Woe to Those who Remain Silent
By Sherwin Pomerantz

With apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller who used this literary style to talk about the roundup of communists, trade unionists, and Jews in Nazi Germany, I submit the following vis-à-vis the slippery slope down which we seem to be sliding here in Israel.

• First they asked that their brightest young men be excused from military service because there are so few of them that it won’t make any difference, and I didn’t speak out because there were, indeed, so few of them.
• Then they refused to teach their children mathematics, English and other secular subjects, and I didn’t speak out because they have a right to live their lives the way they want.
• Then they decided it was better for their men to study than to work and they secured state support for their learning, and I didn’t speak out because there were, indeed so few of them.
• Then they demanded separate seating on buses, men in the front and women in the back, and I didn’t speak out because I don’t ride the busses.
• Then they put up a separation in their neighborhoods during holiday periods and asked the women to walk on one side and the men on the other, and I didn’t speak out because I never go to those neighborhoods.
• Then some Ashkenazi religious schools refused to admit Sephardi religious students because they were not religious enough, and I didn’t speak out because I don’t have children of school age.
• Then they demonstrated against having parking lots open on the Sabbath outside Old City of Jerusalem to handle the many tourists who come there, and I didn’t speak out because I don’t drive on the Sabbath anyway.
• Then they told Manny, after causing tens of thousands of dollars of damage to his Jerusalem store, that in his book store of religious volumes he has to take certain books off his shelves because they are “Zionist” books and he has to put up a sign advising women to dress modestly, because his English books attract immodest tourists, and I didn’t speak out because I never go there anyway.
• Then they spat on and insulted religious girls going to elementary school because the girls don’t wear stockings, and I didn’t speak out because I don’t live in that city.
• Next they will tell me how I must live my life and, there are now so many of them, that I will have no choice but to do so if I want to continue living here.

My friends will see this and tell me that I am exaggerating. They will tell me that all of this is the work of a small group of zealots in each location who don’t represent the mainstream religious community. And they will be correct in saying this. But if this is a correct analysis of the situation then where are the mainstream rabbis speaking out against such coercive behavior? Where are the political leaders insisting that the police arrest individuals who threaten and cause harm to others in the name of religion? Why are there no arrests when vandalism causes property damage and potential danger to life and limb?

The dictionary tells us that a zealot is a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in the pursuit of their religious, political or other ideals. But history teaches us that generally zealots are inimical to the long term good and welfare of society.

Former US Senator Robert Byrd, who held the record as the longest serving senator in the history of the United States, said it best when he opined “It is the duty of each citizen to be vigilant, to protect liberty, to speak out, left and right, and disagree lest he be trampled underfoot by misguided zealotry and extreme partisanship.”

There is a lesson to be learned here and those of us who value the democratic principles to which we are committed, have an obligation to protest any encroachment on those rights by any member of the society in which we live. We can do no less nor do we have the right to remain silent. Woe to those who remain silent in the face of bigotry.

Treasonable Conduct….or Not?
By Sherwin Pomerantz

Yesterday, Israel’s Attorney General, Yehuda Weinstein, advised the Prime Minister that for lack of prosecutorial evidence he was abandoning his investigation of the activities of MK Hanin Zuabi and her participation in the Mavi Marmara Flotilla of May 2010 which was intended to break the blockade of Gaza.

Can you believe that?

A member of the Parliament of Israel representing the Arab Balad party chooses to sail on a ship as part of a flotilla whose aim is to oppose what even the UN said is a legitimate action on the part of the Israeli government and the Israeli Attorney General basically finds nothing unlawful about it. Zuabi, of course, denies that she knew anything about the fact that the ship on which she was a passenger had a significant cache of weapons and was ready for a serious confrontation with the Israel Defense Forces. You can see evidence of her participation and knowledge by going to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX8-zEO1TNU

When questioned after the event she said “Those who send the army to stop the flotilla should be brought before international tribunals (for trial).” As if that was not sufficient to question her commitment to the law she pledged to uphold when she was sworn in to the Knesset, hear what she had to say in November when she spoke at the Russell Tribunal on Palestine in Capetown. There she referred to the country in whose parliament she serves as the “Racist political and legal regime in Israel.”

Or some of her other comments at the time which included:

“It is part of the ideology of Israel to be racist”
“It is the policy of Israel to seclude and deport us” (referring to Palestinians)
“But actually I am saying that Israel is worse than an apartheid state.”

Given all of this it is certainly strange that our attorney general says he can find no grounds for further action. Really? Is this not treason? The dictionary says that treason is “a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or one’s state.” Isn’t it obvious that participating in a flotilla designed to break the blockade of Gaza which is a policy of the government in which you serve treason? Doesn’t that constitute a violation of allegiance to one’s state? Can it be any clearer?

When questioned about all of this Zuabi regularly invokes her parliamentary immunity and states that in a democracy she has a right to state her opinions, even if they differ from those of the government.

Democracy is committed to the free expression of opinion even if that opinion is negative about the country in which one lives. But that is an entirely different situation than the breaking of the law by someone who is sworn to uphold it by dint of his or her participation in a country’s parliament. One cannot hide behind parliamentary immunity by invoking such immunity while being disloyal to the country in whose parliament he or she serves. That borders on treason and the attorney general should not have dropped the case regardless of the concern for the consequences in the Arab street. In the end, democracy and Israel will both pay the price of such legal negligence.

As the Holidays Approach
By Sherwin Pomerantz

Friends, on Tuesday evening Jews worldwide will kindle the first candle on the Chanukah menorah to commemorate the victory of good over evil, of honesty over lies and of the belief that miracles do happen. Someone once said that a menorah is like the nightlight of our people. In times of darkness it shines on the whole world reminding us not to be afraid to be different but to be proud of whom we are.

For Christians worldwide Friday will wind down rapidly to Christmas eve and the promise of peace on earth, good will towards (wo)men that still eludes us. Charles Dickens described the eternal allure of Christmas when he wrote in 1836’s Pickwick Papers “Happy, happy Christmas, that can win us back to the delusions of our childish days; that can recall to the old man the pleasures of his youth; that can transport the sailor and the traveler, thousands of miles away, back to his own fire-side and his quiet home!”

Certainly for all of us it is a time of memory, a time for a bit of reflection and perhaps even some wistfulness for times gone by, albeit those times seem to appear better with the passing of the years. Syndicated columnist and humorist Dave Barry may have hit the nail on the head when he said: “In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it Christmas and went to church; the Jews called it Hanukkah and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say "Merry Christmas!" or "Happy Hanukkah!" or (to the atheists) "Look out for the wall!"

But it was probably Helen Keller who in her succinct way summed up the meaning of the season best when she said : “The only blind person at Christmastime is he who has not Christmas in his heart.”

In many respects the past year has been a disappointment what with financial crises worldwide, the continued absence of peace in so many parts of the world, an incredible number of natural disasters and rampant political upheavals that do not yet seem to hold out the promise of positive change. Yet we humans have this uncanny ability to remain optimistic, to hope for a better future and to envision the light at the end of the tunnel even if it is not exactly visible to us.

Let us hope that as we go through this holiday season full of light and joy, that the new year about to burst forth in 12 days will be one of fulfilled dreams, good health and a peaceful universe in which we can finally experience the prophesy contained in the second book of Isaiah: “And they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not life up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

Misinformation, Disinformation and Lies

By Sherwin Pomerantz

Yesterday we entertained a couple of business guests from Amman, Jordan during their first ever visit to Israel. Oddly enough they came here with their dog that needed some special surgery which was not available in Jordan. Given that our staff had prior connections with the principals of the company one of our senior people offered to take them on a tour of Jerusalem and met them at Damascus Gate, one of the northern entrances to the Old City after which they took the traditional walking tour of the area.

This morning I was told that our guests were absolutely amazed that Arab residents of Jerusalem walk freely on the streets of the city without hindrance. Their impression, from the press in Jordan and other information sources, was that the Arab population of Israel is interned in quasi-concentration camps and their movement is severely limited by the local security forces. This brought home to all of us here in the office both the failure of our information efforts directed to the Arab world as well as the disinformation fed to the local populace there by the media.

As for misinformation, it’s worth looking at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/palestinian-hip-hop-group-comparing-israelis-to-nazis-performs-for-oregon-public-high-school-students/ which is a video of the Palestinian Hip-Hop Group DAM (which means “blood” in both Hebrew and Arabic) performing at Lincoln High School in Portland, Oregon on November 4th.

The lyrics demonize Israeli Jews, calling them rapists and Nazis, justifying terrorism against them. (”You’re a Democracy? It’s more like the Nazis…Your raping of the Arab soul gave birth to your child: The suicide bomber.”) A sample of the group’s work: one DAM song called “Min Irhabi” or “Who’s a Terrorist?” is filled with anti-Israel propaganda and in-your-face lyrics. With these few lines, one gets the picture:

Who’s a terrorist? I’m a terrorist?
How am I a terrorist while I live in my country
Who’s a terrorist? You’re a terrorist!
You’re swallowing me while I live in my country
Killing me like you killed my ancestors […]
Democracy? I swear you’re Nazis
With all the times you raped the Arab spirit
It got pregnant and birthed a boy called the suicide bomber
And here you are calling us terrorists

Even though students and parents voiced their concerns about the band’s content to the school board, the board went ahead with the performance, “despite the physical and emotional fears of the students.”

