106 Days to Go
The Challenge of Moving Forward
By Sherwin Pomerantz
It is now 106 days to the opening of the United Nations General Assembly’s 2011 session in New York and the proposed vote to grant the Palestinians recognition for statehood.
As you know the thrust of my messages over the last few weeks have zeroed in on two points. First, is the need to make every effort to convince the delegates to the UN that they should NOT vote in favor of the resolution confirming Palestinian statehood. On that score I was somewhat surprised and disappointed to see this morning’s headlines here claiming that Prime Minister Netanyahu has decided that the effort cannot be stopped. I am not a diplomat, but I am also not willing to give up the fight.
Second, is my suggestion that Israelis and Palestinians sit down with each other and talk even if the Palestinian side includes members of Hamas. And I do understand clearly that at this point in time Hamas, as a matter of policy, objects not only to the presence of Israel in the region but the presence of Jews here as well.
Some of my readers have questioned how I can at one and the same time be against international recognition of Palestinian statehood while simultaneously suggesting that Israel recognize both Palestine and Hamas as evidenced by my urging the parties to sit and speak with each other. Yet, the answer is relatively simply.
Those of us who are against UN recognition of Palestinian statehood are against it because we believe that the issues revolving around such recognition (i.e. borders, the return of refugees, the status of Jerusalem, security in the Jordan Valley and issues of demilitarization) must be negotiated between the two parties, not be imposed by an outside body whether that be the UN or the US.
Having said that, and in support of that theory, it is very easy to make the jump to urge the parties to sit down and speak with each other about possible solutions. And may I remind everyone that the elements of the solution are already in place and have been agreed upon in discussion after discussion from Oslo onwards. What has actually complicated the situation is the imposition of new addenda to these issues by outside parties.
President Obama’s earlier insistence that Israel halt construction in all of the territories and Jerusalem, for example, actually impeded progress towards peace. This was never a demand of the Palestinians until the President put it on the table and, of course, no one can expect the Palestinians to be more liberal than the President of the US. This was a gift of no value other than to place obstacles in the path to peace.
So my position really is understandable. Peace will not come to this area until the parties themselves find it possible to sit down and talk face to face, without interference and without obstacles placed in the way by outside parties. The passing of the proposed UN motion would simply be another obstacle, but one which could unleash chaos here in its wake.
The most disappointing thing in all of this, of course, is the fact that we have a number of highly intelligent people on both sides of the virtual table who, down deep, know exactly what needs to be done to end the conflict. However, their standing on ceremony has become its own obstacle to peace and the possible cause of terrible times ahead for all of us. Would that it were different!
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
107 Days to Go
What Should We Do About Gaza?
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With 107 days remaining to the opening day of the United Nations General Assembly’s 2011 session in New York and the proposed vote to grant the Palestinians recognition for statehood, current estimates indicate that as many as 160 countries might vote in favor.
Many people continue to tell me that the concern is overblown, that nothing will happen and that this is a minor byplay in the overall situation in the Middle East. Perhaps, and I respect those opinions, I just don`t agree. But whatever we do we must, as a nation and as a people, show strength. Change in Gaza over the last week gives us such an opportunity.
Over the weekend the new government in Egypt has opened the Rafah Crossing which now permits relatively unhindered passage of people and goods between Egypt and Gaza. With the opening of that passage and the continued existence of the tunnels under the border built when the passage was closed, for all practical purposes the Egyptians have put an end to the siege of Gaza. In effect, Israel has very little control any longer of what comes in or goes out of the area so why continue our blockade? It`s as if we are attempting to keep fluid inside a pipe when only one end of the pipe has a cork in it. How silly is that? Does anyone think that by blockading our side of the border we really are any longer preventing the flow of weapons into the area? I don`t!
So what is our alternative? I would suggest that we immediately announce that the border between Gaza and Israel is now the border between two sovereign entities. What would that mean? I think all of the following:
• The marine blockade of the Gaza shore ends and, as a result, we would then have no right to prevent or hinder shipments into or out of that area. This would then make further Mavi Marmara attempts to end the blockade totally pointless and take the wind out of the sails (no pun intended) of any such events planned for the future.
• If the border is then seen as one that exists between two sovereign entities, we have full control and decision making power over who comes into Israel from Gaza and who leaves Israel to go into Gaza, just as with any international border. We will, furthermore, not hinder the passage of any quantities of civilian goods from Israel into Gaza or reverse.
