an obligation to pursue it.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem, August 11, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
From Moscow to Rehovot
Could it be? Earlier this week I was proofreading a report that one of our senior staff people had prepared for a client in Ireland when I saw the name Alex Pinarov. A unique name to be sure but down deep I felt that years ago, in another life, in another place, I had seen a variation of that name.
The date was June 15, 1988 and the place was a Moscow apartment on Znamenskaya Street where I met someone named Moshe Finarov on my first day in the former Soviet Union. Remember this was before Glasnost and Moscow was a place full of secret meetings, clandestinely made appointments and underground Jewish activity.
Two of us who had both US and Israeli passports were sent there by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to meet with refuseniks, Jews who had applied for permission to emigrate but who were “refused,” who had lost their jobs and were waiting for the day when they would be allowed to leave that place where fear and uncertainty were the hallmarks of life.
Moshe managed an underground Jewish school which today sounds more than a bit strange but in those days was relatively commonplace among the refusenik community throughout the country. His name was intriguing because it was very close to the Yiddish expression “fun a Rov” which meant “from a Rabbi.” I remember asking him if he had rabbinic ancestors and he said that indeed he did and his family name most probably described his lineage. We spoke in Hebrew and as I was to find out later his reaction to the visit was, in his words, “you came from a different world, from the Holy Land.” To him and his family we represented his dream.
Well, two weeks later and after many meetings with other refuseniks in Kiev and St Petersburg (then Leningrad) as well, it was back to Israel, and back to daily life. There was, of course, no internet, no e mail, and very few refuseniks had phones so making contact was spotty at best and I basically lost contact with everyone that I met during that visit.
Until this week! Until I saw the name Alex Pinarov and it rang a bell. I checked my notes from those two weeks in the former Soviet Union and saw that Moshe Finarov told me that he had a brother living in Israel who had immigrated to here a year earlier and was living in Rehovot. So I called Alex on Wednesday night, introduced myself and started asking questions. Well, as one can expect, the old fears of being questioned surfaced pretty quickly and before Alex would respond he questioned me as to why I wanted to know this information. Of course, when I started reading from my notes of the visit to the apartment on Znamenskaya Street, he realized it was safe to speak with me and it all came out.
Yes, he is the brother who came in 1987. Yes Moshe Finarov (Hebrew tends to mix up Ps and Fs) was the brother I met in Moscow 22 years ago. Yes, the children I met there are indeed his niece and nephew. And where is Moshe Finarov, of the rabbinic lineage? Also in Israel, also in Rehovot officing just a few blocks from Alex in the Weizmann Science Park.
I contacted Moshe after my exchange with Alex. All of his family is now here and he speaks with his sons mainly in Hebrew. Both have served in the Israel Defense Forces and graduated from Israeli universities, one from the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology and the other from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His wife is a doctor at the Kaplan Medical Center in Rehovot, specializing in X-ray diagnostics. Moshe himself has developed a satisfactory career in Israel in the high-tech industry having founded several start-up companies in the microelectronics and solar industries.
What does one say when one hears such a wonderful story? What blessing does one pronounce when seeing such a miracle? I’ll leave the blessings to the rabbis, but one thing I know. The Finarov family, formerly of the Soviet Union and now proud citizens of the State of Israel epitomizes the Hebrew expression, Am Yisrael Chai……The People of Israel Live. And the miracles continue as long as we are prepared to acknowledge them. Shabbat shalom!
Could it be? Earlier this week I was proofreading a report that one of our senior staff people had prepared for a client in Ireland when I saw the name Alex Pinarov. A unique name to be sure but down deep I felt that years ago, in another life, in another place, I had seen a variation of that name.
The date was June 15, 1988 and the place was a Moscow apartment on Znamenskaya Street where I met someone named Moshe Finarov on my first day in the former Soviet Union. Remember this was before Glasnost and Moscow was a place full of secret meetings, clandestinely made appointments and underground Jewish activity.
Two of us who had both US and Israeli passports were sent there by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to meet with refuseniks, Jews who had applied for permission to emigrate but who were “refused,” who had lost their jobs and were waiting for the day when they would be allowed to leave that place where fear and uncertainty were the hallmarks of life.
Moshe managed an underground Jewish school which today sounds more than a bit strange but in those days was relatively commonplace among the refusenik community throughout the country. His name was intriguing because it was very close to the Yiddish expression “fun a Rov” which meant “from a Rabbi.” I remember asking him if he had rabbinic ancestors and he said that indeed he did and his family name most probably described his lineage. We spoke in Hebrew and as I was to find out later his reaction to the visit was, in his words, “you came from a different world, from the Holy Land.” To him and his family we represented his dream.
Well, two weeks later and after many meetings with other refuseniks in Kiev and St Petersburg (then Leningrad) as well, it was back to Israel, and back to daily life. There was, of course, no internet, no e mail, and very few refuseniks had phones so making contact was spotty at best and I basically lost contact with everyone that I met during that visit.
Until this week! Until I saw the name Alex Pinarov and it rang a bell. I checked my notes from those two weeks in the former Soviet Union and saw that Moshe Finarov told me that he had a brother living in Israel who had immigrated to here a year earlier and was living in Rehovot. So I called Alex on Wednesday night, introduced myself and started asking questions. Well, as one can expect, the old fears of being questioned surfaced pretty quickly and before Alex would respond he questioned me as to why I wanted to know this information. Of course, when I started reading from my notes of the visit to the apartment on Znamenskaya Street, he realized it was safe to speak with me and it all came out.
Yes, he is the brother who came in 1987. Yes Moshe Finarov (Hebrew tends to mix up Ps and Fs) was the brother I met in Moscow 22 years ago. Yes, the children I met there are indeed his niece and nephew. And where is Moshe Finarov, of the rabbinic lineage? Also in Israel, also in Rehovot officing just a few blocks from Alex in the Weizmann Science Park.
I contacted Moshe after my exchange with Alex. All of his family is now here and he speaks with his sons mainly in Hebrew. Both have served in the Israel Defense Forces and graduated from Israeli universities, one from the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology and the other from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His wife is a doctor at the Kaplan Medical Center in Rehovot, specializing in X-ray diagnostics. Moshe himself has developed a satisfactory career in Israel in the high-tech industry having founded several start-up companies in the microelectronics and solar industries.
What does one say when one hears such a wonderful story? What blessing does one pronounce when seeing such a miracle? I’ll leave the blessings to the rabbis, but one thing I know. The Finarov family, formerly of the Soviet Union and now proud citizens of the State of Israel epitomizes the Hebrew expression, Am Yisrael Chai……The People of Israel Live. And the miracles continue as long as we are prepared to acknowledge them. Shabbat shalom!
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Lessons from the Flotilla
The most important consideration in planning any action is to evaluate the decision using the test of “realistic benefit.” If the “realistic benefit” cannot be identified, then the decision not to proceed is the only alternative.
A retrospective of the “flotilla incident” of May 31st leads me to believe that recent actions of the Israeli government were not sufficiently evaluated against this rule of thumb. Permit me to explain.
When one is confronted by an enemy the best defense is an offense that removes the ammunition from his arsenal. But there are two kinds of ammunition. There is physical ammunition such as weaponry and there is non-physical ammunition such as public relations and the newest weapon of a smart enemy, social networking.
Based on our experience over the last 62 years, Israel will be criticized whenever it tries to remove ammunition of any type from the hands of the enemy. But the criticism is generally less volatile and even somewhat muted when the ammunition is physical. For example, when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reaction in 1982, there was initial criticism, some of which was far from muted. But it dissipated relatively rapidly and, in retrospect, the world ended up being somewhat grateful for Israel’s actions in crippling an element of Saddam Hussein’s war machine.
Similarly, when Israel’s military captured the Karine A vessel in January 2002 and demonstrated that the ship was carrying 50 tons of weaponry headed for Gaza, there was again muted criticism. But there was also an understanding that there could be no argument with a country’s sovereign right to protect itself from attack.
Even when Israel allegedly attacked the nuclear reactor installation inside Syria in 2007, while there was, as expected, criticism of Israel’s incursion into another country Syria did not respond and the world understood why Israel took such action.
In all of these cases Israel acted to take physical ammunition out of the hands of the enemy.
The later blockade of Gaza after its takeover by Hamas, was yet another attempt to control the inflow of physical ammunition into what Israel defined as hostile territory. And while the sea blockade was Israel’s alone, the land blockade of Gaza was joined by Egypt as well, as Egypt is also concerned about the proliferation of weapons in that area. After all, once someone has weapons capability there is no telling in which direction those weapons will be pointed.
The decisions required to take these steps also seemed to pass the test of whether there was “realistic benefit” to be gained from these actions. Of course, one can argue that blockade or no blockade Hamas was able to continued its arms buildup in any event, albeit somewhat more slowly. Nevertheless, there was “realistic benefit” to be gained from these actions.
However, when it comes to removing non-physical weapons from the hands of the enemy, or from the hands of people who sympathize with the enemy, such an effort is much more difficult to manage, and, if handled incompetently, results in much more world condemnation. In this area, and the “flotilla incident” is just the most recent example of this, Israel has not learned how to handle these situations and generally suffers badly as a result. Many decisions related to this aspect of Israel’s efforts do not seem to have passed the test of “realistic benefit.”
The government here knew that regardless of how the flotilla was handled Israel would look bad in the world press. If we did nothing, and let the ships dock in Gaza, as we had done previously, Hamas would have said that they had captured the upper hand and that Israel’s threats to foil the voyage were just that, threats and no more. Given the fact that we knew who was organizing the flotilla, and that while many participants were pro-peace activists, we also knew that the leadership was seeking to provoke Israel into action, it was clear that stopping the ships would be seen by the world as yet another example of Israeli intransigence. Worse, if there were people injured or, heaven forbid, fatalities, the entire situation could blow up in our faces. And yet, knowing all this, we failed to apply the test of “realistic benefit” and went ahead with the operation which ended with all of our worst fears being realized.
At this early date there is no telling how bad the fallout will be from this latest exercise which seemed to accomplish nothing more than creating more casualties in the ongoing battle for legitimacy, and a world diplomatic community bent on using this incident for its own less than objective purposes. But the key error here, I am sure, will turn out to be the failure to evaluate “realistic benefit” and the concomitant lack of understanding of how to handle the public relations aspect of crises when they occur, as they do time and time again.
Frankly, we had better learn how to apply this test rapidly and figure out, as well, how to leverage today’s social networking technologies to our benefit. Else, one day, we will find ourselves so incredibly isolated as to be non-functional. At that point, the enterprise we call Israel will simply crash.
A retrospective of the “flotilla incident” of May 31st leads me to believe that recent actions of the Israeli government were not sufficiently evaluated against this rule of thumb. Permit me to explain.
When one is confronted by an enemy the best defense is an offense that removes the ammunition from his arsenal. But there are two kinds of ammunition. There is physical ammunition such as weaponry and there is non-physical ammunition such as public relations and the newest weapon of a smart enemy, social networking.