For the record, the public school’s Arab Studies Program is funded by the Qatar Foundation International, which also sponsored the hip hop group’s visit to the high school. Last year, Israeli, Spanish and British newspapers reported that the Qatar Foundation had given money to extremist Muslim cleric Yusuf al Qaradawi who advocates “terrorism, wife beating and anti-Semitism” and that the foundation gives money to the terrorist group Hamas. All of this taking place in the public school system of a major US city.

So now we have it all, misinformation, disinformation and lies, some accidental some intentional but all damaging to Israel and its reputation in the world community.

Price winning journalist Carl Bernstein once said, “The lowest form of popular culture - lack of information, misinformation, disinformation, and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most people's lives - has overrun real journalism. Today, ordinary Americans are being stuffed with garbage.” And that garbage molds public opinion and is our greatest enemy.

Believing One’s Own Lies

By Sherwin Pomerantz


When I was still living in Chicago some 30 years ago, I used to meet with my accountant on a regular basis who was also an investor in the company. I learned a lot of things from him but one of the lessons that was seared into my memory was that the biggest danger business owners face is believing their own lies. That is certainly true but also applies to political leaders.

In an interview aired on ABC News today, the Syrian president says that acts of violence have been committed by individuals, not ordered by the government; "No government in the world kills its people, unless it's led by a crazy person" Assad says. Syrian President Bashar Assad went on to say that he is not directly responsible for acts of violence committed by his security forces since an uprising against the Alawite president began in Syria in March of this year, and denied reports of torture by the Syrian army.

Speaking with Barbara Walters, Assad said that "There is a difference between a deliberate policy of repression, and the presence of some errors committed by some officials. There is a great difference," Assad reportedly said, adding that acts of violence were carried out by "individuals," and not ordered by the Syrian government.

According to UN figures the death toll in the embattled country has risen above 4,000 people. Assad, speaking during his first interview with an American news outlet, dismissed that figure, questioning the UN's credibility.

Well, he is certainly guilty of the warning not to believe one’s own lies. His statement that only countries led by crazy people kill their own people may make a good sound bite but is hardly borne out by fact. There have been plenty of political leaders throughout history who were sane but either convinced they were above the law, had visions of world domination or, as in Assad’s case, deathly afraid of losing power and then used those reasons to slaughter even millions of people. So one does not have to be crazy to order one’s troops to fire at will.

Earlier this week Saudi Arabia convicted an Australian Muslim there for the Hajj pilgrimage of blaspheming the name of Allah and sentenced him to two years in jail and 500 lashes. 500 lashes, of course, cannot be sustained by any human being so that is effectively a death sentence and the court’s decision, on appeal, to reduce the time in prison to one year is laughable, given the fact that the prisoner will not survive the lashings. But no one considers the leadership of Saudi Arabia crazy, do they?

In addition, given the totalitarian regime which was created by Assad’s father and continued by him, can anyone anywhere give credence to his claim that the deaths were carried out by individuals and not by order of the government? In addition to accusations by human rights groups of torture, killings, and unwarranted arrests of activists and bloggers by the Syrian armed forces, recent reports point to a new phenomenon of unknown assailants and deaths on both the pro- and anti-Assad sides.

Sadly, the ability of political leaders to believe their own lies is not limited to regimes such as Syria. There are plenty of other examples worldwide even in the west. The job of the electorate and the judicial system, in countries that still claim to be free, is to prosecute those who act on such beliefs and convict and sentence them to appropriate prison terms.

There is no doubt that here in Israel we have something less than a perfect democratic system if there is such a thing. But the fact that this morning a former President of the country began serving a seven year prison term having been convicted of sexual crimes while in office is testament to the vitality of the judicial system in the country and an example of someone prosecuted for believing his own lies. Those who are guilty of such acts are also guilty of thinking they are above the law.

Theodore Roosevelt was right when he opined “No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask his permission when we ask him to obey it.” A point well taken and still true.

Playing with Other People’s Money

By Sherwin Pomerantz


Some of you may have been following the newspaper articles regarding Israel’s decision to withhold tax monies collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.

For those who are not fully familiar with the issue, under the provisions of the Oslo Accords when the Palestinian Authority (PA) was established, it was agreed that Israel would continue to collect all taxes on behalf of people living in the territories under the control of the PA and then turn over those moneys to the PA each month. Currently, Israel is holding about 100 million dollars of said funds, essentially acting in a fiduciary role on behalf of the PA.

When the Palestinian Authority went to UNESCO to request membership in that organization and received it, Israel decided to withhold the payment of these funds as a punishment to the Authority for securing UNESCO membership. While I also decried both the application to UNESCO and UNESCO’s agreement to admit the Authority to membership, it always seemed to me that withholding these payments of monies that rightfully belongs to the Authority had no basis in law.

As November wound on, Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman went one step further and said that Israel should not convey these funds to the Authority because the Authority was using their treasury, part of which was composed of these funds, to do things like give bonuses to the prisoners released in the Schalit exchange and to build homes for those prisoners as well. Earlier this week Lieberman threatened to bring down the Israeli government if the funds were released although everyone agreed that, in principle, it was not in Israel’s best interests to hold these funds indefinitely.

All of this in the face of incontrovertible evidence that the withholding of these funds not only threatens to cause the Authority to collapse but also threatens the successful maintenance of the security apparatus that the Authority has established, much of it in cooperation with Israeli authorities.

Earlier today reports out of Jerusalem seem to indicate that the government’s line on releasing the funds is softening and, hopefully, this latest crisis will soon be resolved.

But the core issue remains and that is the role of a custodian of funds arbitrarily deciding under what conditions those funds can be released, even though the conditions of release are clearly spelled out in the protocols governing the relationship between the parties. There are, of course, those who will argue that the Authority violated the very same principles when it went to the UN for direct recognition or when it applied for membership in UNESCO. But the basic fact remains that the funds are not Israel’s to keep or use and that our country is simply acting as a conduit for the collection and remitting of those funds. End of story!

What bothers many of us living here is that one cannot simply decide to abrogate a commitment as punishment for the other side seemingly acting against those same agreements. Israel has plenty of ways to put pressure on the Authority in retaliation for the Authority’s defiance of principles to which they have agreed. But withholding the payment of funds that do not rightly belong to us is not one of them. Hopefully saner voices will prevail so that we can continue retain the moral high ground.

At Least Put it on the Agenda

By Ben Dansker

In the 1970’s as a movement of Jewish renewal of sorts took place among young people, it seemed to me then that while few acted upon, the idea of Aliya, of coming to Israel to live, was at least on the agenda. I was a University student during many of those years and after that a young adult embarking on a career and it seemed that most of my Jewish peers, especially those who were to some degree committed to living a Jewish life, with varying levels of Jewish observance, talked about Aliya and many considered it an option. Not all for sure, there were those who chose careers that they felt iwould be impossible to pursue in Israel and others for whom Israel simply did not attract them. But it was part of the conversation of many.

Most of us had spent time in Israel, studying, volunteering, sometimes both and had been captivated by the drama unfolding there and by the experience of being part of a Jewish nation returning to and rebuilding its home. All of us were very well aware of the many difficulties inherent in living in Israel, the distance from family, adjustment to a new culture and language, the security threats, service in the army and most overwhelming per haps in those days, the great financial hardship that living in Israel seemed to be. And very few from those times, even those who seemed the most committed actually made it. My own Aliya took 10 years from my first visit and now 26 years later, I acknowledge that it was not always easy, but it was certainly possible, and certainly the right thing to.

I have no expectation that most western Jews will come to live in Israel and am surprised each time some one comes. What saddens me however is how few seem to even talk about it, consider, think about it. I find it hard to accept the absence of the topic from conversation of even those who seem to have enjoyed, even loved the time they spent it Israel and to have careers that would transplant well. Especially those at a stage in life before school aged children and teenagers and aging sick parents complicate the situation. Yes, I know that there are over 50 thousand missiles pointed at Israel and I know there are some government policies that many of you do not agree with and a culture that is different from yours. I have those 50 thousand missiles pointing at me as well and I don’t always agree with government policy nor am I happy about all aspects of Israeli life (and neither would I be about American life).

We waited for this opportunity for 2000 years and European Jews in the 1920s and 30’s missed an opportunity to save themselves from tragedy. Our prayers for 2000 years have directed us to Zion and Jerusalem. So at least, think about it; talk about it; look into it. Consider it as an option in your lives. At least put in it on your agenda.

Losing Our Way

By Sherwin Pomerantz

Picture this if you will.

During the time when US citizens were prohibited from traveling to Cuba, a member of the House of Representatives decides to disobey US law and travel to Cuba to speak at the annual observances there of the January 1 1959 overthrow of the Batista government and the rise to power of Fidel Castro and his Communist buddies.

At the celebratory event, the US Representative, present in Cuba illegally, rises to speak and says the following: “I can tell you that the United States is in the midst of passing a series of anti-democratic laws and will soon even pass a ‘Death to Cubans’ law. You should know that US Secretary of State Kissinger is a fascist and should go back to the country of his birth as he has no place in my homeland.”

What do you think would have happened to that legislator? Most likely when he returned to the US Congress he would have been censured and probably removed from his position based on his flagrant violation of US law and his slander of government officials.