• Given that this is an international border, we will then advise the government in Gaza (which theoretically, today, is a combined Fatah-Hamas group) that the rules of engagement have changed. We will now consider any missiles of any type fired into Israel from Gaza by any entity there, official or otherwise, to be an act of war. Our response will be to totally obliterate every building on the one square kilometer of land whose center was the launching site of each of these missiles. My guess is we will only have to do this two or three times at most before the Gaza government gets the message.
• We further advise the Palestinian National Authority that given that the entire world agrees that a future Palestinian state, when it comes into being, will be demilitarized there is no need for the people of Gaza to import large weapons caches. As such, the Government of Israel, in its desire to uphold what President Obama has recently called “understandings under which we have had agreement for some years” reserves the right to seize any ships destined for Gaza whose cargo is composed of military weaponry.
This approach will signal to the world wide members of the UN that Israel really does support the potential for regional change represented by the Arab spring, that it recognizes the right of the people of Gaza to live normal lives, and that in accordance with our earlier withdrawal from Gaza, we recognize the sovereignty of Gaza as a part of a future Palestinian state.
Frankly, we should have done some of this when we first pulled out of Gaza but we did not. Now is the best time to establish these principles given that Egypt has unilaterally changed the dynamic over the weekend. Perhaps then the members of the UN will understand that a country who believes that it is the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people also knows what it has to do to help the world understand this as well. Does our government have what it takes to do this? Let`s hope so.
What Should We Do About Gaza?
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With 107 days remaining to the opening day of the United Nations General Assembly’s 2011 session in New York and the proposed vote to grant the Palestinians recognition for statehood, current estimates indicate that as many as 160 countries might vote in favor.
Many people continue to tell me that the concern is overblown, that nothing will happen and that this is a minor byplay in the overall situation in the Middle East. Perhaps, and I respect those opinions, I just don`t agree. But whatever we do we must, as a nation and as a people, show strength. Change in Gaza over the last week gives us such an opportunity.
Over the weekend the new government in Egypt has opened the Rafah Crossing which now permits relatively unhindered passage of people and goods between Egypt and Gaza. With the opening of that passage and the continued existence of the tunnels under the border built when the passage was closed, for all practical purposes the Egyptians have put an end to the siege of Gaza. In effect, Israel has very little control any longer of what comes in or goes out of the area so why continue our blockade? It`s as if we are attempting to keep fluid inside a pipe when only one end of the pipe has a cork in it. How silly is that? Does anyone think that by blockading our side of the border we really are any longer preventing the flow of weapons into the area? I don`t!
So what is our alternative? I would suggest that we immediately announce that the border between Gaza and Israel is now the border between two sovereign entities. What would that mean? I think all of the following:
• The marine blockade of the Gaza shore ends and, as a result, we would then have no right to prevent or hinder shipments into or out of that area. This would then make further Mavi Marmara attempts to end the blockade totally pointless and take the wind out of the sails (no pun intended) of any such events planned for the future.
• If the border is then seen as one that exists between two sovereign entities, we have full control and decision making power over who comes into Israel from Gaza and who leaves Israel to go into Gaza, just as with any international border. We will, furthermore, not hinder the passage of any quantities of civilian goods from Israel into Gaza or reverse.
• Given that this is an international border, we will then advise the government in Gaza (which theoretically, today, is a combined Fatah-Hamas group) that the rules of engagement have changed. We will now consider any missiles of any type fired into Israel from Gaza by any entity there, official or otherwise, to be an act of war. Our response will be to totally obliterate every building on the one square kilometer of land whose center was the launching site of each of these missiles. My guess is we will only have to do this two or three times at most before the Gaza government gets the message.
• We further advise the Palestinian National Authority that given that the entire world agrees that a future Palestinian state, when it comes into being, will be demilitarized there is no need for the people of Gaza to import large weapons caches. As such, the Government of Israel, in its desire to uphold what President Obama has recently called “understandings under which we have had agreement for some years” reserves the right to seize any ships destined for Gaza whose cargo is composed of military weaponry.
This approach will signal to the world wide members of the UN that Israel really does support the potential for regional change represented by the Arab spring, that it recognizes the right of the people of Gaza to live normal lives, and that in accordance with our earlier withdrawal from Gaza, we recognize the sovereignty of Gaza as a part of a future Palestinian state.