Based on our experience over the last 62 years, Israel will be criticized whenever it tries to remove ammunition of any type from the hands of the enemy. But the criticism is generally less volatile and even somewhat muted when the ammunition is physical. For example, when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reaction in 1982, there was initial criticism, some of which was far from muted. But it dissipated relatively rapidly and, in retrospect, the world ended up being somewhat grateful for Israel’s actions in crippling an element of Saddam Hussein’s war machine.
Similarly, when Israel’s military captured the Karine A vessel in January 2002 and demonstrated that the ship was carrying 50 tons of weaponry headed for Gaza, there was again muted criticism. But there was also an understanding that there could be no argument with a country’s sovereign right to protect itself from attack.
Even when Israel allegedly attacked the nuclear reactor installation inside Syria in 2007, while there was, as expected, criticism of Israel’s incursion into another country Syria did not respond and the world understood why Israel took such action.
In all of these cases Israel acted to take physical ammunition out of the hands of the enemy.
The later blockade of Gaza after its takeover by Hamas, was yet another attempt to control the inflow of physical ammunition into what Israel defined as hostile territory. And while the sea blockade was Israel’s alone, the land blockade of Gaza was joined by Egypt as well, as Egypt is also concerned about the proliferation of weapons in that area. After all, once someone has weapons capability there is no telling in which direction those weapons will be pointed.
The decisions required to take these steps also seemed to pass the test of whether there was “realistic benefit” to be gained from these actions. Of course, one can argue that blockade or no blockade Hamas was able to continued its arms buildup in any event, albeit somewhat more slowly. Nevertheless, there was “realistic benefit” to be gained from these actions.
However, when it comes to removing non-physical weapons from the hands of the enemy, or from the hands of people who sympathize with the enemy, such an effort is much more difficult to manage, and, if handled incompetently, results in much more world condemnation. In this area, and the “flotilla incident” is just the most recent example of this, Israel has not learned how to handle these situations and generally suffers badly as a result. Many decisions related to this aspect of Israel’s efforts do not seem to have passed the test of “realistic benefit.”
The government here knew that regardless of how the flotilla was handled Israel would look bad in the world press. If we did nothing, and let the ships dock in Gaza, as we had done previously, Hamas would have said that they had captured the upper hand and that Israel’s threats to foil the voyage were just that, threats and no more. Given the fact that we knew who was organizing the flotilla, and that while many participants were pro-peace activists, we also knew that the leadership was seeking to provoke Israel into action, it was clear that stopping the ships would be seen by the world as yet another example of Israeli intransigence. Worse, if there were people injured or, heaven forbid, fatalities, the entire situation could blow up in our faces. And yet, knowing all this, we failed to apply the test of “realistic benefit” and went ahead with the operation which ended with all of our worst fears being realized.
At this early date there is no telling how bad the fallout will be from this latest exercise which seemed to accomplish nothing more than creating more casualties in the ongoing battle for legitimacy, and a world diplomatic community bent on using this incident for its own less than objective purposes. But the key error here, I am sure, will turn out to be the failure to evaluate “realistic benefit” and the concomitant lack of understanding of how to handle the public relations aspect of crises when they occur, as they do time and time again.
Frankly, we had better learn how to apply this test rapidly and figure out, as well, how to leverage today’s social networking technologies to our benefit. Else, one day, we will find ourselves so incredibly isolated as to be non-functional. At that point, the enterprise we call Israel will simply crash.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Brandeis University Commencement
The Real Issue at Brandeis University
By Sherwin Pomerantz
In the discussion of the suitability of inviting Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren to be the commencement speaker at Brandeis University later this month, graduating senior Tara Meital is quoted in the Post as opposing the invitation, given that it “will make some in the audience feel uncomfortable, such as the Palestinian graduates.”
And there you have it. Once again the essence of the discomfort among some Jews is not really that the speaker is controversial, but that inviting the official representative of the State of Israel to speak at a university founded by the American Jewish Community in the name of the first Jewish Supreme Court justice, will make non-Jews who chose to attend that university uncomfortable.
The situation takes me back to the late 1970s when I was very active as a national officer of my college fraternity, Alpha Epsilon Pi. The fraternity was founded in 1913 by a group of Jewish college students at New York University given that, at the time, Jews were generally excluded from membership in the Waspish Greek letter student societies on US campuses. The fraternity/sorority system remained segregated by race and religion until after the end of World War II when America became much more sensitive to such issues. Slowly but surely the system opened up and Jewish fraternities began to accept non-Jews while the Christian groups accepted some Jews as well. Racial integration took a few more years to become accepted.
At an annual convention held that year at the Playboy Club in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, I, as the resident traditional Jew on the National Board, was asked to conduct the memorial service for those members of the fraternity who had passed on during the previous year. The service was, of course, in English but my tradition was to close the service with the recitation of Kaddish, the prayer traditionally recited at such times and, of course, it was in Hebrew.
After the service a few of the Jewish undergraduates came up to me and voiced their displeasure over the fact that I had used Hebrew as part of the ritual. Their logic was that now that we had non-Jewish members in the organization it might be offensive to them for us to use Hebrew in any rituals of the organization. At the same convention a resolution was then drafted and passed prohibiting the further use of Hebrew in any ritual of the organization. (It was at that point in time, by the way, that I left the active service of the fraternity and decided to devote my time to causes that were more proudly Jewish.)
So there we were. A fraternity who voluntarily accepted members who were not Jewish, but all of whose members swore allegiance to its goals and objectives which were personified by its coat of arms which bearing, until today, both a Star of David and a Menorah, the historical symbols of the Jewish people for over 2,000 years, now deciding to change its policies for fear of offending “them.” In the case of the fraternity the “them” was the small cadre of non-Jews who, themselves, chose to affiliate with an organization that was identifiably Jewish. And, as always, it was not “them” that raised the objections but “us.”
Fast forward 40 years and we stand today in the very same place. Brandeis University, founded as the outward symbol of the success of the Jewish experience in the USA, with a student body, some of whom, themselves the beneficiaries of the American Jewish experience, concerned that inviting the appointed diplomatic representative of the State of Israel to the U.S. might make the Palestinian students uncomfortable.
I fly with some regularity on Royal Jordanian Airlines and every flight begins with a public reading, in Arabic, of the prayer for a safe journey. No one ever seems concerned that I might be offended by that, nor do I expect them to be. It is forbidden to enter Saudi Arabia with any non-Muslim symbols, Christian or Jewish prayer books and the like, and no one seems to be concerned that I might be offended by that. But we, of course, always seem to be ready to bend over backwards to accommodate others, even if (a) it is not in our best interests and (b) we know that the people for whom we are making the accommodation given the opportunity would not return the favor.
The University is to be commended for having stood its ground while the students who objected hopefully will never have to thank their lucky stars that there is an Israel ready to welcome them home should their native country ever cease to be the welcoming place that it is today.
Sherwin Pomerantz, a 26 year resident of Israel, is President of Atid EDI Ltd., a Jerusalem-based economic development consulting firm.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
In the discussion of the suitability of inviting Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren to be the commencement speaker at Brandeis University later this month, graduating senior Tara Meital is quoted in the Post as opposing the invitation, given that it “will make some in the audience feel uncomfortable, such as the Palestinian graduates.”
And there you have it. Once again the essence of the discomfort among some Jews is not really that the speaker is controversial, but that inviting the official representative of the State of Israel to speak at a university founded by the American Jewish Community in the name of the first Jewish Supreme Court justice, will make non-Jews who chose to attend that university uncomfortable.
The situation takes me back to the late 1970s when I was very active as a national officer of my college fraternity, Alpha Epsilon Pi. The fraternity was founded in 1913 by a group of Jewish college students at New York University given that, at the time, Jews were generally excluded from membership in the Waspish Greek letter student societies on US campuses. The fraternity/sorority system remained segregated by race and religion until after the end of World War II when America became much more sensitive to such issues. Slowly but surely the system opened up and Jewish fraternities began to accept non-Jews while the Christian groups accepted some Jews as well. Racial integration took a few more years to become accepted.
At an annual convention held that year at the Playboy Club in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, I, as the resident traditional Jew on the National Board, was asked to conduct the memorial service for those members of the fraternity who had passed on during the previous year. The service was, of course, in English but my tradition was to close the service with the recitation of Kaddish, the prayer traditionally recited at such times and, of course, it was in Hebrew.
After the service a few of the Jewish undergraduates came up to me and voiced their displeasure over the fact that I had used Hebrew as part of the ritual. Their logic was that now that we had non-Jewish members in the organization it might be offensive to them for us to use Hebrew in any rituals of the organization. At the same convention a resolution was then drafted and passed prohibiting the further use of Hebrew in any ritual of the organization. (It was at that point in time, by the way, that I left the active service of the fraternity and decided to devote my time to causes that were more proudly Jewish.)
So there we were. A fraternity who voluntarily accepted members who were not Jewish, but all of whose members swore allegiance to its goals and objectives which were personified by its coat of arms which bearing, until today, both a Star of David and a Menorah, the historical symbols of the Jewish people for over 2,000 years, now deciding to change its policies for fear of offending “them.” In the case of the fraternity the “them” was the small cadre of non-Jews who, themselves, chose to affiliate with an organization that was identifiably Jewish. And, as always, it was not “them” that raised the objections but “us.”
Fast forward 40 years and we stand today in the very same place. Brandeis University, founded as the outward symbol of the success of the Jewish experience in the USA, with a student body, some of whom, themselves the beneficiaries of the American Jewish experience, concerned that inviting the appointed diplomatic representative of the State of Israel to the U.S. might make the Palestinian students uncomfortable.
I fly with some regularity on Royal Jordanian Airlines and every flight begins with a public reading, in Arabic, of the prayer for a safe journey. No one ever seems concerned that I might be offended by that, nor do I expect them to be. It is forbidden to enter Saudi Arabia with any non-Muslim symbols, Christian or Jewish prayer books and the like, and no one seems to be concerned that I might be offended by that. But we, of course, always seem to be ready to bend over backwards to accommodate others, even if (a) it is not in our best interests and (b) we know that the people for whom we are making the accommodation given the opportunity would not return the favor.
The University is to be commended for having stood its ground while the students who objected hopefully will never have to thank their lucky stars that there is an Israel ready to welcome them home should their native country ever cease to be the welcoming place that it is today.
Sherwin Pomerantz, a 26 year resident of Israel, is President of Atid EDI Ltd., a Jerusalem-based economic development consulting firm.
Friday, April 23, 2010
My Response to Roger Cohn
Roger, once again your residual enmity towards Israel dictates and controls how you approach the issue. If you had chosen to live here you would understand that the vast majority of us who made that choice, want peace in the worst way possible. No one living here wants war, no one living here wants to drive through checkpoints to get from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, no one living here wants to see the ugly separation that was put in place for protection, and no one living here wants to worry any longer about their husbands, fathers, sons or brothers dying in order to keep this place safe.