Well, yesterday, at a memorial service in Ramallah marking the seventh anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, Ahmad Tibi, an elected member of the Knesset went to Ramallah to speak at the service. According to a report in today’s Jerusalem Post echoed by all of the other news outlets as well, here is what was recorded:

Israeli-Arab lawmaker Ahmad Tibi at a memorial for Yasser Arafat in Ramallah suggested that the Israeli government will soon "propose a 'death to Arabs' law." Tibi, speaking Wednesday before a massive crowd marking the seventh anniversary of the Palestinian leader's death, was referring to several bills offered by right-wing lawmakers targeting the left that critics have labeled as "anti-democratic." He also slammed Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, calling him "the fascist settler that recently came to my homeland," Ynet reported. A former adviser to Arafat, Tibi referred to the late PLO chief as "the father of our homeland."

Note that Ramallah is in Area A, which, according to the Oslo accords, is under full military and civil control of the Palestinian Authority. Israeli citizens, according to Israeli law, are forbidden to enter Area A and, of course, Tibi, as a member of the Knesset is, indeed, an Israeli citizen. So his being there at all was in violation of the law he is sworn to uphold.

Secondly, what is it called when a member of a country’s legislature enters an area forbidden to him by law and then speaks publicly in negative terms about the Foreign Minister of the country in whose parliament he serves? Is it treason? Does that meet the definition of betraying one’s country? Is it sedition? Is it conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of the state? Or is it just plain stupidity along with a desire to show that he is simply not bound by the laws of the parliament in which he serves?

One would think that at a minimum he would lose his seat in the Knesset and be stripped of his parliamentary immunity. But, of course, this is Israel. And just as another Arab member of the Knesset, Haneen Zoabi, who travelled on the Mavi Marmara in May 2010 to break the blockade of Gaza was not penalized for actively demonstrating against the policies of the government and was not chastened, neither will Tibi. He will come back to Jerusalem, retake his seat in the Knesset and although many people there will be angry with him, there will be no price to pay for such insolence. And once again the Zionist enterprise will be shown to be lacking in the courage to defend its own laws.

O tempora, o mores, shame on the times and its customs, as uttered by Cicero in the Senate of Rome in his second oration against Verres. The founders of the country must be turning over in their graves.

Israel on the Slippery Slope Away from Democracy

By Sherwin Pomerantz

A number of events have occurred here recently that may well be representative of a serious threat to the rule of law and the democratic process which has been the hallmark of Israeli society for so many years. Permit me to share two of them with you.

Jewish Identity Bill

The Knesset has been asked to consider a “Jewish Identity” bill which, in essence, would subordinate democratic rule to the country’s role as a Jewish state. Among the provisions of the bill are a call for Jewish law to serve as an inspiration for new legislation, the elimination of Arabic as an official language of the state (the other two are Hebrew and English) while giving it “special status” and a requirement that the government actively pursue Jewish settlement of all areas while dropping any government obligation to build for other communities living here.

Israel’s 1.5 million Arab citizens who represent 20% of the population would then, for all practical purposes, be formally categorized as second class citizens given that their language would no longer be respected at the same level of Hebrew and English and that the government would no longer have an obligation to build in their communities. This is a very different situation from the meaning of the words in Israel’s Declaration of Independence which addresses the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel guaranteeing “full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”

Former Ambassador Moshe Arens, who is certainly no left winger, calls the language issue “a sign of disrespect” in an op-ed in this morning’s Ha’aretz. And of course he is correct.

Knesset Member Avi Dichter who introduced the legislation has now taken it off the table under pressure and has tabled a substitute bill but it is difficult to see how the new bill is any better than the one originally proposed, even though some of the language has been altered. But the fact that the initial bill could have even been given credence is of concern.

Freezing of PA Revenues

Two weeks ago, when the Palestinian Authority successfully applied for membership in UNESCO, Israel reacted by freezing the tax revenues which are collected by Israel on the Authority’s behalf, effectively making it impossible for the Authority to pay its workers their full salaries for October. The framework under which Israel collects tax revenues on behalf of the Authority was an outgrowth of the 1993 Oslo Accords where Israel agreed to assume a fiduciary responsibility on behalf of the Authority. In principle, therefore, Israel has no right at all under any circumstances to withhold those funds.

This is very different than the US withholding its contribution to UNESCO over the same issue. The US has a law which prohibits the Government from contribution to any UN body which recognizes a Palestinian state before such agreements are reached with Israel. So, in that case, the US had no alternative but to withhold its annual payment to UNESCO. In the case of Israel, which is acting as a transfer agent for the funds to the Palestinian Authority, there is simply no legal basis on which to withhold such transfers.

The effect of withholding these payments is to undercut the security operations of the Authority as well as make it virtually impossible for the services provided by the Authority to continue. It is difficult to see how this can be of any value to Israel.

Add to this, of course, the current battle going on between the offices of the Chief Rabbinate and the Orthodox Tzohar rabbis regarding circumventing the hassles that engaged couples need to go through in order to be permitted to marry here; the current dispute over how judges are appointed to the Supreme Court which has deteriorated into a squabble between political parties; or the attempt by the Prime Minister to close down TV’s Channel 10 by not allowing it to refinance its debt presumably just because he and his wife are upset at the way they are treated by that channel’s news desk and one wonders if democracy can survive?

We need to heed the words of John Adams, the 2nd President of the United States who said: “Democracy…while it lasts, is bloodier than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” The slide down that slope seems to get steeper every day and our job as citizens must be to prevent the probable by education and political activity. We dare not do any less.

What to do About Iran? Nothing!

By Sherwin Pomerantz

The IAEA has finally issued its long awaited report on what is really going on with Iran’s nuclear development. The report substantiates the world’s fear that Iran’s intentions are certainly not purely peaceful, that the country has been moving intentionally toward the development of nuclear weapons and in addition, they are working on being able to deliver a nuclear weapon at the tip of an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Is anyone surprised by the report? Israel has been saying exactly this for some time and now the international agency responsible for making such calls has verified this to be the case. Of course, the Iranians along with some of their Russian and Chinese friends claim that the report is biased and full of inaccuracies but that is also to be expected.

So what is the world to do now? Four days ago I wrote that I believe it would be national suicide for Israel to launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. I posited that the casualties here as a result of a counter attack would be more than we could handle and survive. One of my readers who disagreed said that while it is true we could not survive a nuclear attack, it would be better to wipe out their capability and take the risk of a conventional weapon retaliation which would only cause 20,000-50,000 casualties here. Only?

But it also seems clear that the West will not take military action either. The logic goes that it would not be possible to knock out all of the nuclear capabilities in Iran and such an attack would certainly trigger a regional war and possibly even a world war.

That leaves the West with the option of enacting “crippling sanctions”. But that action would probably plunge the world into an economic malaise that would be difficult to recover from. If such sanctions were to be put in place, Iran would no doubt do whatever it could to block the Straits of Hormuz through which 40% of the world’s oil supplies must pass every day. Fuel prices would skyrocket out of control and the world’s economy would be thrown into chaos, as if we don’t already have enough problems. And, of course, the Russians have made it evident that they will use their Security Council veto to block such sanctions at the UN.

Frankly, no pun intended, but the Iranians have the world over a barrel and there are very few choices available to deal with the problem. That being the case, what is the best strategy? In my opinion it is to do nothing.

The first thing we need to realize is that we will not stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Conceivably their timetable can be lengthened but Israel by itself cannot stop them and it is becoming clearer every day that the rest of the world will not do so either. We may have had an opportunity to do something about this three years ago, but that is now history.

The second thing we need to admit is that Israel may be an expendable entity in the minds of the West if the leadership in the West gets to the point where they believe that the elimination of Israel from this part of the world will satisfy the radical Islamists. We all know that even eliminating Israel will not answer the demands of radical Islamists, any more than permitting Hitler to take over the Sudetenland mollified his insane desire for world domination. We dare not put ourselves in the position of becoming the pawn used by the West to satisfy the Iranian desire for regional hegemony.

So the only option that may be left to us and the West is simply to do nothing while stopping all reporting about Iran in the world press. That is, act as if Iran simply does not exist. Stop reporting Ahmadinejad’s rants, stop reporting on Iran’s threats against the world, and stop talking about Iran’s nuclear threat. After all, there are other countries such as Pakistan and North Korea who have nuclear weapons, which are somewhat unstable but about whom we hear very little said. So it should be with Iran as well.

Of course, our defenses against the launch of any weapons from Iran against Israel or any other country should be beefed up to the point where we have some level of advance warning and protection. The West should also have ships continuously patrolling the waters outside the territorial limits of Iran to monitor activities there. But don’t give this maniac any publicity and be ready to deal with him head on should he make good on any of his claims.

These options are open to us and if the more “moderate” Arab states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are bothered by a nuclear Iran, then let them deal with it as they see fit. Sometimes isolationism is a good thing and when one is dealing with someone whose logic is totally motivated by some kind of religious zeal, lock him in the closet and throw away the key. We simply may have no other choice.

The Lunacy of Attacking Iran

By Sherwin Pomerantz

Over the past ten days there has been a non-stop dialogue going on in the press about Israel’s consideration of plans to bomb the nuclear facilities of Iran.

Everyone knows the logic. Iran having a nuclear bomb capability would be a threat to the entire region, and given its President’s stated desire to see Israel wiped off the map, should they develop such a weapon we here will be the first recipient of its use.