Frankly, we should have done some of this when we first pulled out of Gaza but we did not. Now is the best time to establish these principles given that Egypt has unilaterally changed the dynamic over the weekend. Perhaps then the members of the UN will understand that a country who believes that it is the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people also knows what it has to do to help the world understand this as well. Does our government have what it takes to do this? Let`s hope so.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
108 Days to Go
Can We Do Something at the UN?
By Sherwin Pomerantz
There are now 108 days remaining to the opening day of the United Nations General Assembly’s 2011 session in New York and the proposed vote to grant the Palestinians recognition for statehood.
First of all thank you CANADA, for your strong stand at the G8 meeting in France where you insisted that the statement issued about Israel not include support for negotiations based on the 1967 armistice lines. Canada knows what it means to be a friend to Israel and Pres. Obama might take a lesson from his principled neighbor to the north.
Canada`s actions at the G8 Summit speak to us as well vis-à-vis the upcoming vote in the UN to recognize Palestinian statehood. Any number of people whose intellect I respect have let me know over the past few days that they think the vote in the General Assembly is a foregone conclusion and that there is no value in trying to convince the solid bloc of supporters to change their minds. I disagree. And for the proof we just need to look at Deauville, France and the G8 deliberations.
President Obama came to France with the intent of walking away with a strong statement of support for an Arab-Israeli peace based on the 1967 armistice lines. But there were a few people of principle who felt that this was not a move that would help Israel nor contribute to achieving peace in the region. Those people, against all odds, prevailed and the statement issued by the G8 made no reference to the `67 armistice lines.
So minds can be changed but only if individuals make their voices heard and state their positions. I believe the same is true vis-à-vis the UN vote in September. It is simply assumed that the Arab world along with most of the non-aligned nations will rubber stamp the proposal to grant recognition to a Palestinian state. But why is that a foregone conclusion? Has world Jewry and our friends who care ever bombarded the UN delegates with letters of protest on critical issues of Israel`s survival? Probably not because for many years we believed that it was a foregone conclusion that this was all pointless.
Well, that may be correct but not necessarily and we will never know until we try. It seems to me if each UN delegation received 10,000 letters objecting to the ratification of this damaging resolution what would happen?
• First of all, the news media around the world would hear about the fact that UN delegations are being deluged with mail against the resolution. They would sit up and take notice and give the campaign even more strength and credibility.
• Second, it is generally assumed by public representatives that each letter received mirrors the opinions of 100 other people who did not take the time to write. So, 10,000 letters to a UN delegation means that there are a million people out there who feel the same way.
• Third, to be sure these delegates get their marching orders from headquarters in their home countries. But there is no doubt that if this campaign were successful, headquarters would hear about it as well and at least give their country`s position some further thought.
We can all sit back and do nothing telling ourselves that this will do no good. That`s the easy way out. The difficult task is to believe that we individual members of society can have an effect, that we can change people`s minds and that we can make a difference. If we believe that, then we have no choice but to act. And if we do not act, we have only ourselves to blame for the results.
Attached is the updated list of UN legations through the letter K (still working on the rest). Writing these letters is a time consuming process so if you agree that this can be useful, feel free to begin now. Hopefully by the end of the week the full list will be available. The world community must know that we will not stand in silence while our enemies work to destroy us. Our voices must be heard and this is one easy way to make that happen. Hope you will do so.
Can We Do Something at the UN?
By Sherwin Pomerantz
There are now 108 days remaining to the opening day of the United Nations General Assembly’s 2011 session in New York and the proposed vote to grant the Palestinians recognition for statehood.
First of all thank you CANADA, for your strong stand at the G8 meeting in France where you insisted that the statement issued about Israel not include support for negotiations based on the 1967 armistice lines. Canada knows what it means to be a friend to Israel and Pres. Obama might take a lesson from his principled neighbor to the north.
Canada`s actions at the G8 Summit speak to us as well vis-à-vis the upcoming vote in the UN to recognize Palestinian statehood. Any number of people whose intellect I respect have let me know over the past few days that they think the vote in the General Assembly is a foregone conclusion and that there is no value in trying to convince the solid bloc of supporters to change their minds. I disagree. And for the proof we just need to look at Deauville, France and the G8 deliberations.