But negotiation is a two way street and no party to a negotiation should ever have to make any concessions in order to get the other party to the table, if both are interested in finding solutions to the issues at hand. What is it about that you do not understand? And what is it about this that President Obama and his advisors do not understand?
Israel is prepared to sit down with the Palestinians tomorrow and work on a negotiated final settlement to all of the issues that are roadblocks to peace. Why aren't the Palestinians ready to do the same? Why Mr Cohen, why?
27 years ago when I was still living in Chicago and meeting with my accountant regularly to go over the books of the company, in which he had an investment as well, I once started giving him reasons why we had lost money the month before. His response? Son, if you make money, you can give me reasons. If you lose money, they are just excuses.
Roger, they are just excuses and I don't even want to know the reasons. We are sitting on our side of the table and are ready and willing to talk if someone will sit down on the other side of the table as well. Why doesn't that happen?
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
April 23, 2010
________________________________________
April 23, 2010
OP-ED COLUMNIST – NEW YORK TIMES
Israeli Unassailable Might and Unyielding Angst
By ROGER COHEN
JERUSALEM — For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his people are not traumatized by some wild delusion. No, there are facts: the rise of Iran, the fierce projection of Iran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, and the rockets that have been fired by them.
Netanyahu is firm in his core self-image as the guarantor of threatened Israeli security. Israeli withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza, led only, in his view, to the insecurity of life beneath a rocket threat.
The question he poses himself, contemplating the West Bank, is how to stop this happening a third time.
To enter Israel is to pass through a hall of mirrors. A nation exerting complete military dominance in the West Bank becomes one that, under an almost unimaginable peace accord, might be menaced from there.
A nation whose army and arsenal are without rival in the Middle East becomes one facing daily existential threat. A nation whose power has grown steadily over decades relative to its scattered enemies becomes one whose future is somehow less secure than ever.
It’s not easy to parse fact from fiction, justifiable anxiety from self-serving angst, in this pervasive Israeli narrative. I arrived on Independence Day, the nation’s 62nd birthday. Blue and white flags fluttered from cars on the superhighways. A million festive picnickers were out. “If a war takes place, we will win,” the chief of the Israel Defense Forces assured them. Did annihilation anguish really spice the barbecue?
I guess so. The threat has morphed since 1948 — from Arab armies to Palestinian militants to Islamic jihadists — but not the Israeli condition. The nation “wallows in a sense of existential threat that has only grown with time,” the daily Haaretz commented. Netanyahu, in a 20-minute interview, told me of “the physical and psychological reality” of a nation whose experience is that “concessions lead to insecurity.”
Part of the insecurity right now stems from the troubles with Israel’s ultimate guarantor, the United States. President Obama, for all his assurances about unbending American commitment, has left Israelis with a feeling of alienation, a sense he does not understand or care enough. Has he not visited two nearby Muslim states — Turkey and Egypt — while snubbing Israel?
I think what is really bothering Israelis, the root of the troubles, is that Obama is not buying the discourse, the narrative.
Instead of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with little Israel against the jihadists, he’s talking of how a festering Middle East conflict ends up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.” Instead of Iran, Iran, Iran — the refrain here — he’s saying Iran, yes, but not at the expense of Palestine. Instead of Israeli security alone, he’s talking of “the vital national security interests of the United States” and their link to Israeli actions.
This amounts to a sea change. I don’t know if it will box Israel into a defensive corner or open new avenues, but I do know an uncritical U.S. embrace of Israel has led nowhere. For now, Israeli irritation is clear.
Before meeting Netanyahu, I spoke with Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. “We are the ones suffering most in terms of blood and treasure,” he told me, reprising the Obama line. “This is the difference, we are the ones that have to live through an agreement and survive afterward. Of course we want peace but not at the price of our existence.”
He dismissed as “totally false” the notion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict feeds an environment inimical to U.S. interests. On the contrary, he said, “We pay the price for defending U.S. values in this area.”
For Ayalon, the proximity talks with the Palestinians that the Obama administration is struggling to revive are a “waste of time” and should be replaced by direct talks without preconditions. As for Obama’s demands, believed to include a complete Israeli building freeze in Jerusalem, Ayalon said, “Any demand without a quid pro quo is a mistake. Why should the Palestinians negotiate if others negotiate for them?”
So here we are, 62 years on, negotiating about negotiations whose
prospects of leading anywhere seem fantastically remote. I think Ayalon’s right about getting to the table, but peace involves embracing risk over fear, no getting around that, and with the Iranian nuclear program rumbling, Israelis look more risk-averse than I’ve ever seen them. Life’s not bad in affluent, barrier-bordered Israel even if threats loom.
The prime minister insists that he is ready to move forward, that he will not use the Iran threat as a delaying tactic, and that he and Obama respect each other’s intelligence.
What is imperative for him right now is that the United States and Israel talk to each other.
But about what exactly? The trauma of 9/11 bound the Israeli and American narratives. They have now begun to diverge with putative Palestine hanging in limbo between them.
But negotiation is a two way street and no party to a negotiation should ever have to make any concessions in order to get the other party to the table, if both are interested in finding solutions to the issues at hand. What is it about that you do not understand? And what is it about this that President Obama and his advisors do not understand?
Israel is prepared to sit down with the Palestinians tomorrow and work on a negotiated final settlement to all of the issues that are roadblocks to peace. Why aren't the Palestinians ready to do the same? Why Mr Cohen, why?
27 years ago when I was still living in Chicago and meeting with my accountant regularly to go over the books of the company, in which he had an investment as well, I once started giving him reasons why we had lost money the month before. His response? Son, if you make money, you can give me reasons. If you lose money, they are just excuses.
Roger, they are just excuses and I don't even want to know the reasons. We are sitting on our side of the table and are ready and willing to talk if someone will sit down on the other side of the table as well. Why doesn't that happen?
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
April 23, 2010
________________________________________
April 23, 2010
OP-ED COLUMNIST – NEW YORK TIMES
Israeli Unassailable Might and Unyielding Angst
By ROGER COHEN
JERUSALEM — For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his people are not traumatized by some wild delusion. No, there are facts: the rise of Iran, the fierce projection of Iran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, and the rockets that have been fired by them.
Netanyahu is firm in his core self-image as the guarantor of threatened Israeli security. Israeli withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza, led only, in his view, to the insecurity of life beneath a rocket threat.
The question he poses himself, contemplating the West Bank, is how to stop this happening a third time.
To enter Israel is to pass through a hall of mirrors. A nation exerting complete military dominance in the West Bank becomes one that, under an almost unimaginable peace accord, might be menaced from there.
A nation whose army and arsenal are without rival in the Middle East becomes one facing daily existential threat. A nation whose power has grown steadily over decades relative to its scattered enemies becomes one whose future is somehow less secure than ever.
It’s not easy to parse fact from fiction, justifiable anxiety from self-serving angst, in this pervasive Israeli narrative. I arrived on Independence Day, the nation’s 62nd birthday. Blue and white flags fluttered from cars on the superhighways. A million festive picnickers were out. “If a war takes place, we will win,” the chief of the Israel Defense Forces assured them. Did annihilation anguish really spice the barbecue?
I guess so. The threat has morphed since 1948 — from Arab armies to Palestinian militants to Islamic jihadists — but not the Israeli condition. The nation “wallows in a sense of existential threat that has only grown with time,” the daily Haaretz commented. Netanyahu, in a 20-minute interview, told me of “the physical and psychological reality” of a nation whose experience is that “concessions lead to insecurity.”
Part of the insecurity right now stems from the troubles with Israel’s ultimate guarantor, the United States. President Obama, for all his assurances about unbending American commitment, has left Israelis with a feeling of alienation, a sense he does not understand or care enough. Has he not visited two nearby Muslim states — Turkey and Egypt — while snubbing Israel?
I think what is really bothering Israelis, the root of the troubles, is that Obama is not buying the discourse, the narrative.
Instead of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with little Israel against the jihadists, he’s talking of how a festering Middle East conflict ends up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.” Instead of Iran, Iran, Iran — the refrain here — he’s saying Iran, yes, but not at the expense of Palestine. Instead of Israeli security alone, he’s talking of “the vital national security interests of the United States” and their link to Israeli actions.
This amounts to a sea change. I don’t know if it will box Israel into a defensive corner or open new avenues, but I do know an uncritical U.S. embrace of Israel has led nowhere. For now, Israeli irritation is clear.
Before meeting Netanyahu, I spoke with Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. “We are the ones suffering most in terms of blood and treasure,” he told me, reprising the Obama line. “This is the difference, we are the ones that have to live through an agreement and survive afterward. Of course we want peace but not at the price of our existence.”
He dismissed as “totally false” the notion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict feeds an environment inimical to U.S. interests. On the contrary, he said, “We pay the price for defending U.S. values in this area.”
For Ayalon, the proximity talks with the Palestinians that the Obama administration is struggling to revive are a “waste of time” and should be replaced by direct talks without preconditions. As for Obama’s demands, believed to include a complete Israeli building freeze in Jerusalem, Ayalon said, “Any demand without a quid pro quo is a mistake. Why should the Palestinians negotiate if others negotiate for them?”
So here we are, 62 years on, negotiating about negotiations whose
prospects of leading anywhere seem fantastically remote. I think Ayalon’s right about getting to the table, but peace involves embracing risk over fear, no getting around that, and with the Iranian nuclear program rumbling, Israelis look more risk-averse than I’ve ever seen them. Life’s not bad in affluent, barrier-bordered Israel even if threats loom.
The prime minister insists that he is ready to move forward, that he will not use the Iran threat as a delaying tactic, and that he and Obama respect each other’s intelligence.
What is imperative for him right now is that the United States and Israel talk to each other.
But about what exactly? The trauma of 9/11 bound the Israeli and American narratives. They have now begun to diverge with putative Palestine hanging in limbo between them.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Elements of a Palestinian State
Elements of a Palestinian State
Earlier today I received the Winter 2010 issue of the Rawabi Home Magazine, which is the official publication relating to the construction of the new Palestinian city of Rawabi north of Ramallah. Rawabi will be the first ever Palestinian municipality built according to a master plan which, when completed, will provide housing, work and recreation for 40,000 people.
Receiving the publication was no surprise as I am familiar with the project and its positive ramifications for those interested in seeing the development of responsible Palestinian governmental leadership.
What I was not prepared for, and what hit my eye immediately, was the postage on the envelope. The philately was a 500 Fils stamp of the Palestinian Authority with an artistic rendering of Mother Mary and her child with the words “Bethlehem 2000” on the side of the stamp. First of all, I was not aware that the Palestinian Authority is issuing postage. Secondly, it was interesting to see that the postage is denominated in Jordanian currency (i.e. 500 Fils is ½ of a Jordanian Dinar). My guess is that the Government of Israel is complicit in the issuance of such postage and that the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has given approval to the use of their currency as well.