No doubt, of course, that it would be a bad thing for the entire world if Iran were to successfully develop a nuclear weapon. We are not dealing here with the classic cold war case of the US and the Soviet Union where both parties knew well that neither ever wanted to use that capability, even though both possessed it. There was logic at play among two sworn enemies that prevented the Cuban missile crisis, for example, from escalating into nuclear war. In the case of Iran, whose diplomacy is driven somewhat by the religious fanaticism of Islamic fundamentalism, one cannot assume that diplomatic logic will hold sway.

Israel, of course, has the military capability of exercising a first strike on much of Iran’s nuclear production facilities and, according to informed sources here, that would delay (not eliminate) Iran’s development by four years. But would the risk be worth it? I think not. Iran would immediately respond to any attack with whatever firepower they had and, most likely, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza would join the fray. By some estimates there are upwards of 100,000 missiles aimed at Israel from these two locations as I write this.

But even if those numbers are exaggerated, the casualty count in Israel as a result of the response to such an attack will, I fear, be much more than our emergency services could handle and the country could very well slip into chaos. Do we really want to unleash such forces against us for a possible delay of four years in Iran’s nuclear development? Does that make any sense at all?

Perhaps the fear of an Iranian attack on Israel even if they have nuclear weapons is unrealistic in the first place. The Iranian leadership may be fervently religious but no one credits them for being either stupid or unrealistic. They know that an attack by Iran against Israel will unleash both Israel’s formidable military response as well as a response from the US which is pledged to defend Israel in the case of such an attack. Logic would dictate that even in the face of Islamist fundamentalism, the leadership of Iran will not choose to launch such an attack given the obvious and predictable circumstances that will follow.

This reasoning would lead any sane Israeli leader to the conclusion that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is not in the best interests of the future of Israel. Further, that the best defense against Iran is to make sure that our military machine has the capability to strike back, and strike back hard should they attack us. In the humble opinion of this writer any other strategy at this point in time would be nothing less than lunacy on the part of our government. The saber rattling should stop, and stop quickly as contemplating the fallout from such an attack on our part could potentially mean the end of the enterprise called Israel as we know it.

The UNESCO Vote…What it Really Means

By Sherwin Pomerantz

This week’s vote by UNESCO, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization to admit Palestine into full membership is clearly in violation of its own constitution.

Art II.2 of the UNESCO Constitution states: “Subject to the conditions of the Agreement between this Organization and the United Nations Organization, approved pursuant to Article X of this Constitution, states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference.

As a non-member of the United Nations, the Palestinian Authority which aims to create a future state called Palestine is, today, not a state at all. It is perhaps true that there are those who can make a cogent argument that it has many of the trappings of a state and has successfully built a number of institutions required for statehood, but it is definitely not a state under the commonly accepted definition which the UN itself uses.

To qualify as a subject under the traditional definition of international law, a state has to be sovereign: It needs a defined territory, a population, a government, and the ability to engage in diplomatic or foreign relations. Clearly the land now overseen by the Palestinian Authority is not sovereign, its territorial borders are not accepted by international bodies and it is certainly not solvent. The permanent cut off of donor funds would bankrupt the authority in 30 days.

Yet 107 countries voted in favor of the proposal to admit Palestine, 14 voted against and 52 countries abstained. All of this on the heels of the recent interview by Egypt’s Dream2TV on October 23rd where Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas said: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state (of Israel), or a Jewish State.” Commenting afterwards on the recent release of 1,027 convicts in order to bring Gilad Schalit back home he said: Hamas kidnapped, or rather captured, a solider, and managed to keep him for five years and that is a good thing. We don’t deny it. On the contrary, it’s a good thing that on a small strip of land, 40 x 7 kilometers, they were able to keep him and hide him.” Later in Ramallah at a celebration honoring the release of the convicts he added, “We need more Gilad Schalits so we can ultimately free all of our people held in Israeli jails.”

One wonders therefore, what kind of contribution this new group can make to UNESCO when its own educational approach is to vilify its neighbors at every turn and which continues to use textbooks in its schools which talk about Jews as dogs, vermin and other less than laudable terms.

The United States was right to cut off funding to UNESCO given a 1994 law on the books of the US Congress that barred funding “any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood.”

There are those who believe, probably with good cause, that at the end of the day the Palestinian Arab leadership has no interest in ending the conflict with Israel. In spite of the evidence I still hold out hope because, as I said earlier this week, I do not believe that the current situation is sustainable. But concessions are not a one way street, and if the Palestinian Arab leadership persists in thumbing its nose at the fundamental principles of international diplomacy, it will get what it deserves and should not complain about it. The door to our Prime Minister’s office is open wide and Abbas should take advantage of it before it is sealed shut.

Achieving Political Sustainability in Israel

By Sherwin Pomerantz

Sustainability has become the watchword of environmentalists worldwide but somehow or other the concept has not permeated the psyche of those involved in politics.

The dictionary defines sustainability as “using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.” While this generally applies to conserving the natural resources of the planet to ensure our long term ability to survive, isn’t it also applicable to political situations? And wouldn’t the concept of sustainability also apply to Israel? Perhaps so.

The challenge in applying the concept of sustainability to a political situation is that different people look at the concept through very different lenses. For example, there are those who believe that Eretz Israel (i.e. the Land of Israel) as described in the Torah is the resource and, in order to support the concept of sustainability, we must do everything we can to preserve that resource. In theory that all sounds logical. However, much of that resource has already been lost to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and even the most ardent supporters of this approach harbor no hope that those portions of the land will ever be returned to us. Today, those who see sustainability through these lenses are committed to retaining Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) and to recapturing Gaza as well in order to be minimally loyal to the concept of Eretz Israel.

Then there are others who look at sustainability as the challenge before us to maintain what we already have and ensure our long term survival in that space. For those who subscribe to this approach sustainability means retaining all of the land within the oft referenced 1967 borders as well as the large settlement blocs (i.e. Gush Etzion, Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel, etc.) in Judea and Samaria, while acknowledging the Palestinian Arab claim to their roots here and their right to the establishment of an independent state of Palestine on the remaining areas not included in this formulation.

Finally, there is that third group of Israelis who have internalized sustainability to the point where they believe that complete separation from the Palestinian Arab population in Judea and Samaria is the only practical path to sustainability. This group is prepared to close down the settlement enterprise completely, draw a clear border between Israel and the future state of Palestine and then find some way to function in a geographically reduced Israel.

Of course, at some point in time theory must give way to practice. To quote that great American philosopher (and former New York Yankee catcher and manager) Yogi Berra, “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.” So the job of the government then is to understand the multiple theories that are shared by different segments of the population here and see “sustainability” as doing what is best to ensure that our children and grandchildren will still be able to live in an Israel that is both Jewish and democratic without the constant threat of war and terror. None of the three theories of political sustainability described above are solutions in and of themselves. But if three circles are drawn, each representing one of those theories, it will soon become obvious that where those three circles intersect and overlap lie the elements of a theory that can be acceptable to all.

Is that just a theory as well? I think not. Is there something that can be done to put the theory into practice and actually make it happen? I think so.

The first challenge of our government is to shut up. There is altogether too much “noise” in our system which, in the long run, tends to do us more harm than good. Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman is a case in point. His verbal assaults on Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas last week brought no positive value whatsoever to the attempt to find a way to bring the parties back to the negotiating table. While I know that a lot of people like to say that Lieberman says out loud what many of us think, that does not make his diatribes acceptable. When he agreed to accept the position as Foreign Minister, he also agreed, prima facie, to act like a diplomat and not like a bull in a china shop. The fact that the Prime Minister did not disassociate himself from those comments is even less understandable.

The second challenge of the government is to find a creative formula that makes it impossible for the other side to refuse to meet. Last week I suggested a 90-day construction freeze in the territories as a gesture to the Palestinian Arab leadership. That was a mistake on my part and a reader in Chicago suggested something much more sensible, a 90-day construction freeze to begin the day the parties sit down to negotiate. I actually thought that was brilliant on the part of my friend there.

The third challenge for the government is to understand and internalize that sustainability means dealing in realistic expectations and making sure that the messages that come out of government circles, all government agencies, reflect reality and not the wishful thinking of people who are not willing to look at facts and deal with them honestly.

French philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) said “The future belongs to those who give the next generation reason for hope.” That is the true definition of sustainability in politics and both sides here need to internalize this in order for our grandchildren to live here in peace and security.

One More Chance? Is it Worth the Risk?

By Sherwin Pomerantz

Reading the papers here over the last few days does not help at all to clarify the next steps that Israel should or should not take regarding possible forward movement towards negotiations with the Palestinian Arab leadership.

Earlier this week Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman let loose a barrage of negative comments about Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas saying that he should resign, that Abbas is the obstacle to peace and that the peace process itself would be well-served by his departing the scene.

In re sponse, Israel’s President, Shimon Peres, stated publicly the next day that Chairman Abbas and his Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, are both serious leaders of the Palestinian Arab population, that they are, indeed, reliable peace partners and that we should negotiate with them.

Yuval Diskin, former director of the Shin Bet, Israel’s equivalent of the CIA, in a speech at Ashalim College in the Negev on Wednesday opined that while Abbas and the rest of the Palestinian Arab leadership does not love us, Abbas is squarely against terrorism, and has done more than any other Palestinian Arab leader to quell terrorism. He went on to say that Israel will make a mistake if it does not find a way to negotiate with Abbas as when he steps down (he is now 76 years old) there is no apparent heir and there will, no doubt, be an internal battle for the leadership of Fatah.