President Obama came to France with the intent of walking away with a strong statement of support for an Arab-Israeli peace based on the 1967 armistice lines. But there were a few people of principle who felt that this was not a move that would help Israel nor contribute to achieving peace in the region. Those people, against all odds, prevailed and the statement issued by the G8 made no reference to the `67 armistice lines.
So minds can be changed but only if individuals make their voices heard and state their positions. I believe the same is true vis-à-vis the UN vote in September. It is simply assumed that the Arab world along with most of the non-aligned nations will rubber stamp the proposal to grant recognition to a Palestinian state. But why is that a foregone conclusion? Has world Jewry and our friends who care ever bombarded the UN delegates with letters of protest on critical issues of Israel`s survival? Probably not because for many years we believed that it was a foregone conclusion that this was all pointless.
Well, that may be correct but not necessarily and we will never know until we try. It seems to me if each UN delegation received 10,000 letters objecting to the ratification of this damaging resolution what would happen?
• First of all, the news media around the world would hear about the fact that UN delegations are being deluged with mail against the resolution. They would sit up and take notice and give the campaign even more strength and credibility.
• Second, it is generally assumed by public representatives that each letter received mirrors the opinions of 100 other people who did not take the time to write. So, 10,000 letters to a UN delegation means that there are a million people out there who feel the same way.
• Third, to be sure these delegates get their marching orders from headquarters in their home countries. But there is no doubt that if this campaign were successful, headquarters would hear about it as well and at least give their country`s position some further thought.
We can all sit back and do nothing telling ourselves that this will do no good. That`s the easy way out. The difficult task is to believe that we individual members of society can have an effect, that we can change people`s minds and that we can make a difference. If we believe that, then we have no choice but to act. And if we do not act, we have only ourselves to blame for the results.
Attached is the updated list of UN legations through the letter K (still working on the rest). Writing these letters is a time consuming process so if you agree that this can be useful, feel free to begin now. Hopefully by the end of the week the full list will be available. The world community must know that we will not stand in silence while our enemies work to destroy us. Our voices must be heard and this is one easy way to make that happen. Hope you will do so.
Friday, May 27, 2011
110 Days to Go
Is the UN Vote Really Important?
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With 110 days remaining to the opening day of the United Nations General Assembly’s 2011 session in New York and the proposed vote to grant the Palestinians recognition for statehood, some people are responding questioning why I think this is a potentially disastrous watershed?
The opposing argument goes something like this: The General Assembly cannot grant membership to any country not so approved by the Security Council, the Security Council will probably not pass it based on the stated intention of the U.S. to veto any such resolution, and the decision of the General Assembly is not binding in any case. I will not, again, go into the aspects of that argument that may have offsets/overrides in prior U.N. resolutions or in the overall legality of the request itself. Rather, let me list the concerns about the process, in and of itself.
• The discussion at the General Assembly on this resolution will, itself, be an exercise in Israel bashing, certainly by the Arab bloc, as well as other countries who have been convinced that peace would come to the entire world if only Israel were not around. We certainly do not need more of this in New York in September.
• Should the resolution pass, even if every legal eagle in the world opines that is has no enforcement capability, the Palestinians, through their seemingly very capable p.r. apparatus, will hawk the fact that now that the resolution has been passed, those Israelis living in areas which the Palestinians claim is now part of their new state, are now living there illegally and must return to pre-1967 armistice lines Israel. Remember we are speaking about hundreds of thousands of people if you include people in the Jerusalem suburbs of Ramot, French Hill, Gilo, and Har Homa as well as the large communities of Ariel, Ma’ale Adumim and Gush Etzion.
• The world, whose nations voted in favor of the resolution, will then be asked to back up their support for the resolution by penalizing Israel, who refuses to recognize the sovereignty of the newly designated Palestine, by imposing trade and diplomatic sanctions on Israel. This could include not permitting Israeli products to be imported into their countries, not accepting the passports of Israelis who live in the newly designated Palestine, etc. In Thursday’s papers the Israel Defense Ministry has already raised the concern that defense exports may drop as a result.