Many of the readers of this blog may be surprised as well on both issues but for reasons other than those that made me look again at the envelope. My guess is that many people are not even fully aware of the extent to which the elements of statehood are being developed within areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority. The planned City of Rawabi is a major undertaking of the Palestinian leadership funded in great part by the Qatari government through one of its real estate arms. The issuing of postage, while it may seem innocuous enough, is yet another example of the march towards statehood. Israel’s readiness to deliver such mail with stamps issued by a non-state also speaks loudly to the potential emergence of a real country next door (read: facts on the ground).
People who know me well are aware that I believe the only long term political solution that will ensure the eternal viability of the enterprise known as Israel, is for our “cousins” to have a state of their own, side by side with Israel, with true peace and harmony between us. I am not making a statement here that this is possible. I am only saying that if it could be achieved it would be in the long term interests of both of us.
But what is important to note is that while our politicians debate the pros and cons of the situation, two dramatic things are happening as we speak. First, the trappings of Palestinian statehood are being developed before our eyes. Second, the world is supportive of this concept and will most probably recognize such a state whether it is declared unilaterally (as Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad promises to do next year) or as part of an agreement with us.
Given these facts our government needs to do whatever it can to ensure that the outcome of all of this activity will be peace not conflict, reconciliation not war, progress not recidivism…life not death.
Elie Wiesel has said “Hope is like peace. It is not a gift from God. It is a gift only we can give to each other.” And we may add: it is our lifeblood as well.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem, April 21, 2010
Earlier today I received the Winter 2010 issue of the Rawabi Home Magazine, which is the official publication relating to the construction of the new Palestinian city of Rawabi north of Ramallah. Rawabi will be the first ever Palestinian municipality built according to a master plan which, when completed, will provide housing, work and recreation for 40,000 people.
Receiving the publication was no surprise as I am familiar with the project and its positive ramifications for those interested in seeing the development of responsible Palestinian governmental leadership.
What I was not prepared for, and what hit my eye immediately, was the postage on the envelope. The philately was a 500 Fils stamp of the Palestinian Authority with an artistic rendering of Mother Mary and her child with the words “Bethlehem 2000” on the side of the stamp. First of all, I was not aware that the Palestinian Authority is issuing postage. Secondly, it was interesting to see that the postage is denominated in Jordanian currency (i.e. 500 Fils is ½ of a Jordanian Dinar). My guess is that the Government of Israel is complicit in the issuance of such postage and that the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has given approval to the use of their currency as well.
Many of the readers of this blog may be surprised as well on both issues but for reasons other than those that made me look again at the envelope. My guess is that many people are not even fully aware of the extent to which the elements of statehood are being developed within areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority. The planned City of Rawabi is a major undertaking of the Palestinian leadership funded in great part by the Qatari government through one of its real estate arms. The issuing of postage, while it may seem innocuous enough, is yet another example of the march towards statehood. Israel’s readiness to deliver such mail with stamps issued by a non-state also speaks loudly to the potential emergence of a real country next door (read: facts on the ground).
People who know me well are aware that I believe the only long term political solution that will ensure the eternal viability of the enterprise known as Israel, is for our “cousins” to have a state of their own, side by side with Israel, with true peace and harmony between us. I am not making a statement here that this is possible. I am only saying that if it could be achieved it would be in the long term interests of both of us.
But what is important to note is that while our politicians debate the pros and cons of the situation, two dramatic things are happening as we speak. First, the trappings of Palestinian statehood are being developed before our eyes. Second, the world is supportive of this concept and will most probably recognize such a state whether it is declared unilaterally (as Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad promises to do next year) or as part of an agreement with us.
Given these facts our government needs to do whatever it can to ensure that the outcome of all of this activity will be peace not conflict, reconciliation not war, progress not recidivism…life not death.
Elie Wiesel has said “Hope is like peace. It is not a gift from God. It is a gift only we can give to each other.” And we may add: it is our lifeblood as well.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem, April 21, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Of Loneliness and a World Gone Mad
The Tel Aviv stock exchange reached its highest level ever immediately after the Passover holiday. Not typically a symptom of country under a seemingly ever-growing cloud of existential threat. And in spite of news that seems to grow more worrying by the day, Israelis and foreigners alike continue to fork over millions for towering apartments in range of ever more powerful missiles from an ever widening array of hostile powers which threaten daily to unleash them. Multinationals continue to invest and to build and though perhaps not in masses, new immigrants arrive daily from prosperous and relatively quiet countries. Rare are the voices that suggest that perhaps Nero is fiddling while Rome burns. And yet, one wonders if even the citizens of Czechoslovakia in 1938 felt the same deep sense of abandonment that many Israelis feel today. Did they feel as deeply misunderstood by a topsy-turvy world in which right is wrong and political expediency (to say nothing of a unquenchable thirst for oil) replaces any semblance of morality? The Jordanian monarch is probably right when he states publicly that Israel is more isolated than North Korea. Why shouldn't this be so in a world in which Libya can chair the UN Human Rights Commission and in which Israel's medical mission to earthquake stricken Haiti can be accused by supposedly reputable people of harvesting organs?
In spite of constant attacks and censures from even those whom we considered to be level-headed friends, most Israelis somehow continue to remain reasonably secure in their footing on the moral high ground. Most of us are not so blind or arrogant as to be unable to admit that perhaps we might have made some mistakes, done some things differently and that tragic errors do occur. At the very least we might have explained ourselves better. Not that any of it would have made much difference in a world which seems to have decided that Israel is guilty no matter what it has or has not done, but it might have made those whose faith has begun to wane believe more strongly in the justice of our cause
This is not a matter of some kind of double standard. Israelis probably wouldn't mind very much being held to a higher standard than the rest of the world. It should be our raison d'être to be "state of the art" in morality as well as in technology and I think we should stop complaining about that. It is or should not be a double standard that troubles us, but the lack of any moral standards at all that contributes to a profound loneliness. True, at times that standard goes to absurd lengths as where building apartments on disputed land somehow becomes more heinous than all of the wonderful human rights accomplishments of some of our neighbors like raping condemned women, to say nothing of condemning them to death for frequently fabricated crimes, or hanging homosexuals or executing heretics for the practice of any religion but that of Islam (and perhaps only one variant of that). Or when atrocities which never happened are reported on page one and retractions, if there are any, may find themselves buried on page 46. Everyone remembers the reports of the Jenin massacre and of the countless other fabricated massacres. Who remembers the subsequent corrections? Probably very few people, since generally they aren't even published.
We have little choice but to continue to do what we believe is right and to build our lives, our land, and our future and to try as far as is humanly possible to so in a manner that will at the very least contribute our own belief in ourselves and the justice of what we are doing here.
Ben Dansker
Vice President, Atid EDI
The Tel Aviv stock exchange reached its highest level ever immediately after the Passover holiday. Not typically a symptom of country under a seemingly ever-growing cloud of existential threat. And in spite of news that seems to grow more worrying by the day, Israelis and foreigners alike continue to fork over millions for towering apartments in range of ever more powerful missiles from an ever widening array of hostile powers which threaten daily to unleash them. Multinationals continue to invest and to build and though perhaps not in masses, new immigrants arrive daily from prosperous and relatively quiet countries. Rare are the voices that suggest that perhaps Nero is fiddling while Rome burns. And yet, one wonders if even the citizens of Czechoslovakia in 1938 felt the same deep sense of abandonment that many Israelis feel today. Did they feel as deeply misunderstood by a topsy-turvy world in which right is wrong and political expediency (to say nothing of a unquenchable thirst for oil) replaces any semblance of morality? The Jordanian monarch is probably right when he states publicly that Israel is more isolated than North Korea. Why shouldn't this be so in a world in which Libya can chair the UN Human Rights Commission and in which Israel's medical mission to earthquake stricken Haiti can be accused by supposedly reputable people of harvesting organs?
In spite of constant attacks and censures from even those whom we considered to be level-headed friends, most Israelis somehow continue to remain reasonably secure in their footing on the moral high ground. Most of us are not so blind or arrogant as to be unable to admit that perhaps we might have made some mistakes, done some things differently and that tragic errors do occur. At the very least we might have explained ourselves better. Not that any of it would have made much difference in a world which seems to have decided that Israel is guilty no matter what it has or has not done, but it might have made those whose faith has begun to wane believe more strongly in the justice of our cause
This is not a matter of some kind of double standard. Israelis probably wouldn't mind very much being held to a higher standard than the rest of the world. It should be our raison d'être to be "state of the art" in morality as well as in technology and I think we should stop complaining about that. It is or should not be a double standard that troubles us, but the lack of any moral standards at all that contributes to a profound loneliness. True, at times that standard goes to absurd lengths as where building apartments on disputed land somehow becomes more heinous than all of the wonderful human rights accomplishments of some of our neighbors like raping condemned women, to say nothing of condemning them to death for frequently fabricated crimes, or hanging homosexuals or executing heretics for the practice of any religion but that of Islam (and perhaps only one variant of that). Or when atrocities which never happened are reported on page one and retractions, if there are any, may find themselves buried on page 46. Everyone remembers the reports of the Jenin massacre and of the countless other fabricated massacres. Who remembers the subsequent corrections? Probably very few people, since generally they aren't even published.
We have little choice but to continue to do what we believe is right and to build our lives, our land, and our future and to try as far as is humanly possible to so in a manner that will at the very least contribute our own belief in ourselves and the justice of what we are doing here.
Ben Dansker
Vice President, Atid EDI
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Response to the NY Times
This is my response to the editorial below which appeared in the NY Times on Friday.
===================================================================================
To the editor of the NY Times:
Your editorial on the need for Israeli Prime Minister to make yet more concessions in order to get the Palestinians to the negotiating table once again bespeaks the paper’s unwillingness to understand the playing field on which Israel is operating.
Israel has already conceded its willingness to agree to a two state solution with a Palestinian state on its border; it has agreed, in principle, to return to the 1967 borders in return for true peace; it has agreed, as well, to allocate a portion of what the world calls East Jerusalem to the Palestinians for its capital; and, in a show of incredible commitment to the peace process itself, it unilaterally withdrew from Gaza displacing thousands of its citizens and destroying over a dozen communities, for which it received absolutely nothing in return save a five year barrage of rockets in the south of the country and the continuing loss of its troop’s lives defending its southern border (witness the death of two of our soldiers on Friday at the hands of Hamas operatives who were trying to lay mines on the border itself).
So, none of us living here can blame the Prime Minister for standing tough on construction anywhere in Jerusalem and even in biblical Judea and Samaria which the world refers to as the West Bank. Israel’s position in this regard is supported by the vast majority of the Israeli public and taking this position in a dialogue with an ally such as the US should not have caused President Obama to treat our Prime Minister during his US visit last week like someone from Equatorial Guinea.