This morning, in response to new overtures by the Quartet dealing with re-energizing the peace process here (i.e. the US, Russia, the EU and the UN) Israel’s Prime Minister stated the country’s willingness to immediately sit down with the Palestinian Arab leadership to negotiate peace without preconditions while the representatives on the other side said they are prepared to come to the negotiating table only if Israel ceases all construction in the areas captures in 1967. (Recall that Israel did enforce such a 10-month suspension in 2010 and the Palestinian Arab leadership still did not agree to come to the table. They waited until the 10th month and then said they would sit down and talk if the freeze was extended.)

So what to make of all of this? Down deep the overwhelming majority of Israelis agree that the present situation is not sustainable over the long run. But that understanding starts to fracture when one digs deeper as to what to do next. Options range from acceding to all of the demands of the Palestinian Arab leadership before sitting down to negotiate, to declaring sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) and letting the chips fall where they may.

The question then would seem to be is it worth making one more concession to Palestinian Arab demands in order to see, once and for all, if we do actually have a partner on the other side? In spite of my earlier blog which I clearly titled “no more concessions” I would have to say that I think the process is worth one more shot. If I were making the decisions for the Government of Israel I would say to the Palestinian Arab leadership, ok, we will suspend all construction in the territories captured in 1967 for 90 days but no other pre-conditions to the talks. If the other side is prepared to then sit down and discuss the parameters of an end to the conflict, fine. If not, Israel will have to decide what is in its best interests and proceed on that path.

I am suggesting this for the same reason that I was in favor of the incredibly lopsided prisoner swap that took place last week where we exchanged 1,027 convicts for Gilad Schalit. I agreed with the assessment of the government here that no one can tell what will happen in Egypt over the course of the next 12-18 months. Therefore, as long as we had someone to speak with who was willing to act as an intermediary, we needed to take advantage of that situation.

I believe the same is true now with the Palestinian Arab leadership in Judea and Samaria. While all of us can point to plenty of negatives about their history, and certainly Yuval Diskin is correct when he says they will never love us, the fact is that there is significant security and economic progress being made in the areas under their control and we need to recognize that. Security cooperation between us is the best it has been in years but no one can tell what will be in the future.

So, recognizing all of the pitfalls in going this route, and understanding that we will cross yet another red line, we have taken so many chances for peace in the past that one more now will probably not make much of a difference. We may not succeed in this effort but we probably owe it to future generations to take one more stab at it. Maybe, just maybe, the other side also finally understands this as well.

Can You Believe? The Topsy Turvy World Called the Middle East

By Sherwin Pomerantz

I thought I would let the smoke clear after last week’s release of everybody’s son, now Sgt. Major Gilad Schalit, and the agreement by Israel to release over 1,000 convicted terrorists in return before blogging again. Now that some days have passed it is interesting to watch what has happened here in the region in the aftermath of last week’s mixed feelings of joy and concern.

In Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas has announced a government payment of $5,000 to each released terrorist. Of course, the Authority has no funds to pay even its monthly obligations for salaries to government employees so these monies then will need to come from funds supplied each month by the United States and the European Union. Can you believe?

The dichotomy of this situation would be laughable if it were not so sad. On the one hand Abbas regularly states that the Authority is against encouraging terror, while simultaneously rewarding terror through the payment of these release bonuses, partially funded by western governments. At the same time, of course, in speeches since last week’s release Abbas has regularly urged more kidnappings of Israeli soldiers to be used as bargaining chips to force the freeing of the remaining (approximately) 5,000 Arab security prisoners and terrorists still in Israeli jails. Can you believe?

One of the remaining prisoners is Marwan Barghouti who is serving five life terms for his masterminding and involvement in multiple deadly terror attacks against Israelis. Yossi Beilin, one of the architects of the failed Oslo Accords of 1993 and the creator of the Geneva Initiative, is quoted as saying earlier this week: “Barghouti is a political leader, not a terrorist, even if he led others to use terror and was responsible for the second intifada.” In Beilin’s twisted logic being an accessory to a crime or aiding and abetting criminal activity does not make one a criminal. Somewhere during his PhD studies in Political Science at Tel Aviv University he must have been absent the day they spoke about the implications of being an accomplice to a crime. How else to explain this convoluted thinking from one of Israel’s best minds? Can you believe?

During this same period of time Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was killed by rebel forces in his hometown of Sirte. Quickly thereafter Libya’s transitional leader, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil declared the end of the 8-month civil war and set out plans for the future with a strong Islamist tone. After declaring that Libya would be called an Islamic Nation (n.b. nobody seems to mind any nation, Libya, Iran, Iraq, being called Islamic as long as Israel is not called Jewish), he added that Islamic Sharia law would be the basic source of legislation and existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified. No surprises there.

In an insightful comment on the uprisings that have been going on in the Arab world over the past 10 months, Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger writes: “Western observers tend to ignore the significance of the 1,400 year old monopoly of Islam over the religious, educational, social and political aspects of every Arab country. Such a repressive monopoly guarantees an Islamic victory in every democratic process. The 1979 freeing of Iran from the autocracy of the Shah produced the Khomeini Revolution, a radical, oppressive, megalomaniac Islamic regime. The 2002 election in Turkey yielded the less-radical Islamic regime of the Justice and Development Party, headed by Erdogan, who aspires to lead the Islamic World and reinstate the Ottoman Empire.”

He goes on to note: “Arab regimes dread freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, free competition, free press, free Internet and free minds. In 2006, Condoleezza Rice’s insistence upon introducing democracy to Gaza catapulted Hamas terrorists to power. In 1996, Jimmy Carter certified the electoral victory of Arafat, who proceeded to launch an unprecedented campaign of terrorism. In 1979, the eagerness to spread democracy led Western leaders to support the Khomeini Revolution. During 1917-1967, a sustained campaign, by the British empire, to introduce democracy to Arab lands failed decisively.” So why is the current situation so hard to believe?

Our job now must be to resist delusional reasoning that allows us to believe, albeit incorrectly, that things will change for the better in the near term. While the potential for positive movement is present throughout the region, the signs, so far, are less than encouraging.

Dr. Carl Sagan, American astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist and award winning author said before he died in 1996: “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” And that, today, is our test and should be the yardstick by which we assess reality.

Is Capital Punishment a Deterrent? And Should we Even Care?

By Sherwin Pomerantz

My blog of Tuesday elicited more responses than normal. Many people felt that history has shown that capital punishment is generally not a deterrent to crime so there is, therefore, no value in Israel’s using that in the future as it will not buy us anything. Should we really care whether that works as a deterrent or not? I’m not sure.

One of my readers thought that my blog was good but that, in a word, he says “I think you guys are screwed. Deterrence requires a value proposition where both sides threaten something of value on the other side. The gap between what your enemy threatens (based on this prisoner exchange) and what you threaten is so wide that you lose either way, and therefore you have no deterrence. You guys need to get outside the box and figure out how to threaten something of value that the Palestinian leaders, terrorists, and the world will understand. The Palestinians have and hold little of value, including people. You have just validated a cheap, easy, effective tactic for your enemy. I would have done the same thing as the return of another 1000 Palestinian heroes will not change the military equation. So, what do you threaten? What can you threaten that your friends will understand and support? Time is short.”

Another reader indicates that “The underlying factor will not go away - our enemy does not value life. A life lost for them at the hands of an enemy may be sad for the immediate family but they will be told and taught they were martyrs to a glorious cause. A person sitting in a prison is a martyr. An executed person is a martyr. A life lost for us, even in the line of duty, is a disaster.”

Someone else wrote “Executing captured perpetrators of terrorist acts will create a price tag. As an example, (our enemies will send) one suicide bomber for every executed terrorist. For us, each life lost is a disaster. This prisoner exchange only underlines how much we value life and how little they do. They understand this and that is why they held him (i.e. Schalit) so long. Until our enemy changes its ways, there will be no great enough deterrent.”

Another writes, “Though I feel sick that these people are being released, the thought of execution, though it may seem somewhat logical if not a gut reaction, leads me to the question Will we challenge our own moral fabric with the introduction of the death penalty?
Further, flattening 1 square kilometer around an area fired from by terrorists is collective punishment. Are we ready to say that a Gazan is an automatic terrorist? Is not our morality the back-bone that keeps this country alive in its fight against its enemies?”

Not to be outdone, of course, the New York Times in an editorial today congratulates Prime Minister Netanyahu for making the deal, for having “twisted himself in an ideological knot to get this deal.” And then, as only the Times can do, it makes the leap to the following conclusion:

“One has to ask: If Mr. Netanyahu can negotiate with Hamas — which shoots rockets at Israel, refuses to recognize Israel’s existence and, on Tuesday, vowed to take even more hostages — why won’t he negotiate seriously with the Palestinian Authority, which Israel relies on to help keep the peace in the West Bank?.... Why can’t he make a similarly impassioned appeal for a settlement freeze for the sake of Israel’s security?” Amazing is it not that there is no reference at all to the fact that Abbas and his cronies have refused to sit down with Israel, even after a 10 month settlement freeze, unless Israel pre-agrees to give up all of its bargaining chips before the dialogue begins?

