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?
Sunday, March 28, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