Yes, friends have to be honest with each other. But friends also have to recognize the realities with which each of them are involved and, as both a US and an Israel citizen, I must say that this time I think the reaction of the US administration has been “way over the top” during the post-Biden visit discussions. Frankly, when and if the Palestinian leadership decides to come to the negotiating table in earnest, we here in Israel will still have to have some concessions to offer in order to make peace. The real settlements, not Jerusalem neighborhoods but those small but courageous communities in the West Bank, will probably be on the chopping block at that time. No good negotiator would yield those in advance of the discussion.
Sincerely,
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
=============================================================================
March 27, 2010
EDITORIAL
Mr. Obama and Israel
After taking office last year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel privately told many Americans and Europeans that he was committed to and capable of peacemaking, despite the hard-line positions that he had used to get elected for a second time. Trust me, he told them. We were skeptical when we first heard that, and we’re even more skeptical now.
All this week, the Obama administration had hoped Mr. Netanyahu would give it something to work with, a way to resolve the poisonous contretemps over Jerusalem and to finally restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. It would have been a relief if they had succeeded. Serious negotiations on a two-state solution are in all their interests. And the challenges the United States and Israel face — especially Iran’s nuclear program — are too great for the leaders not to have a close working relationship.
But after a cabinet meeting on Friday, Mr. Netanyahu and his right-wing government still insisted that they would not change their policy of building homes in the city, including East Jerusalem, which Palestinians hope to make the capital of an independent state.
President Obama made pursuing a peace deal a priority and has been understandably furious at Israel’s response. He correctly sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a factor in wider regional instability.
Mr. Netanyahu’s government provoked the controversy two weeks ago when it disclosed plans for 1,600 new housing units in an ultra-orthodox neighborhood in East Jerusalem just as Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. was on a fence-mending visit and Israeli-Palestinian “proximity talks” were to begin.
Last year, Mr. Netanyahu rejected Mr. Obama’s call for a freeze on all settlement building. On Tuesday — just before Mr. Obama hosted Mr. Netanyahu at the White House — Israeli officials revealed plans to build 20 units in the Shepherd Hotel compound of East Jerusalem.
Palestinians are justifiably worried that these projects nibble away at the land available for their future state. The disputes with Israel have made Mr. Obama look weak and have given Palestinians and Arab leaders an excuse to walk away from the proximity talks (in which Mr. Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, would shuttle between Jerusalem and Ramallah) that Washington nurtured.
Mr. Obama was right to demand that Mr. Netanyahu repair the damage. Details of their deliberately low-key White House meeting (no photos, no press, not even a joint statement afterward) have not been revealed. We hope Israel is being pressed to at least temporarily halt building in East Jerusalem as a sign of good faith. Jerusalem’s future must be decided in negotiations.
The administration should also insist that proximity talks, once begun, grapple immediately with core issues like borders and security, not incidentals. And it must ensure that the talks evolve quickly to direct negotiations — the only realistic format for an enduring agreement.
Many Israelis find Mr. Obama’s willingness to challenge Israel unsettling. We find it refreshing that he has forced public debate on issues that must be debated publicly for a peace deal to happen. He must also press Palestinians and Arab leaders just as forcefully.
Questions from Israeli hard-liners and others about his commitment to Israel’s security are misplaced. The question is whether Mr. Netanyahu is able or willing to lead his country to a peace deal. He grudgingly endorsed the two-state solution. Does he intend to get there?
===================================================================================
To the editor of the NY Times:
Your editorial on the need for Israeli Prime Minister to make yet more concessions in order to get the Palestinians to the negotiating table once again bespeaks the paper’s unwillingness to understand the playing field on which Israel is operating.
Israel has already conceded its willingness to agree to a two state solution with a Palestinian state on its border; it has agreed, in principle, to return to the 1967 borders in return for true peace; it has agreed, as well, to allocate a portion of what the world calls East Jerusalem to the Palestinians for its capital; and, in a show of incredible commitment to the peace process itself, it unilaterally withdrew from Gaza displacing thousands of its citizens and destroying over a dozen communities, for which it received absolutely nothing in return save a five year barrage of rockets in the south of the country and the continuing loss of its troop’s lives defending its southern border (witness the death of two of our soldiers on Friday at the hands of Hamas operatives who were trying to lay mines on the border itself).
So, none of us living here can blame the Prime Minister for standing tough on construction anywhere in Jerusalem and even in biblical Judea and Samaria which the world refers to as the West Bank. Israel’s position in this regard is supported by the vast majority of the Israeli public and taking this position in a dialogue with an ally such as the US should not have caused President Obama to treat our Prime Minister during his US visit last week like someone from Equatorial Guinea.
Yes, friends have to be honest with each other. But friends also have to recognize the realities with which each of them are involved and, as both a US and an Israel citizen, I must say that this time I think the reaction of the US administration has been “way over the top” during the post-Biden visit discussions. Frankly, when and if the Palestinian leadership decides to come to the negotiating table in earnest, we here in Israel will still have to have some concessions to offer in order to make peace. The real settlements, not Jerusalem neighborhoods but those small but courageous communities in the West Bank, will probably be on the chopping block at that time. No good negotiator would yield those in advance of the discussion.
Sincerely,
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
=============================================================================
March 27, 2010
EDITORIAL
Mr. Obama and Israel
After taking office last year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel privately told many Americans and Europeans that he was committed to and capable of peacemaking, despite the hard-line positions that he had used to get elected for a second time. Trust me, he told them. We were skeptical when we first heard that, and we’re even more skeptical now.
All this week, the Obama administration had hoped Mr. Netanyahu would give it something to work with, a way to resolve the poisonous contretemps over Jerusalem and to finally restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. It would have been a relief if they had succeeded. Serious negotiations on a two-state solution are in all their interests. And the challenges the United States and Israel face — especially Iran’s nuclear program — are too great for the leaders not to have a close working relationship.
But after a cabinet meeting on Friday, Mr. Netanyahu and his right-wing government still insisted that they would not change their policy of building homes in the city, including East Jerusalem, which Palestinians hope to make the capital of an independent state.
President Obama made pursuing a peace deal a priority and has been understandably furious at Israel’s response. He correctly sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a factor in wider regional instability.
Mr. Netanyahu’s government provoked the controversy two weeks ago when it disclosed plans for 1,600 new housing units in an ultra-orthodox neighborhood in East Jerusalem just as Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. was on a fence-mending visit and Israeli-Palestinian “proximity talks” were to begin.
Last year, Mr. Netanyahu rejected Mr. Obama’s call for a freeze on all settlement building. On Tuesday — just before Mr. Obama hosted Mr. Netanyahu at the White House — Israeli officials revealed plans to build 20 units in the Shepherd Hotel compound of East Jerusalem.
Palestinians are justifiably worried that these projects nibble away at the land available for their future state. The disputes with Israel have made Mr. Obama look weak and have given Palestinians and Arab leaders an excuse to walk away from the proximity talks (in which Mr. Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, would shuttle between Jerusalem and Ramallah) that Washington nurtured.
Mr. Obama was right to demand that Mr. Netanyahu repair the damage. Details of their deliberately low-key White House meeting (no photos, no press, not even a joint statement afterward) have not been revealed. We hope Israel is being pressed to at least temporarily halt building in East Jerusalem as a sign of good faith. Jerusalem’s future must be decided in negotiations.
The administration should also insist that proximity talks, once begun, grapple immediately with core issues like borders and security, not incidentals. And it must ensure that the talks evolve quickly to direct negotiations — the only realistic format for an enduring agreement.
Many Israelis find Mr. Obama’s willingness to challenge Israel unsettling. We find it refreshing that he has forced public debate on issues that must be debated publicly for a peace deal to happen. He must also press Palestinians and Arab leaders just as forcefully.
Questions from Israeli hard-liners and others about his commitment to Israel’s security are misplaced. The question is whether Mr. Netanyahu is able or willing to lead his country to a peace deal. He grudgingly endorsed the two-state solution. Does he intend to get there?
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Israel Apartheid Accusations in Portland
Israel Apartheid Accusations in Portland
Earlier today my business partner and I were scheduled to deliver a seminar at a downtown Portland, Oregon hotel on the topic of doing business in Israel and the Middle East. Portland was stop number two on a four city tour which began yesterday in Denver and will move next week to Jackson, Mississippi and then New Orleans.
We had discussed before we left Israel that it was entirely possible that some people, seeing the topic, would decide to use the occasion to demonstrate against Israel by parading outside the seminar venue. So it was no surprise when at 7:30 AM the manager of the hotel came to the site of the seminar to tell us that there were a handful of demonstrators outside the hotel voicing their opposition to Israel knowing that an event related to Israel was scheduled to be held inside the building.
The manager offered that when we left the building if we wanted to use a side entrance he would escort us in that direction. I countered by saying that we were actually guests in the hotel so we had no reason to be concerned about leaving as, after the seminar, our intent was to go back to our rooms. He looked a bit puzzled but simply said he was ready to assist if need be. And that, we thought, was the end of it.
The seminar, sponsored by the Oregon Business Development Department, went well, with an opening presentation by the Mayor of Portland’s Director of International Affairs. After our presentation the floor was thrown open for questions and that’s when the shock began.
In this audience of business people who were presumably there to learn how to enter new export markets in order to increase their sales volume in these difficult economic times, the first questioner wanted to know why a department of the state government was sponsoring an event related to increasing business with an “apartheid” country, a country that was guilty of a host of human rights violations and continued to sieze territory against the laws of the Geneva convention. Not realizing there would be more questions of this type, our response was basically that we do not engage in political discussions during business meetings.
However, the second questioner continued in kind wanting to know why the state was not warning its companies of the danger of doing business with Israeli firms. After all, he continue, the strength of the boycott campaign against Israel continues to grow and local companies may find themselves boycotted in America if they continue to do business with Israel. The representative of Oregon in the room responded by saying that there were dangers in doing business in a lot of places in the world and the Department did its best to apprise local companies of the dangers but did not dissuade them from entering such markets.
But all of this is, of course, not the problem. The problem is that most of us living in Israel, while we hear of incidents like this, tend not to internalize them and that is probably natural. But the official government line, of late, has taken the same tack, saying that while the government is aware of the problem, it is nothing new and, therefore, does not warrant a response. This was the official line a couple of weeks ago after Ambassador to the US Michael Oren was disrespected at a presentation at the University of California/Irvine as were other diplomats in the UK as well.
This mistaken approach that nothing is serious enough to warrant a response, is the same kind of thinking that ultimately results in calamity for the Jewish people. For those who have not seen anti Israel and/or anti Jewish behavior face to face, perhaps it is possible to think this is not serious. But when you see it up close as we did this morning, the clear and present danger makes itself quite obvious.
George Santayana put it best when he opined “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Let’s hope he was wrong.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Portland, Oregon
11 March 2010
Earlier today my business partner and I were scheduled to deliver a seminar at a downtown Portland, Oregon hotel on the topic of doing business in Israel and the Middle East. Portland was stop number two on a four city tour which began yesterday in Denver and will move next week to Jackson, Mississippi and then New Orleans.