But the facts are:

»Our enemies seem to place a very low value on the worth of a human life.
»Executing admitted killers who have been convicted in an Israeli court may not be a deterrent.
»Israel does not want to be in a position yet again to have to release convicted murderers in order to redeem our captives.
»We have a limited number of options open to us.
»Things will probably get worse before they get better.
»Our enemies have captured the narrative and made us into the bad guys.

So the options open to us are limited. Given that and considering the financial cost as well of feeding and housing convicted killers (i.e. about $ 40,000 per person per year according to local estimates) I would stand on my earlier position. That is if we apprehend perpetrators of terror attacks where Israeli citizens have died as a result, and if they admit to their crime and are found guilty in an Israeli court then such individuals are guilty of genocide (i.e. as defined, the intentional killing of a [large] group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation) then we have a right to inflict capital punishment on the guilty parties. Israel endorses capital punishment under such circumstances and we would do ourselves a service by letting one and all know that from a certain date, this will be our policy.

Critics may be right that this will not be a major deterrent, but it will be a clear statement to those who choose terror as their vehicle for protest, that we place the same value on their lives as they place on ours. No more, no less. It’s time we drew our own red lines and stood by them.

After the Exchange: What Israel Should Do Now - The Real Price Tag

By Sherwin Pomerantz

If all goes according to plan tomorrow Gilad Schalit, who has been held by Hamas in Gaza for over five years, will return to Israel and the waiting arms of his parents. In return Israel will release 1,027 convicts and 81 Egyptians jailed here at which time Ilan Grapel, the Israeli-American Emory University law student held in Cairo since June will also be released.

This exchange has elicited very strong feelings on both sides of the political spectrum and questions remain as to whether it was the right thing to do, although I personally remain convinced that it, indeed, was the right thing to do. However, in order to minimize the chances of this type of thing occurring again, Israel must take specific actions in the future to dissuade terrorists from killing our citizens.

In a word, once the full exchange has taken place, our government should make it known to one and all that the penalty for terrorism that results in the death of our citizens, once the perpetrators are found guilty by Israeli courts, will be execution. The world community may think this is a harsh response but people who decide to blow up pizza parlors where normal citizens of Israel are enjoying lunch, must understand that the same punishment they have meted out to our citizens will be meted out to them as well. My guess is that if we do that once or twice when such situations occur, God forbid, again in the future, terrorists will think twice about engaging in such activities.

This was, of course, my big personal disappointment after the pullout from Gaza in 2005. It was my hope that our government would have said to one and all, that now that we are out of Gaza there is a clear international border between Israel and Gaza. Given that, should rockets start coming at us from Gaza, for each attack we will simply obliterate one square kilometer of land around the place from which the rockets were fired. I thought then, as I do now, that it was a strategic error on our part not to have done this. And, of course, not having done so, our citizens in the south of the country paid a huge price for our ineptitude.

Taking a position on future terrorist acts that once the accused person has been found guilty, he or she will be executed, will at least give some small measure of solace to those parents who have previously lost children in terrorist acts and who are now witness to those who are guilty being released back to Arab society. We owe them that much as we do those in the future who might also suffer such losses. And to the perpetrators of these crimes we, of course, owe nothing, except a fair trial before punishment.

The first and second time we carry out such executions we can be sure that the world press will spread those pictures across five columns on page one of the next day’s edition. Nevertheless, I am pretty confident that the risks of there being a third or fourth time will be reduced dramatically in the face of such swift and final justice. We do not ever want to have to witness what we will witness this week, the release of hundreds of unrepentant criminals back into society where they will be able, should they desire to do so, to continue their errant ways.

I remain happy that Israel did the moral thing and rescued one of our young men from the hands of the enemy. But we now must do everything possible to make sure we never have to do this again. That’s the price tag for such action and people who contemplate terror should understand what it will cost them personally. Anything less on our part will be an insult to the memory of those who gave their lives here only because they were Jews.

Martin Luther King Jr, whose memorial was dedicated on Sunday in Washington DC once said: “A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men, purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.” The message should be clear to one and all that we here in Israel pay cash!

Redeeming the Captives II – The Price We Pay

By Sherwin Pomerantz

This morning’s papers have now clearly stated that Gilad Schalit will be returned to Israel on Tuesday of next week via a crossing from Hamas-controlled Gaza directly to Israel, and not via Egypt as originally announced. If all goes according to plan the Schalit family will enjoy a much deserved celebration at their northern home on Tuesday evening as we enter Hoshanna Raba, the day before we begin again the annual cycle of Torah readings. The timing could not be more appropriate as next Thursday in the Hebrew calendar is the annual day of renewal of our faith. For the Schalit family it will be a celebration of the rebirth of their family unit.

Over the last two days responses to my piece written on Wednesday in support of the government’s decision to release 1,000 prisoners (some people have asked me to correct that to “convicts”) has been mixed but is running 2:1 in favor of the position I took. However, the opposing viewpoint has merit as well and it is good to look at the logic of those who disagreed with me.

That logic goes something like this: (a) the future murders that will result from the release of these people from Israel’s jails are too predictable; (b) we feel for Gilad's family and friends, and understand that soldiers don't want their government to abandon them cavalierly, but in the end this was a political decision by the Netanyahu government and not a moral one; (c) one clear and dramatic result of the deal is how it strengthens Hamas (and Hizbollah and fellow travelers such the Muslim Brotherhood) at the expense of the PLO; (d) and once again Israel has damaged its deterrent capability and demonstrated that terrorism pays. Many have added a postscript that in this case the political right was correct in opposing the action of the government.

There is, of course, no argument whatsoever with this logic. It was/is too heavy a price to pay; yes the people who are released will probably return to terrorism; yes it definitely strengthens Hamas and that’s not a good thing; and, yes, terrorism and obstinacy has won out again. But having said all that, I am still willing to take the risk and hope that our military will be able to take care of these people in the right way should they return to their errant modes of operation, or should others be emboldened to follow their examples. The decision of the government to accept the inflated terms of Hamas (remember that two years ago the price was 450 released convicts, not 1,000) was a moral one and sometimes morality simply wins out, as it should.

Of course, I fully respect the alternative argument and, down deep, have no idea what’s right. I’m just happy that these parents, who have suffered so greatly for five years, will, hopefully, have a whole son returned to them next week and will understand the incredible debt that they owe to all of us for being willing to take this chance and stand by our captured soldiers. We can all be 100% sure that if the shoe were on the other foot, the response by our enemies would not have been so generous.

What everyone needs to understand, both here and abroad, is the simple truth that when it comes to our experiences here there simply is no right or wrong. Each situation needs to be examined on its own merits and then the tough choices have to be made. So I don’t think it is that the “right” was/is “right” but rather that each side has a valid argument and, in this case, an opportunity needed to be grasped before the price went up even further.

We all need to have a special place in our hearts for the anguish of those who have lost loved ones at the hands of these sub-human beings now being released from prison. There are no words of consolation we can offer them, nor is there anything we can do to bring their sons, daughters, spouses and parents back to life. But they, more than any others, can certainly sympathize with the anguish of the parents of Gilad Schalit and, in spite of their angst over the release of the murderers of their loved ones, must also experience just a small amount of joy at the return of one of our boys and the attendant morality of our leadership.

Winston Churchill had it right when he said “A man does what he must – in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures – and that is the basis of all human morality.” So sometimes, morality wins over political expediency, as well it should.

Redeeming the Captives – The Highest Jewish Value!

By Sherwin Pomerantz

The news in Israel today, as we are about to enter the week-long celebration of the holiday of Sukkot, is that Israel and Hamas have agreed on the terms required for Hamas to release the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit after over five years of captivity. The price? Israel will release over 1,000 Palestinian Arab prisoners it now holds in its jails in two phases, half now and the other half after Schalit is brought to Egypt from where he will come back to Israel and the waiting arms of his parents. Many of the prisoners to be released have been convicted of multiple acts of terrorism leading to the deaths of hundreds of Israelis. The general understanding, based on prior releases of this type, is that when they return to their homes in Judea, Samaria and Gaza many will also return to their former terrorist activities.

Is the price worth it?

We have been through this before and there is always much debate relating to the redemption of captives or pidyon shvuyim as it is known in Hebrew. Historically, it has been a cardinal principle of Jewish life that, whenever possible, one is obligated to redeem captive Jews. The Talmud terms this a “mitzvah rabbah”, a “great” good deed which we are obligated to perform, adding that captivity is worse than starvation and death. Other strong support for this principle can be found in the writings of Maimonides and the Code of Jewish Law as well. There are authorities, of course, including former IDF (Israel Defense Forces) Rabbi Shlomo Goren who argued against such exchanges as he felt doing so, and thereby releasing terrorists back into society, would endanger the general public. However, a case can be made that IDF soldiers will be less effective in their tasks if they have no faith that, should they be captured, Israel will pay any price to bring them home. In that case there is actually a fear that our troops would prefer retreat to capture, ergo the significant concern.

Finally, there is the general opinion that our enemies will continue to attempt to kidnap our troops regardless of what we do, so the price of redemption is really not an issue and it does not, prima facie, increase terror. What might increase the incidence of kidnapping, of course, is the fact that by making this exchange we are permitting our enemies to claim that the process works. That is, capture an Israeli soldier and hold him/her long enough and Israel will meet the demands of the enemy.