Do I need to go further? Many of the people who receive this blog every day can each probably add another concern of their own and add significantly to this list. Israel is already experiencing a march towards isolation that, however illogical it may be, is already making itself felt in local society. We have politicians and retired military personnel who don’t travel to certain countries for fear of being arrested as war criminals when they get off the plane; representatives of the government are regularly heckled and their speeches disrupted at appearances worldwide; certain exports of the country are boycotted in specific locations in the west in support of the Palestinian cause; and even my partner and myself during presentations a year ago on doing business in the middle east, have been picketed in nice places like Portland, Oregon and New Orleans, Louisiana.
I believe, therefore, that a case can be made for doing everything we can to let the delegates to the U.N. from every nation know that voting in favor of the resolution to recognize a Palestinian state would be a mistake of major import. If we fail to at least try, we ourselves are abdicating our responsibility as informed, caring and knowledgeable citizens of the world.
Pirke Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) teaches us that “It is not yours to complete the task, but neither are you free to desist from it.” Those are the words that should govern our conduct in the current situation. Do something please and do it now!
Is the UN Vote Really Important?
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With 110 days remaining to the opening day of the United Nations General Assembly’s 2011 session in New York and the proposed vote to grant the Palestinians recognition for statehood, some people are responding questioning why I think this is a potentially disastrous watershed?
The opposing argument goes something like this: The General Assembly cannot grant membership to any country not so approved by the Security Council, the Security Council will probably not pass it based on the stated intention of the U.S. to veto any such resolution, and the decision of the General Assembly is not binding in any case. I will not, again, go into the aspects of that argument that may have offsets/overrides in prior U.N. resolutions or in the overall legality of the request itself. Rather, let me list the concerns about the process, in and of itself.
• The discussion at the General Assembly on this resolution will, itself, be an exercise in Israel bashing, certainly by the Arab bloc, as well as other countries who have been convinced that peace would come to the entire world if only Israel were not around. We certainly do not need more of this in New York in September.
• Should the resolution pass, even if every legal eagle in the world opines that is has no enforcement capability, the Palestinians, through their seemingly very capable p.r. apparatus, will hawk the fact that now that the resolution has been passed, those Israelis living in areas which the Palestinians claim is now part of their new state, are now living there illegally and must return to pre-1967 armistice lines Israel. Remember we are speaking about hundreds of thousands of people if you include people in the Jerusalem suburbs of Ramot, French Hill, Gilo, and Har Homa as well as the large communities of Ariel, Ma’ale Adumim and Gush Etzion.
• The world, whose nations voted in favor of the resolution, will then be asked to back up their support for the resolution by penalizing Israel, who refuses to recognize the sovereignty of the newly designated Palestine, by imposing trade and diplomatic sanctions on Israel. This could include not permitting Israeli products to be imported into their countries, not accepting the passports of Israelis who live in the newly designated Palestine, etc. In Thursday’s papers the Israel Defense Ministry has already raised the concern that defense exports may drop as a result.
Do I need to go further? Many of the people who receive this blog every day can each probably add another concern of their own and add significantly to this list. Israel is already experiencing a march towards isolation that, however illogical it may be, is already making itself felt in local society. We have politicians and retired military personnel who don’t travel to certain countries for fear of being arrested as war criminals when they get off the plane; representatives of the government are regularly heckled and their speeches disrupted at appearances worldwide; certain exports of the country are boycotted in specific locations in the west in support of the Palestinian cause; and even my partner and myself during presentations a year ago on doing business in the middle east, have been picketed in nice places like Portland, Oregon and New Orleans, Louisiana.
I believe, therefore, that a case can be made for doing everything we can to let the delegates to the U.N. from every nation know that voting in favor of the resolution to recognize a Palestinian state would be a mistake of major import. If we fail to at least try, we ourselves are abdicating our responsibility as informed, caring and knowledgeable citizens of the world.
Pirke Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) teaches us that “It is not yours to complete the task, but neither are you free to desist from it.” Those are the words that should govern our conduct in the current situation. Do something please and do it now!
Thursday, May 26, 2011
111 Days to Go
Hope Springs Eternal
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With 111 days to go to the opening day of the United Nations General Assembly’s 2011 session in New York I received a lot of comments on yesterday’s piece calling for a face to face meeting between Netanyahu and Abbas.
Some of it was supportive and, of course, a good number of people felt that what I suggested simply had no purpose as there was nothing these people could say to each other.
Many people, both here and abroad, in defense of their position saying that we should not speak with Hamas until they agree to recognize Israel, said we simply had to be tough, stand on our principles and defend our position. Easy to say, of course, when there is no personal risk involved.