We had discussed before we left Israel that it was entirely possible that some people, seeing the topic, would decide to use the occasion to demonstrate against Israel by parading outside the seminar venue. So it was no surprise when at 7:30 AM the manager of the hotel came to the site of the seminar to tell us that there were a handful of demonstrators outside the hotel voicing their opposition to Israel knowing that an event related to Israel was scheduled to be held inside the building.
The manager offered that when we left the building if we wanted to use a side entrance he would escort us in that direction. I countered by saying that we were actually guests in the hotel so we had no reason to be concerned about leaving as, after the seminar, our intent was to go back to our rooms. He looked a bit puzzled but simply said he was ready to assist if need be. And that, we thought, was the end of it.
The seminar, sponsored by the Oregon Business Development Department, went well, with an opening presentation by the Mayor of Portland’s Director of International Affairs. After our presentation the floor was thrown open for questions and that’s when the shock began.
In this audience of business people who were presumably there to learn how to enter new export markets in order to increase their sales volume in these difficult economic times, the first questioner wanted to know why a department of the state government was sponsoring an event related to increasing business with an “apartheid” country, a country that was guilty of a host of human rights violations and continued to sieze territory against the laws of the Geneva convention. Not realizing there would be more questions of this type, our response was basically that we do not engage in political discussions during business meetings.
However, the second questioner continued in kind wanting to know why the state was not warning its companies of the danger of doing business with Israeli firms. After all, he continue, the strength of the boycott campaign against Israel continues to grow and local companies may find themselves boycotted in America if they continue to do business with Israel. The representative of Oregon in the room responded by saying that there were dangers in doing business in a lot of places in the world and the Department did its best to apprise local companies of the dangers but did not dissuade them from entering such markets.
But all of this is, of course, not the problem. The problem is that most of us living in Israel, while we hear of incidents like this, tend not to internalize them and that is probably natural. But the official government line, of late, has taken the same tack, saying that while the government is aware of the problem, it is nothing new and, therefore, does not warrant a response. This was the official line a couple of weeks ago after Ambassador to the US Michael Oren was disrespected at a presentation at the University of California/Irvine as were other diplomats in the UK as well.
This mistaken approach that nothing is serious enough to warrant a response, is the same kind of thinking that ultimately results in calamity for the Jewish people. For those who have not seen anti Israel and/or anti Jewish behavior face to face, perhaps it is possible to think this is not serious. But when you see it up close as we did this morning, the clear and present danger makes itself quite obvious.
George Santayana put it best when he opined “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Let’s hope he was wrong.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Portland, Oregon
11 March 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Protecting Jewish Heritage Sites Worldwide
The recent announcement by Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that the government has added the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem to Israel’s list of national heritage sites has raised a storm of protest in the Palestinian community that is both worrying and disappointing.
On Tuesday of this week Ismail Hanieyh of Hamas urged Palestinians in the West Bank to rise up against Israeli forces in response to the decision which Palestinian Authority President Abbas has warned may trigger another “intifada” against the Jews.
The worrying aspect of the response clearly relates to our right as a people to be concerned for the long term welfare of sites worldwide that reflect our history and traditions. Most countries in the world, even those not counted among our friends, recognize this right and even respect it. So, in countries where we have good diplomatic relations, such as Poland, the government there has no qualms whatsoever about our paying to rehabilitate synagogues, cemeteries and other community buildings whose existence is testimony to our long history in that particular place. In Egypt the central government itself is paying for the restoration of a historic synagogue in Cairo because they recognize the importance of the structure in the history of that country. Even in Lebanon, where Hizbollah dominates the political scene, work is now under way to bring the historic Magen-Avraham Synagogue in downtown Beirut to its former glory.
As for the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb, of course we should be worried about their long term well being, given where they are located, in territory which most likely will end up in the hands of a Palestinian government when and if a state is created. After all, was it not in October 2000 after Israel gave over Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus to Palestinian control that the site was ransacked and torched and then closed to further visits by Jews? Should we not be afraid that when and if sites such as the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb end up under Palestinian control that they might suffer the same fate as Jacob’s Tomb? And why wouldn’t the Palestinian Authority welcome the contribution of funds from Israel to assist in the upkeep of these sites? Does it make any sense otherwise?
The disappointing side of the response of our “cousins” is that, once again, a recognition by Israel of the importance to us, as Jews, of the burial place of our patriarchs and their wives, is used to encourage anger, resistance and political discomfort rather than applauding the decision for what it is…a statement about our concern for the long term well being of two of the most important sites in the history of the Jewish people.
The story is told that in 1967 when then Defense Minister Moshe Dayan arrived in Hebron to accept the Arab surrender, he was given the keys to the Cave of the Patriarchs and, after touring the inside of the structure, he returned the keys to the Arabs at the site. Later, Rabbi Goren, the Chief Rabbi of the IDF, brought a Torah Scroll and Holy Ark into the Herodian-era structure and hung an Israeli flag outside. The next day he received a telegram from Dayan containing the following orders: “1. Remove the Torah and Ark; 2. Lower the flag; 3. Anyone entering the building must take off his shoes, because it is a mosque.” Rabbi Goren responded by telegram with the following response: “1.The Torah is holy - it stays. 2. The flag means to me what it means to you - if you want to take it down, you do it. I'm not touching it.” Dayan sent an officer into Hebron to remove the flag. On his way back to Jerusalem, the unfortunate man was killed in an auto accident. Dayan then rescinded the other orders he had originally given.
The Roman Senator, Cicero, in his first oration against Cataline began with the Latin words “O tempora, O mores” which translates to “Oh what times, oh what customs” as he bemoaned the viciousness and corruption of the Roman Empire. Today, we might utter the very same words as we listen to the viciousness of the response to seemingly everything we do and, more often than not, by entities which themselves are corrupt as well.
We dare not back down and, in retrospect, perhaps Moshe Dayan really made a mistake in giving up those keys so easily. We should learn a lesson from history.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
February 24, 2010
The recent announcement by Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that the government has added the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem to Israel’s list of national heritage sites has raised a storm of protest in the Palestinian community that is both worrying and disappointing.
On Tuesday of this week Ismail Hanieyh of Hamas urged Palestinians in the West Bank to rise up against Israeli forces in response to the decision which Palestinian Authority President Abbas has warned may trigger another “intifada” against the Jews.
The worrying aspect of the response clearly relates to our right as a people to be concerned for the long term welfare of sites worldwide that reflect our history and traditions. Most countries in the world, even those not counted among our friends, recognize this right and even respect it. So, in countries where we have good diplomatic relations, such as Poland, the government there has no qualms whatsoever about our paying to rehabilitate synagogues, cemeteries and other community buildings whose existence is testimony to our long history in that particular place. In Egypt the central government itself is paying for the restoration of a historic synagogue in Cairo because they recognize the importance of the structure in the history of that country. Even in Lebanon, where Hizbollah dominates the political scene, work is now under way to bring the historic Magen-Avraham Synagogue in downtown Beirut to its former glory.
As for the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb, of course we should be worried about their long term well being, given where they are located, in territory which most likely will end up in the hands of a Palestinian government when and if a state is created. After all, was it not in October 2000 after Israel gave over Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus to Palestinian control that the site was ransacked and torched and then closed to further visits by Jews? Should we not be afraid that when and if sites such as the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb end up under Palestinian control that they might suffer the same fate as Jacob’s Tomb? And why wouldn’t the Palestinian Authority welcome the contribution of funds from Israel to assist in the upkeep of these sites? Does it make any sense otherwise?
The disappointing side of the response of our “cousins” is that, once again, a recognition by Israel of the importance to us, as Jews, of the burial place of our patriarchs and their wives, is used to encourage anger, resistance and political discomfort rather than applauding the decision for what it is…a statement about our concern for the long term well being of two of the most important sites in the history of the Jewish people.
The story is told that in 1967 when then Defense Minister Moshe Dayan arrived in Hebron to accept the Arab surrender, he was given the keys to the Cave of the Patriarchs and, after touring the inside of the structure, he returned the keys to the Arabs at the site. Later, Rabbi Goren, the Chief Rabbi of the IDF, brought a Torah Scroll and Holy Ark into the Herodian-era structure and hung an Israeli flag outside. The next day he received a telegram from Dayan containing the following orders: “1. Remove the Torah and Ark; 2. Lower the flag; 3. Anyone entering the building must take off his shoes, because it is a mosque.” Rabbi Goren responded by telegram with the following response: “1.The Torah is holy - it stays. 2. The flag means to me what it means to you - if you want to take it down, you do it. I'm not touching it.” Dayan sent an officer into Hebron to remove the flag. On his way back to Jerusalem, the unfortunate man was killed in an auto accident. Dayan then rescinded the other orders he had originally given.
The Roman Senator, Cicero, in his first oration against Cataline began with the Latin words “O tempora, O mores” which translates to “Oh what times, oh what customs” as he bemoaned the viciousness and corruption of the Roman Empire. Today, we might utter the very same words as we listen to the viciousness of the response to seemingly everything we do and, more often than not, by entities which themselves are corrupt as well.
We dare not back down and, in retrospect, perhaps Moshe Dayan really made a mistake in giving up those keys so easily. We should learn a lesson from history.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
February 24, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Threat of Interational Apartheid Week
The Threat of International Apartheid Week
As some of my readers may know, the period of time from March 1-14, 2010 has been designated “Apartheid Week” worldwide. You can see more about this attack on Israel’s legitimacy by going to www.apartheidweek.org where the venom of the organizers is clearly spelled out and shared in a video as well.
The theme of the week is boycott, divestment and sanctions, all designed to, as the web site states, “educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system” and clearly aimed at feeding the appetite of those who seek to destroy the state and rid Israel of its Jewish and Zionist roots.
It is amazing to me that given that this is an international event, our government here has been incredibly quiet about the negative ramifications of such an event on world opinion. Unless, of course, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is taking the same position as it took to the insulting treatment given our Ambassador to the US Michael Oren when he tried to speak in California two weeks ago. At that time, in a truly amazing misunderstanding of the situation, the reaction was that this was all being blown out of proportion and that this kind of thing happens all the time.
Well, indeed it does but if there is no reaction, if there is no movement to counter the false accusations and the attendant libelous statements, then we are guilty of aiding and abetting those who seek to discredit us or worse, to destroy us.
To the credit of the US Jewish community, people there have mounted a multi pronged campaign to counter those who support this vile enterprise.
From what I have heard Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods, two national retail food chains there feature Israeli products and the American Jewish Community is urging people to make a point during this period of buying said products and letting the store managers know why the buyers are doing so. There is even a web site, www.buyisraelgoods.org that tells people where they can go to buy Israeli products.
In addition, in certain regions such as the New York metropolitan area student groups have organized to oppose the boycott. One of those, the David Project, also has its own website: www.davidproject.org.