But all of these arguments beg one question that none of the articles in the press have chosen to address, and that is the trauma parents face in such a situation. The loss of a child is such an incredibly devastating experience for a parent and so obviously personal as well, that no one who has not had to go through this can possibly understand what it does to the parents, to their psyches and even to their relationship. In Israel specifically, where we ask every parent to send their 18 year olds to the IDF to serve their country and where the attendant risk is real and palpable, parents (and the young men and women who serve) must believe that our country will do all it can to bring their children back in situations like the one in which Gilad Schalit found himself.

So today, once again, I am proud to be an Israeli and proud of my country, a country that cares so much about its sons and daughters that it understands its obligations to its citizens.

Aristotle is reputed to have said “We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly.” And so we have! Am Yisrael Chai …The people of Israel live…and proudly!

The Silly Jewish State Called Israel - NOT !

By Sherwin Pomerantz

Over the last months Israel, through its Prime Minister, has been demanding that before we are prepared to sit down and negotiate yet again with the Palestinian Arab leadership we want them to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state. From our end we understand that this means one with democratic principles and full respect for all of its inhabitants regardless of their religion, as has been our custom. This certainly seems like a reasonable request and one that is significantly less problematic that their demand that before sitting down with us we agree to cease all construction in the areas captured during the six day war and agree to those armistice lines as the beginning of our negotiations.

The Palestinian Arab leadership has not agreed to this demand on our part and, of late, the reasons being given and being supported by other political leaders in the west are nothing short of illogical.

For example, Sari Nusseibah, a well-known Professor of Philosophy at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, in an op-ed piece on Aljazeera.net entitled “Why Israel Can’t be a Jewish State” writes:

"Nevertheless, it remains true that, in the Old Testament, God commands the Jewish state in the land of Israel to come into being through warfare and violent dispossession of the original inhabitants. Moreover, this command has its roots in the very Covenant of God with Abraham (or rather "Abram" at that time) in the Bible and it thus forms one of the core tenets of Judaism as such, at least as we understand it. No one then can blame Palestinians and descendants of the ancient Canaanites, Jebusites and others who inhabited the land before the Ancient Israelites (as seen in the Bible itself) for a little trepidation as regards what recognizing Israel as a "Jewish State" means for them, particularly to certain Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews. No one then can blame Palestinians for asking if recognizing Israel as a "Jewish State" means recognizing the legitimacy of offensive warfare or violence against them by Israel to take what remains of Palestine from them."

Quite amazing is it not? First of all, that Nusseibah makes the claim that today’s Palestinians are the descendant of the ancient Canaanites, Jebusites and others who lived in Israel before the Children of Israel got here, trying to give credence to the fact that the Palestinian history in this land is older than ours. The positive side of this, of course, is the de facto recognition of our long history here which most Palestinian Arab leaders often try very hard to negate.

The final conclusion that if today’s Palestinian Arab leadership were to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, this would lead us to attack the non-Jewish population in the land and kill them is pure nonsense. Better Nusseibah and others should castigate Assad in Syria for killing, as of this weekend, over 2900 of his own people who are simply demanding their God-given rights to free speech and democratic representation. But that’s the fodder for another blog.

As if this is not enough to turn one’s stomach, the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, in an interview in the French magazine Le Canard Echaȋne, says “It is silly to talk about a Jewish state. It would be like saying that this table is Catholic.” He then added, “There are two million Arabs in Israel.” Yet this is the same Sarkozy who sees no problem with other nations with whom he has relations, such as Iran, whose official name is the “Islamic Republic of Iran” even though there are, today, about 25,000 Jews living in Iran (down from the 100,000-150,000 who lived there prior to 1948), 300,000-350,000 Bahai’s, and 300,000 Christians. Yet the official name of the country is the “Islamic Republic of Iran.” By the way Pakistan and Afghanistan also call themselves, officially, Islamic republics as well.

All of this reminds me of the remark Daniel Bernard made in 2001, who at the time was the French Ambassador to the United Kingdom. At a dinner party that year he said “All the current trouble in the world are because of that shitty little country Israel. Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?”

I do not think that the concept of a Jewish state is a silly one. The idea of a Jewish Commonwealth dates back to biblical times and was certainly the understanding of the founders of Israel as recorded thusly in our Declaration of Independence:

Accordingly we, members of the People’s Council, representative of the Jewish community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British mandate over Eretz-Israel and, by virtue of our natural and historic right and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel to be known as the State of Israel.

The world must understand that those of us who have chosen to live here have done so because we believe that Israel is a Jewish country even if many of us also understand that to do so successfully we need to find a way to accommodate the needs of others who may not feel the same way. We need to be committed to do all in our power to make that a reality, but others who have trouble with the concept need to see it as their problem not ours.

Israel Is Its Own Worst Enemy? - NOT !

By Sherwin Pomerantz

30 years ago today, October 6th, Anwar Sadat, then the President of Egypt, was assassinated in Cairo by terrorists who were against the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel which was signed two years earlier on the White House lawn in Washington. The treaty followed his breakthrough trip to Jerusalem 16 months earlier in 1977 when he shocked Israel and the world by announcing his readiness to travel to Israel and find a way to make peace with the Jewish state.

I was still living in the US at the time and clearly remember the excitement that was generated in Jewish communities worldwide regarding this breakthrough in the way an Arab leader was prepared to look at Israel. He was invited to speak in the Knesset and laid out a plan for peace that resulted in the first ever peace agreement between Israel and an Arab country (for the full text of the speech see http://www.ibiblio.org/sullivan/docs/Knesset-speech.html). The agreement was based on agreed upon issues of mutual security as well as an Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian lands (i.e. primarily the Sinai) captured during the Six Day War. Sadly he later paid a high price for having taken this initiative but for those of us living here, the border between our countries has been peaceful for the last 30 years.

This all came to me as I was reading today’s op-ed by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, entitled “Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy?” In it he makes a number of bold statements that demonstrate both his own misunderstanding of the situation here and the slanted information that gets out through the world press. He says: “Nothing is more corrosive than Israel’s growth of settlements because they erode hope of a peace agreement in the future.” And of course today everything over the green line is classified as a settlement even if it is a large contiguous neighborhood of Jerusalem, such as Gilo, Ramot or Ramat Shlomo.

But why is this so commonly accepted as fact? And when did the definition of a settlement become every community over the green line? And why can’s Jews continue to live in those communities after a Palestiniain state is created? Why does Abbas’ wish that the new state be Judenrein be taken as an accepted fact? Doesn’t that bother anyone?

As you may recall when former Prime Minister Sharon and former US President Bush met in Washington in 2004 and Bush issued his famous follow up letter to Sharon, he specified that “already existing major Israeli population centers” will remain within Israel, even if they are over the green line. And there was no outcry! The understanding was that this meant Gush Etzion, Ariel, and Ma’ale Adumim for example; in other words areas relatively deep inside Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank). Ramot and Gilo in Jerusalem were never even on the table.

What happened of course is that President Obama moved the goal posts by saying last year that settlement construction anywhere over the green line must stop. Israel never agreed in the past to stop such construction, especially when it was related to the natural growth of these communities and the Palestinian Arab leadership never refused to negotiate even though construction was in progress. But when the goal posts were moved Israel was forced into a 10 month construction freeze which, as expected, did not bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. So I cannot agree with Kristof’s other statement that “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is isolating his country, and, to be blunt, his hard line on settlements seems like a national suicide policy.” Simply not true in light of the real facts.

Kristof continues by castigating the present administration here for its clumsy handling of relations with Turkey as if the deteriorating relationship is strictly Israel’s fault. He says “Mr. Netanyahu has also undermined Israeli security by burning bridges with Israel’s most important friend in the region, Turkey.” He, of course, conveniently makes no reference to the possibility that this relationship began to unravel long before May 2010 and seems to be a reflection of Erdogan’s long term plan to be the political leader of the Muslim world. Of course, for him to achieve that goal, bashing Israel at every opportunity and threatening war are simply the tools he needs to use to curry favor with other political forces in most Muslim countries. To assist him in achieving that goal Israel simply has to exist.

In retrospect, Sadat was right when he referred to the virtual wall that separated us from the Egyptians during his Knesset speech in 1997. In his words, “This wall constitutes a psychological barrier between us, a barrier of suspicion, a barrier of rejection, a barrier of fear or deception, a barrier of hallucination without any action, deed or decision. A barrier of distorted and eroded interpretation of every event and statement. It is this psychological barrier that I described in official statements as constituting 70 percent of the whole problem.”

His words then continue to be true today and, sadly, today there is no Sadat in the Arab World and, equally sad, no Menachem Begin (who welcomed Sadat to Jerusalem) in Israel. We here in Israel are not our own worst enemy although there is no doubt that we could certainly be getting our points across to the world in a more beneficial manner than we have done until now.

-9 Days Since Friday – No More Concessions!

By Sherwin Pomerantz

With three days this past weekend to think about the coming year I’ve had a significant amount of time to mull over the past months during the countdown to the UN, the speech that Mahmoud Abbas gave at the UN, the world’s reactions, Netanyahu’s speech and the aftermath of that strange week. My conclusion after all of this cogitating is that the watchword of Israel from this point forward should be “No More Concessions” when it comes to getting the Palestinian Arab leadership to the peace talks. There is simply no logical reason at all why we here in Israel should have to do anything more than we have already done to encourage the other side to sit down and talk peace.