If the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians deteriorates further, the people who are at the highest risk are those of us living here. I believe, therefore, that it behoves us to try to move this forward and nothing moves forward without discussions. There is no question that Hamas is an obnoxious group bent on our destruction (and in this case “our” ultimately means Jews living abroad as well, although, hopefully, not for awhile longer). However, Arafat’s people also had a charter that refused to recognize Israel and were bent on our destruction but at the end of the day we sat down together and hammered out an agreement. In retrospect that may not have been such a great deal but we did sit down with them. That’s the difference between Rabin, for example, and Netanyahu. Rabin had more vision and knew that it was in our best interests to try to hammer out some diminution of the conflict even if it meant taking chances. We took those chances and the bet did not work so well, but there are odds in every decision.
I was also reminded by one of my readers of something former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson said on this topic when he was criticized for “wasting time negotiating with the enemy.” He famously said: "I'd rather Jaw, Jaw, Jaw than War, War, War" Truth be told, no one ever died at the negotiating table and nobody can argue with that.
One of my readers also felt that I am overly concerned about what will happen at the U.N. in September and, in his opinion, nothing will happen. Yet, it is clear to every thinking person that as time moves forward Israel indeed is becoming more and more isolated. A vote at the U.N. to support Palestinian statehood will only add to that isolation. Ergo my suggestion that we act to prevent it from happening.
Earlier today I issued an invitation to both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas to come to our home for lunch on the upcoming holiday of Shavuot (i.e. June 8th) to break bread together in a social and non-political environment. The face of the “other” looks quite different when people are eating together. I have no idea whether either will accept (the odds are, of course, that they won’t). But wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if they said yes and found that sitting at someone else’s table who is not a head of state, that at the end of the day we are dealing with real people with parents, children, and possibly grandchildren at whose joyous events we would all like to be present.
The 16th verse of the 26th chapter of the book of Devarim (Deuteronomy) states: “This day the Lord God commands you to do!” Is anybody listening? I hope so. Do we have a right not to listen? No, we do not!
Hope Springs Eternal
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With 111 days to go to the opening day of the United Nations General Assembly’s 2011 session in New York I received a lot of comments on yesterday’s piece calling for a face to face meeting between Netanyahu and Abbas.
Some of it was supportive and, of course, a good number of people felt that what I suggested simply had no purpose as there was nothing these people could say to each other.
Many people, both here and abroad, in defense of their position saying that we should not speak with Hamas until they agree to recognize Israel, said we simply had to be tough, stand on our principles and defend our position. Easy to say, of course, when there is no personal risk involved.
If the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians deteriorates further, the people who are at the highest risk are those of us living here. I believe, therefore, that it behoves us to try to move this forward and nothing moves forward without discussions. There is no question that Hamas is an obnoxious group bent on our destruction (and in this case “our” ultimately means Jews living abroad as well, although, hopefully, not for awhile longer). However, Arafat’s people also had a charter that refused to recognize Israel and were bent on our destruction but at the end of the day we sat down together and hammered out an agreement. In retrospect that may not have been such a great deal but we did sit down with them. That’s the difference between Rabin, for example, and Netanyahu. Rabin had more vision and knew that it was in our best interests to try to hammer out some diminution of the conflict even if it meant taking chances. We took those chances and the bet did not work so well, but there are odds in every decision.
I was also reminded by one of my readers of something former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson said on this topic when he was criticized for “wasting time negotiating with the enemy.” He famously said: "I'd rather Jaw, Jaw, Jaw than War, War, War" Truth be told, no one ever died at the negotiating table and nobody can argue with that.
One of my readers also felt that I am overly concerned about what will happen at the U.N. in September and, in his opinion, nothing will happen. Yet, it is clear to every thinking person that as time moves forward Israel indeed is becoming more and more isolated. A vote at the U.N. to support Palestinian statehood will only add to that isolation. Ergo my suggestion that we act to prevent it from happening.
Earlier today I issued an invitation to both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Palestinian President Abbas to come to our home for lunch on the upcoming holiday of Shavuot (i.e. June 8th) to break bread together in a social and non-political environment. The face of the “other” looks quite different when people are eating together. I have no idea whether either will accept (the odds are, of course, that they won’t). But wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if they said yes and found that sitting at someone else’s table who is not a head of state, that at the end of the day we are dealing with real people with parents, children, and possibly grandchildren at whose joyous events we would all like to be present.