This writer applauds those efforts and wishes those who have committed themselves to spreading the truth, will be successful. Hopefully, all the people around the world who care about preserving Israel’s right to exist as a democratic and Jewish state will take up the challenge and do whatever can be done to discredit the deligitimizing effect of the work of the week’s organizers and make the point that whatever situation actually exists on the ground here, it is definitely not apartheid.
In 1777 Thomas Paine wrote “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” And Andrew Jackson, in his farewell address to the nation in 1837 stated “Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty.”
Let us hope we are up to the challenge.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem, February 22, 2010
As some of my readers may know, the period of time from March 1-14, 2010 has been designated “Apartheid Week” worldwide. You can see more about this attack on Israel’s legitimacy by going to www.apartheidweek.org where the venom of the organizers is clearly spelled out and shared in a video as well.
The theme of the week is boycott, divestment and sanctions, all designed to, as the web site states, “educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system” and clearly aimed at feeding the appetite of those who seek to destroy the state and rid Israel of its Jewish and Zionist roots.
It is amazing to me that given that this is an international event, our government here has been incredibly quiet about the negative ramifications of such an event on world opinion. Unless, of course, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is taking the same position as it took to the insulting treatment given our Ambassador to the US Michael Oren when he tried to speak in California two weeks ago. At that time, in a truly amazing misunderstanding of the situation, the reaction was that this was all being blown out of proportion and that this kind of thing happens all the time.
Well, indeed it does but if there is no reaction, if there is no movement to counter the false accusations and the attendant libelous statements, then we are guilty of aiding and abetting those who seek to discredit us or worse, to destroy us.
To the credit of the US Jewish community, people there have mounted a multi pronged campaign to counter those who support this vile enterprise.
From what I have heard Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods, two national retail food chains there feature Israeli products and the American Jewish Community is urging people to make a point during this period of buying said products and letting the store managers know why the buyers are doing so. There is even a web site, www.buyisraelgoods.org that tells people where they can go to buy Israeli products.
In addition, in certain regions such as the New York metropolitan area student groups have organized to oppose the boycott. One of those, the David Project, also has its own website: www.davidproject.org.
This writer applauds those efforts and wishes those who have committed themselves to spreading the truth, will be successful. Hopefully, all the people around the world who care about preserving Israel’s right to exist as a democratic and Jewish state will take up the challenge and do whatever can be done to discredit the deligitimizing effect of the work of the week’s organizers and make the point that whatever situation actually exists on the ground here, it is definitely not apartheid.
In 1777 Thomas Paine wrote “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” And Andrew Jackson, in his farewell address to the nation in 1837 stated “Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty.”
Let us hope we are up to the challenge.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem, February 22, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Facing the Hard Facts on Iran
Today’s papers are, as usual, full of articles about Iran and how the world should deal with the growing nuclear threat emanating from that sorry corner of the world.
Talk continues about increasing sanctions, isolating the country and, of course, whether or not a military option exists and, if it is an alternative, which country (or countries) will do it? Frankly, I am tiring of the rhetoric which seems to have no effect whatsoever on the Iranian regime as it continues to thumb its nose at the entire world.
From the Israel Street, it seems to me that it is time to face the facts as they are today and as they pretty much will remain for some time to come:
• Sanctions would be wonderful if they could be applied uniformly but all evidence points to the fact that China and Russia, given their specific interests in cooperating with Iran, will never support effective sanctions again Iran. If they have not been willing to come to the table until now, most probably they never will.
• The US and Israel in particular speak about a military option but again, let’s face the facts. America is already fighting two wars in the region and most probably has no taste for entering a third area of conflict. Admiral Mullen, Head of the US’ Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Israel this week, has said in no uncertain terms that invoking a military option would be a disaster for the region. Anyone that high in the US government does not make statements like this unless they reflect the policy of the administration. So, no doubt, the US will not invoke a military option against Iran anytime soon.
• As for Israel, while we say that we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran, the fact is that a military strike by Israel, if successful, would not stop Iran’s nuclear program as their sites are too numerous and too well hidden to be successfully disabled (Iran is not the Iraq of 29 years ago). Secondly, Israel understands as well that such a strike on our part would cause mass casualties here and there is a real question whether we can psychologically recover from thousands killed and hundreds of thousands injured by Iran’s response to an Israeli attack.
• There is also a great deal of talk about or hope for the destabilizing of the current regime in Iran. But that, too, if it happens, does not guarantee the end of the threat. The basic foundations of the political establishment in Iran operate on a set of principles and objectives that will, most probably, remain in place even if the dissidents were to take over. A new regime might be lest bombastic and even more pleasant to deal with, but we dare not delude ourselves into thinking that a Moussavi or his equivalent will present a kindler, gentler approach to the region and the rest of the world.
We can believe otherwise but the facts are staring us in the face and are difficult to refute.
Having said this, what real options are available to those of us who are sincerely and legitimately concerned about the direction that Iran is taking in its foreign policy? I think that there are only two that have any chance of success and both accept, in principle that the world will have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.
First, the world’s media should simply stop reporting on Iran and its maniacal leader. Every time Ahmadinejad is quoted in the papers spewing forth his vitriol against the US, Israel, the UK, the West, or whoever, it gives him exposure he does not deserve. At the risk of being too simplistic, I say “who cares what he says?” The world press should simply isolate Iran as a news item. Neither Ahmadinejad nor the regime there are important enough for me to read about every time I pick up a paper or go on line. And we can do this one country at a time, starting here.
Secondly, the President of Iran, given his continual calls for the destruction of a member state of the United Nations, does not deserve to be hosted by any country that considers itself a member of the community of nations. As such, countries should simply reject any request from Iran for its president to visit. The US, as an example, while it has to allow Ahmadinejad to come to New York for the annual opening session of the UN, does not have to permit him to stay in the country any longer than the time allotted for his speech. To permit him to travel the region and speak to universities and other public policy groups is simply encouraging him to become even more recalcitrant in his approach to countries with which he disagrees. He should be allowed to land, go to the UN, give his obnoxious speech and leave….end of story.
40 years ago when I started my first business in Chicago, I had an accountant with whom I met every month. He was also an investor in the company and at one of those meetings he said something that has stayed with me all these years: “Make sure you never believe your own lies.” We human beings tell ourselves all sorts of stories but we need to make sure that we never believe our own lies.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem, 16 February 2010
Today’s papers are, as usual, full of articles about Iran and how the world should deal with the growing nuclear threat emanating from that sorry corner of the world.
Talk continues about increasing sanctions, isolating the country and, of course, whether or not a military option exists and, if it is an alternative, which country (or countries) will do it? Frankly, I am tiring of the rhetoric which seems to have no effect whatsoever on the Iranian regime as it continues to thumb its nose at the entire world.
From the Israel Street, it seems to me that it is time to face the facts as they are today and as they pretty much will remain for some time to come:
• Sanctions would be wonderful if they could be applied uniformly but all evidence points to the fact that China and Russia, given their specific interests in cooperating with Iran, will never support effective sanctions again Iran. If they have not been willing to come to the table until now, most probably they never will.
• The US and Israel in particular speak about a military option but again, let’s face the facts. America is already fighting two wars in the region and most probably has no taste for entering a third area of conflict. Admiral Mullen, Head of the US’ Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Israel this week, has said in no uncertain terms that invoking a military option would be a disaster for the region. Anyone that high in the US government does not make statements like this unless they reflect the policy of the administration. So, no doubt, the US will not invoke a military option against Iran anytime soon.
• As for Israel, while we say that we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran, the fact is that a military strike by Israel, if successful, would not stop Iran’s nuclear program as their sites are too numerous and too well hidden to be successfully disabled (Iran is not the Iraq of 29 years ago). Secondly, Israel understands as well that such a strike on our part would cause mass casualties here and there is a real question whether we can psychologically recover from thousands killed and hundreds of thousands injured by Iran’s response to an Israeli attack.
• There is also a great deal of talk about or hope for the destabilizing of the current regime in Iran. But that, too, if it happens, does not guarantee the end of the threat. The basic foundations of the political establishment in Iran operate on a set of principles and objectives that will, most probably, remain in place even if the dissidents were to take over. A new regime might be lest bombastic and even more pleasant to deal with, but we dare not delude ourselves into thinking that a Moussavi or his equivalent will present a kindler, gentler approach to the region and the rest of the world.
We can believe otherwise but the facts are staring us in the face and are difficult to refute.
Having said this, what real options are available to those of us who are sincerely and legitimately concerned about the direction that Iran is taking in its foreign policy? I think that there are only two that have any chance of success and both accept, in principle that the world will have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.
First, the world’s media should simply stop reporting on Iran and its maniacal leader. Every time Ahmadinejad is quoted in the papers spewing forth his vitriol against the US, Israel, the UK, the West, or whoever, it gives him exposure he does not deserve. At the risk of being too simplistic, I say “who cares what he says?” The world press should simply isolate Iran as a news item. Neither Ahmadinejad nor the regime there are important enough for me to read about every time I pick up a paper or go on line. And we can do this one country at a time, starting here.
Secondly, the President of Iran, given his continual calls for the destruction of a member state of the United Nations, does not deserve to be hosted by any country that considers itself a member of the community of nations. As such, countries should simply reject any request from Iran for its president to visit. The US, as an example, while it has to allow Ahmadinejad to come to New York for the annual opening session of the UN, does not have to permit him to stay in the country any longer than the time allotted for his speech. To permit him to travel the region and speak to universities and other public policy groups is simply encouraging him to become even more recalcitrant in his approach to countries with which he disagrees. He should be allowed to land, go to the UN, give his obnoxious speech and leave….end of story.
40 years ago when I started my first business in Chicago, I had an accountant with whom I met every month. He was also an investor in the company and at one of those meetings he said something that has stayed with me all these years: “Make sure you never believe your own lies.” We human beings tell ourselves all sorts of stories but we need to make sure that we never believe our own lies.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem, 16 February 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Just in this past week we have seen a number of instances of anti-Israel (read: anti-semitic) outbursts aimed at speakers who have been scheduled to appear at various universities around the world.
For example, the appearance of Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren at the University of California/Irvine was met by numerous verbal outbursts against him and against the “apartheid” State of Israel during his presentation sponsored by the school’s Political Science Department.
Israel’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Danny Ayalon, who is also a former Ambassador to the U.S., was verbally assaulted at a speech he tried to give at Oxford University earlier this week.
Ben Gurion University of the Negev’s Professor of History and prolific writer, Benny Morris, was recently dis-invited by the Israel Society at Cambridge University after protestors accused him of being guilty of “Islamaphobia” and “racism.”
While universities have never been a source of significant support for Israel, of late the chances of any Israeli speaker appearing at a university forum anywhere in the west without being harassed or verbally assaulted are almost nil.
And yet, what is our response as Jews and as Israelis? In articles that appeared in this morning’s papers here the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has taken the position that this kind of verbal haranguing and protest is standard on university campuses and that the media is blowing the importance of such actions way out of proportion. I disagree.