Why do I say this? Well, to me the answers are obvious.

First of all, we have made all kinds of concessions already and it has gotten us nowhere. As Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN wrote in the Washington Post last week, “Two Israeli peace proposals, in 2000 and 2008 met virtually all of the Palestinian’s’ demands for a sovereign state in the areas won by Israel in the 1967 war – in the West bank, Gaza and even East Jerusalem. But Palestinian President Yasser Arafat rejected the first offer and Abbas ignored the second, for the very same reason their predecessors spurned the 1947 Partition Plan.” Each time, accepting a Palestinian State meant accepting the Jewish State, a concession that they were unwilling to make, so why should we make any more concessions?

Charles Krauthammer in a September 29th op-ed in the New York Times wrote “Israel gave up land without peace in south Lebanon in 2000, and in return, received war (the Lebanon war of 2006) and 50,000 Hezbollah missiles now targeted on the Israeli homeland. In 2005, Israel gave up land without peace in Gaza, and again was rewarded with war – and constant rocket attack from an openly genocidal Palestinian mini-state.” So, why should we make any more concessions?

In 2010 Israel agreed to a settlement freeze for 10 months, to which the Palestinian Arab leadership responded by boycotting the talks for 9 months, showing up during the last days of the freeze and then walking out again when Israel would not guarantee, in advance, the claim to any territory beyond the 1967 lines. This, in violation of every prior agreement which stipulated that such demands are to be the subject of negotiations, not their precondition. So why make any more concessions?

Add to all of this the consistent mantra of the Palestinian Arab leadership questioning our historic claim to the land. Dennis Prager relates an interview he conducted earlier last month with Ghassan Khatib, Director of Government Media for the Palestinian Authority and the spokesman for Abbas. Prager asked him “Do the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state?” His answer was “no!” He went on to say that there is no Jewish people, so how can there be a Jewish country? The Palestinian position seems to be that there is a religion called Judaism, but no such thing as a Jewish people. This concept was further supported by Abbas’ UN speech where he said “I come before you today from the Holy Land, the land of Palestine, the land of divine messages, ascension of the Prophet Muhammad and the birthplace of Jesus Christ.” No intelligent being can think that this formulation which omitted any reference to the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel was accidental.

Personally, I still believe that for the long term success of the enterprise called Israel, we need to find a way to make permanent peace with our neighbors. But no one in their right mind enters a negotiation having shown all their cards up front, or having made compromises before the negotiations begin. Prime Minister Netanyahu has offered to go to Ramallah to meet with Abbas, has invited Abbas to come to Jerusalem and has even agreed to meet in a neutral location like Brussels. But the other side continues to set preconditions to any meeting and, every few months, seems to add yet another precondition. Given those circumstances we may as well stand our ground and say enough! The world will not like us any better if we make more concessions and it certainly seems as if the world cannot like us any less.

So, at this point, the best strategy would seem to be the one that our government is following, in effect saying, as former US Secretary of State James Baker said to then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, “Call us when you are serious about peace. Here is our number.” Netanyahu should send the same message to Abbas and then wait for the call. My guess is that he will have a long wait.

-5 Days Since Friday – Is Gilo East Jerusalem?

By Sherwin Pomerantz

All of us living here in Israel are just a couple of hours away from the start of the Jewish New Year, 5772, which begins at sundown. As the country winds down, the stores close, the streets get quiet and 95% of the Jewish population here, secular and religious alike, gather for their holiday dinners, another bombshell has fallen from Egypt and our Palestinian neighbors.

Yesterday the Israeli Cabinet approved the construction of an additional 1,100 apartment units in Gilo, a southern suburb of Jerusalem but well within the city limits demarcated by us after the Six Day War in 1967. According to most demographers, there are 40,000 people living in Gilo today. Many of the readers of this blog may recall that during the second Palestinian Arab uprising a few years ago, Gilo was attacked daily by live fire from Bethlehem, just across the valley to the west. Gilo itself is close enough to where I live (roughly in the center of the city) that at night we could hear the shelling going on from our bedroom window. A little scary to be sure.

Gilo like its northern counterpart Ramot, does, indeed, lie over the green line, as it were, but both areas were part of the city annexed by Israel in 1967. Both communities have grown dramatically as the population of city has increased. It is also important to note that Gilo, contrary to what is appearing in the papers today, is not in East Jerusalem but is south of the city in an area that was virtually uninhabited 44 years ago.

So, imagine the surprise today when in headlines in the local papers we find that Egypt is protesting the new construction and its Foreign Minister calls it an act of “Israeli Defiance to the International Community.” Remember, this is not a settlement, but a large neighborhood in Jerusalem proper.

It was not a surprise that the Palestinian Arabs objected earlier in the week, as their leadership objects to every new unit built anywhere they deem inappropriate even though all of this construction is a boon to their population as it provides work for thousands of Palestinian construction workers. As a matter of fact an attempt two years ago by the Palestinian Arab leadership to make working on these projects a crime met with incredible local resistance. As they found out, no one likes to have their government stick its hands in people’s pockets uninvited.

What is even more appalling is the article about this in Ha’aretz today, see

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/egypt-slams-israel-over-new-construction-in-east-jerusalem-1.387212

where Israeli columnists also call Gilo “East Jerusalem,” for which, as mentioned above, there is absolutely no basis in fact.

So, even though the events of last week at the UN are over, the battle that we face here daily is not at all over. Earlier in the week the US State Department also issued a criticism of this decision on our part, once again showing their lack of understanding of the basic geography here.

Our friends around the world need to raise their voices about this type of irresponsible political theatre so that the big lie does not continue unchallenged. Every time one of these lies is repeated it adds yet another nail in the coffin of the enterprise called Israel. Informed individuals need to object at every turn to this type of chicanery.

As we enter the new year, I extend my best wishes to my Jewish readers for a happy, healthy, prosperous and, dare I say as well, peaceful new year. Shana Tovah Umetukah! A Good and Sweet Year!

-3 Days Since Friday – And Now the Turks are Churning

By Sherwin Pomerantz

Now that Netanyahu and Abbas are back in their respective home cities, it’s worth taking a look at one of our less pleasant neighbors at the moment, Turkey.

In today’s Zaman, the main Turkish daily published in Istanbul, the paper listed 174 names, apparently acquired through Facebook, of the 10 Israel Defense Forces soldiers who boarded the Mavi Marmara in May 2010 as it was trying to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. The names were gathered by IHH, the organization that organized the flotilla.

Ramazan Ariturk, a lawyer for IHH, the Humanitarian Relief Foundation based in Turkey was quoted as saying “We have presented a list of Israeli soldiers who gave the order for and who were involved in the attack on the Turkish flotilla to the Istanbul prosecutor’s office. Currently we are waiting for the prosecutor’s office to issue an order for (their) arrest.

The move came as the Istanbul Chief Prosecutor’s Office appealed to the Turkish Intelligence Organization (MİT) in order to obtain information on the identities of the IDF soldiers involved in the raid which left nine Turks dead last year. According to Zaman, an affirmative answer from MİT would allow the prosecutor to open court cases against Israeli officials including the President, Prime Minister and former IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Asheknazi as well as the soldiers involved in the raid.

The charges would include “willful murder and torture” and “limiting freedom” of the passengers, the paper reported.

This is, of course, the same country that has, as part of its history, a significant record of atrocities which neither admits to nor been tried for.

These include:

• The Batak Massacre of 1876 when the Turks slaughtered thousands of Bulgarians simply because of their ethnic background.
• Dersim, where between 7,000-90,000 were killed, although no one can be sure as many of the bodies were destroyed beyond recognition.
• The Armenian genocide where 1,500,000 million were killed in 1915
• The Christian Genocide of 1912-1924
• Turkish atrocities in Cyprus in 1974
• The killing of 40,000 Kurds from 1984-2002 by the Turks.
• War crimes against Greeks during the War of Independence which involved the systematic torture, massacre and ethnic cleansing of several million Hellenes (Greeks) perpetrated by the Turks in Asia Minor, Constantinople (now called Istanbul by the Turks), Eastern Thrace, Imvros, Tenedos, Macedonia, Cappadocia and Pontos. Most of the victims were massacred between 1895 and 1955. The present estimate is that some 2,000,000 Greek children, men and women of all ages were killed during that period.

So this “moral” society which is now offended at the death of 9 of their citizens who were trying to break a legal blockade of Gaza by Israel (the recently issued Palmer Report of the UN stands by Israel’s claim that the blockade is lawful) bears no responsibility at all for the massacre of millions of people in the country’s earlier attempts at ethnic cleansing.

Article 301 of the Turkish penal code even makes it a crime to refer to the Armenian Genocide as genocide. So much for morals.

It is a given that when bad people murder a whole population, good people must respond. When time passes and we look back on people who murdered a whole population, we must never allow that transcendent evil to be denied or downplayed because of diplomatic or political considerations. It is simply wrong and immoral to do so. But it is even more offensive when the society involved in such activities then points the finger at others for grievances much less serious and which occurred because of baiting by people who claim to be on a humanitarian mission but whose goals are transparently belligerent.

The famed lawyer Louis Nizer once said “When man points a finger at someone else, he should remember that four of his fingers are pointing at himself.” The Turks need to internalize that concept.