The 16th verse of the 26th chapter of the book of Devarim (Deuteronomy) states: “This day the Lord God commands you to do!” Is anybody listening? I hope so. Do we have a right not to listen? No, we do not!
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
112 Days to Go
Where Bibi Disappointed Me
By Sherwin Pomerantz
We now are just 112 days away from the opening day of the United Nations General Assembly’s 2011 session in New York. And there is a lot of work to do in preparation for that.
I was hoping that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of the US Congress on Tuesday would lay out a ground breaking plan to get the stalled peace talks back on track. Instead what the Prime Minister did, sensing an incredibly supportive audience (29 standing ovations no less), was to offer a 47 minute history lesson on why our claims to the land of Israel are legitimate.
Well, I certainly agree that they are and have been using the term the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people in many of these recent blogs. Providing that kind of history lesson is always worthwhile and was, of course, received very well by those assembled in the capitol. But sadly, the next steps were missing.
Of course, the reaction here was both interesting and somewhat predictable. This morning’s Ha’aretz featured one op-ed after another saying that the speech will lead us into war not to peace. The reaction of the Palestinian Arab leadership was pretty much the same as was that of Jerusalem Post columnist Ray Hanania, who is Palestinian but lives in Chicago with his Jewish wife. But last evening at an event in Tel Aviv the reaction of the Israeli street was generally positive. I watched the tape this morning and actually was quite proud of how the Prime Minister of Israel represented the basic interests of this country so adroitly in front of the national body of an ally.
But it was not enough. Let me explain. The Prime Minister along with pretty much every other intelligent humanoid on both sides of the issue understands that the status quo really is unsustainable, we all just seem to be incapable of determining the steps that need to be taken to move forward. So his comment or demand if you will that Israel is ready to sit down with the Palestinians as represented by Fatah but not with Hamas, and his suggestion that Mahmoud Abbas agree to disassociate himself from Hamas in order to negotiate with Israel simply flies in the face of reality. The Prime Minister knows that Abbas cannot and would not do that so throwing down that gauntlet really is a statement that we Israelis don’t want to see a restart of the negotiations. But I do not think that reflects the majority of Israeli opinion.
Having said that, what could occur that would make it possible for negotiations to be renewed? First of all, the Prime Minister has to internalize the fact that peace and an end to the conflict can only be negotiated with one’s enemy, not one’s friends. To be sure Hamas, according to their charter, their public statements, their textbooks, and their recent criticism of the US for killing Bin Laden sends a loud and clear message that given the opportunity they would destroy Israel and even, if possible, the Jewish people. A pretty scary scenario to be sure but, at this point, so what? They are the enemy and it is the enemy with whom we need to negotiate.
I would suggest that now is time for bold action on the part of the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Arabs to do something that neither has the stomach for. Specifically:
• Benjamin Netanyau should issue a formal invitation in the name of the State of Israel to Mahmoud Abbas as the President of the Palestinian National Authority to come to the Knesset and address the membership of that body with his vision of what he sees as the future for his constituency. Joining him in that journey should be the prime minister’s cabinet as well.
• Concomitantly, President Abbas should issue a similar invitation, in the name of the Palestinian National Authority for Prime Minister Netanyahu to come to Ramallah and address the Palestinian Parliament with his vision of what he sees as the future for all of us. As above, Abbas should be joined in his visit by his cabinet members, including those who are part of Hamas.
This should all be done without a settlement freeze (to which we will not agree at this time), without the withdrawal of Hamas from the PNA (to which the PNA will not agree at this time) and without any preconditions. Just two people who publicly say they want peace laying out their vision in the camp of the “other.” Naïve you may say but why? Netanyahu already said in Washington that he is prepared to travel to Ramallah. If he issues an invitation to Abbas and Abbas refuses, or if Abbas says yes but Hamas refuses, that will be the clearest sign yet as to who is really holding up forward movement. And if, with the Lord’s help, such an exchange actually takes place and people from both sides actually talk face to face with no agenda other than meeting in the camp of the “other” well, one never knows what can take place.