For our government to take an official position that this is just more of the same and for the organized Jewish community in these locations to remain virtually silent gives the impression to the rest of the good citizens of each community that we, as Jews, do not care what the protestors say or what the heckler’s do. Frankly, we cannot afford that kind of passivity as we know, from our history, that passive response to these kinds of anti-semitic acts (even though they may be couched in anti-Israel terms….there is no difference any longer) generally leads to more serious infringements on our rights as members of the human race.
So what should our response be? At a minimum, every time one of these events occurs anywhere in the world, the local Jewish community, along with its real friends and supporters, should immediately mount a massive protest march denouncing the disrespect being shown to visiting dignitaries while underscoring the ultimate danger to all of the community’s citizens should this type of activity be allowed to continue.
16 years ago in Billings, Montana, the (really) small Jewish community there was traumatized when a rock was thrown through the window of the bedroom of a Jewish youngster whose parents had the audacity to exhibit a Chanukah Menorah in the window of the home. At that time the Jewish community stood up and with the incredible support of the majority of the citizens of that city, made the public statement: “Not in Our Town.” The result was an outpouring of support from the local citizenry which sent a message to the bigots that this type of behavior is not acceptable and a national movement began which spread throughout the country.
Today, we must also say, in every location where such anti-semitic events occur, “Not in Our Town” and that message must be loud and clear and supported, as well, by the Government of Israel that has, as its obligation, to be the Government of the Jewish People. Else we abandon our responsibility to our brethren worldwide and to the promise that gave rise to the birth of this country in the first place.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
February 11, 2010
For example, the appearance of Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren at the University of California/Irvine was met by numerous verbal outbursts against him and against the “apartheid” State of Israel during his presentation sponsored by the school’s Political Science Department.
Israel’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Danny Ayalon, who is also a former Ambassador to the U.S., was verbally assaulted at a speech he tried to give at Oxford University earlier this week.
Ben Gurion University of the Negev’s Professor of History and prolific writer, Benny Morris, was recently dis-invited by the Israel Society at Cambridge University after protestors accused him of being guilty of “Islamaphobia” and “racism.”
While universities have never been a source of significant support for Israel, of late the chances of any Israeli speaker appearing at a university forum anywhere in the west without being harassed or verbally assaulted are almost nil.
And yet, what is our response as Jews and as Israelis? In articles that appeared in this morning’s papers here the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has taken the position that this kind of verbal haranguing and protest is standard on university campuses and that the media is blowing the importance of such actions way out of proportion. I disagree.
For our government to take an official position that this is just more of the same and for the organized Jewish community in these locations to remain virtually silent gives the impression to the rest of the good citizens of each community that we, as Jews, do not care what the protestors say or what the heckler’s do. Frankly, we cannot afford that kind of passivity as we know, from our history, that passive response to these kinds of anti-semitic acts (even though they may be couched in anti-Israel terms….there is no difference any longer) generally leads to more serious infringements on our rights as members of the human race.
So what should our response be? At a minimum, every time one of these events occurs anywhere in the world, the local Jewish community, along with its real friends and supporters, should immediately mount a massive protest march denouncing the disrespect being shown to visiting dignitaries while underscoring the ultimate danger to all of the community’s citizens should this type of activity be allowed to continue.
16 years ago in Billings, Montana, the (really) small Jewish community there was traumatized when a rock was thrown through the window of the bedroom of a Jewish youngster whose parents had the audacity to exhibit a Chanukah Menorah in the window of the home. At that time the Jewish community stood up and with the incredible support of the majority of the citizens of that city, made the public statement: “Not in Our Town.” The result was an outpouring of support from the local citizenry which sent a message to the bigots that this type of behavior is not acceptable and a national movement began which spread throughout the country.
Today, we must also say, in every location where such anti-semitic events occur, “Not in Our Town” and that message must be loud and clear and supported, as well, by the Government of Israel that has, as its obligation, to be the Government of the Jewish People. Else we abandon our responsibility to our brethren worldwide and to the promise that gave rise to the birth of this country in the first place.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
February 11, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Should Israelis Residing Abroad Vote in Israeli Elections?
The latest brouhaha in Israel revolves around a change being proposed in the election law that would permit Israeli citizens living abroad to vote in national elections by, presumably, going to their local Israeli embassy or consulate and casting their ballots there.
The “pro” forces are saying that Israeli citizenship carries with it the right to vote, regardless of where a person may be living at the moment, while the “anti” forces are taking the position that unless a person lives here and carries the burden of his/her actions on a daily basis, the right to vote is not an inherent one transferable to any location on earth. Other “anti” forces also add their fear that because, in their opinion, so many Israelis living abroad are “right wing” politically (not something that I have found to be true, by the way), that the current government is supporting such a move in order to bolster its position in the next election.
But the entire argument misses the point. The issue at hand is really: What defines citizenship in Israel? In most democratic countries citizenship is something you carry with you from place to place so that the rights and obligations of citizenship remain with the individual regardless of where the person resides at any given moment in time. US citizens, for example, have the obligation to file US tax returns and pay the required taxes wherever they may live, that is an obligation. But they also have a right to vote in national elections wherever they may live and the two would seem to go hand in hand. Similar regulations apply to British and Danish citizens as well as those from a number of other countries as well.
Of course, much of the current criticism revolves around claims that Israelis living abroad have chosen to “opt out” and are really citizens in name only, with nothing more than a visceral connection to the country. But there are also many Israelis who are abroad during elections for other reasons. Some are traveling, some are stationed abroad temporarily by their employers to manage the operations of Israeli companies in those countries while others are studying at universities or gaining valuable international experience which they intend to take back to Israel at some time.
So, as in everything else, the issues are not black and white, but in most cases are rather gray. While Israel has never, in the past, extended the right to vote to citizens abroad, the country really is disenfranchising a large segment of the population, many of whom really are active citizens of the state.
For those of us in middle Israel, the solution is an obvious one. There should be some basic tests of active citizenship that are applied to those living abroad and wanting to vote that will legitimize their request and which request should be answered in the affirmative. These might include holding a valid Israeli passport, possessing an up to date Israeli identity card, having paid Israeli income tax as required and any other proofs of actively being a citizen of Israel, even though the person is physically domiciled abroad.
But to deny this basic right of citizenship to people living abroad out of a fear as to how they will vote or for any other similarly illogic reason makes the state guilty of “stealing” an inherent right of citizens of democratic countries and should not be permitted to continue unchallenged.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
February 9, 2010
The latest brouhaha in Israel revolves around a change being proposed in the election law that would permit Israeli citizens living abroad to vote in national elections by, presumably, going to their local Israeli embassy or consulate and casting their ballots there.
The “pro” forces are saying that Israeli citizenship carries with it the right to vote, regardless of where a person may be living at the moment, while the “anti” forces are taking the position that unless a person lives here and carries the burden of his/her actions on a daily basis, the right to vote is not an inherent one transferable to any location on earth. Other “anti” forces also add their fear that because, in their opinion, so many Israelis living abroad are “right wing” politically (not something that I have found to be true, by the way), that the current government is supporting such a move in order to bolster its position in the next election.
But the entire argument misses the point. The issue at hand is really: What defines citizenship in Israel? In most democratic countries citizenship is something you carry with you from place to place so that the rights and obligations of citizenship remain with the individual regardless of where the person resides at any given moment in time. US citizens, for example, have the obligation to file US tax returns and pay the required taxes wherever they may live, that is an obligation. But they also have a right to vote in national elections wherever they may live and the two would seem to go hand in hand. Similar regulations apply to British and Danish citizens as well as those from a number of other countries as well.
Of course, much of the current criticism revolves around claims that Israelis living abroad have chosen to “opt out” and are really citizens in name only, with nothing more than a visceral connection to the country. But there are also many Israelis who are abroad during elections for other reasons. Some are traveling, some are stationed abroad temporarily by their employers to manage the operations of Israeli companies in those countries while others are studying at universities or gaining valuable international experience which they intend to take back to Israel at some time.
So, as in everything else, the issues are not black and white, but in most cases are rather gray. While Israel has never, in the past, extended the right to vote to citizens abroad, the country really is disenfranchising a large segment of the population, many of whom really are active citizens of the state.
For those of us in middle Israel, the solution is an obvious one. There should be some basic tests of active citizenship that are applied to those living abroad and wanting to vote that will legitimize their request and which request should be answered in the affirmative. These might include holding a valid Israeli passport, possessing an up to date Israeli identity card, having paid Israeli income tax as required and any other proofs of actively being a citizen of Israel, even though the person is physically domiciled abroad.
But to deny this basic right of citizenship to people living abroad out of a fear as to how they will vote or for any other similarly illogic reason makes the state guilty of “stealing” an inherent right of citizens of democratic countries and should not be permitted to continue unchallenged.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
February 9, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Israel's Politicians Talk Too Much
The increased diplomatic tensions this past week between Syria and Israel are, in many respects, the result of politicians in Israel simply talking too much and giving the press free access to their comments.
Defense Minister's Barak's comments earlier in the week at the Herzlia Conference were intended to open a door to further peace negotiations with Syria but ended up being misinterpreted by the Syrian Foreign Minister as a threat of war. He responded with verbiage of his own to counter Barak's comments.
At that point Barak should have clarified his statements and the incident should have ended. But on Thursday along comes Foreign Minister Liberman and adds his two cents threatening Syria that if ware breaks out Israel will win and the Assad family will fall from power. Predictably there was a strong reaction from the Syrian side as well.
Knowing when to keep one's mouth shut is not rocket science. A simply misunderstanding regarding one comment uttered in Hebrew and badly translated into English has triggered a full scale symphony by the drums of war. In this part of the world, the transition from talk to action never takes very long and, as one member of the Knesset opined, Israel is playing with fire by pursuing this line of incompetent diplomacy.
Hopefully, the fires of anger will die down before a shot is fired but, more importantly, someone has to tell our politicians that often silence is the better part of valor.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem, January 5, 2010
Defense Minister's Barak's comments earlier in the week at the Herzlia Conference were intended to open a door to further peace negotiations with Syria but ended up being misinterpreted by the Syrian Foreign Minister as a threat of war. He responded with verbiage of his own to counter Barak's comments.
At that point Barak should have clarified his statements and the incident should have ended. But on Thursday along comes Foreign Minister Liberman and adds his two cents threatening Syria that if ware breaks out Israel will win and the Assad family will fall from power. Predictably there was a strong reaction from the Syrian side as well.
Knowing when to keep one's mouth shut is not rocket science. A simply misunderstanding regarding one comment uttered in Hebrew and badly translated into English has triggered a full scale symphony by the drums of war. In this part of the world, the transition from talk to action never takes very long and, as one member of the Knesset opined, Israel is playing with fire by pursuing this line of incompetent diplomacy.
Hopefully, the fires of anger will die down before a shot is fired but, more importantly, someone has to tell our politicians that often silence is the better part of valor.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem, January 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