I recall the first trip a number of us made to Jordan after the signing of the peace accord between Jerusalem and Amman in the mid-90s. The Jordanian Businessmen’s Association held a luncheon in our honor and during that event there was some indirect Israel-bashing going on, politely, of course. But after lunch, when it was just one person talking to another person, more than one Jordanian said privately to more than one of us visiting, “now that the formal part of the day is over, let’s talk seriously and see what business we can do together.” Today, almost 50% of Jordan’s exports originate in Israel and are finished in factories on the other side of the border. Amazing, is it not, what people-to-people diplomacy can do? And wouldn’t that be better than going down the path to a third intifada? And do we dare not try?
Where Bibi Disappointed Me
By Sherwin Pomerantz
We now are just 112 days away from the opening day of the United Nations General Assembly’s 2011 session in New York. And there is a lot of work to do in preparation for that.
I was hoping that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of the US Congress on Tuesday would lay out a ground breaking plan to get the stalled peace talks back on track. Instead what the Prime Minister did, sensing an incredibly supportive audience (29 standing ovations no less), was to offer a 47 minute history lesson on why our claims to the land of Israel are legitimate.
Well, I certainly agree that they are and have been using the term the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people in many of these recent blogs. Providing that kind of history lesson is always worthwhile and was, of course, received very well by those assembled in the capitol. But sadly, the next steps were missing.
Of course, the reaction here was both interesting and somewhat predictable. This morning’s Ha’aretz featured one op-ed after another saying that the speech will lead us into war not to peace. The reaction of the Palestinian Arab leadership was pretty much the same as was that of Jerusalem Post columnist Ray Hanania, who is Palestinian but lives in Chicago with his Jewish wife. But last evening at an event in Tel Aviv the reaction of the Israeli street was generally positive. I watched the tape this morning and actually was quite proud of how the Prime Minister of Israel represented the basic interests of this country so adroitly in front of the national body of an ally.
But it was not enough. Let me explain. The Prime Minister along with pretty much every other intelligent humanoid on both sides of the issue understands that the status quo really is unsustainable, we all just seem to be incapable of determining the steps that need to be taken to move forward. So his comment or demand if you will that Israel is ready to sit down with the Palestinians as represented by Fatah but not with Hamas, and his suggestion that Mahmoud Abbas agree to disassociate himself from Hamas in order to negotiate with Israel simply flies in the face of reality. The Prime Minister knows that Abbas cannot and would not do that so throwing down that gauntlet really is a statement that we Israelis don’t want to see a restart of the negotiations. But I do not think that reflects the majority of Israeli opinion.
Having said that, what could occur that would make it possible for negotiations to be renewed? First of all, the Prime Minister has to internalize the fact that peace and an end to the conflict can only be negotiated with one’s enemy, not one’s friends. To be sure Hamas, according to their charter, their public statements, their textbooks, and their recent criticism of the US for killing Bin Laden sends a loud and clear message that given the opportunity they would destroy Israel and even, if possible, the Jewish people. A pretty scary scenario to be sure but, at this point, so what? They are the enemy and it is the enemy with whom we need to negotiate.
I would suggest that now is time for bold action on the part of the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Arabs to do something that neither has the stomach for. Specifically:
• Benjamin Netanyau should issue a formal invitation in the name of the State of Israel to Mahmoud Abbas as the President of the Palestinian National Authority to come to the Knesset and address the membership of that body with his vision of what he sees as the future for his constituency. Joining him in that journey should be the prime minister’s cabinet as well.
• Concomitantly, President Abbas should issue a similar invitation, in the name of the Palestinian National Authority for Prime Minister Netanyahu to come to Ramallah and address the Palestinian Parliament with his vision of what he sees as the future for all of us. As above, Abbas should be joined in his visit by his cabinet members, including those who are part of Hamas.
This should all be done without a settlement freeze (to which we will not agree at this time), without the withdrawal of Hamas from the PNA (to which the PNA will not agree at this time) and without any preconditions. Just two people who publicly say they want peace laying out their vision in the camp of the “other.” Naïve you may say but why? Netanyahu already said in Washington that he is prepared to travel to Ramallah. If he issues an invitation to Abbas and Abbas refuses, or if Abbas says yes but Hamas refuses, that will be the clearest sign yet as to who is really holding up forward movement. And if, with the Lord’s help, such an exchange actually takes place and people from both sides actually talk face to face with no agenda other than meeting in the camp of the “other” well, one never knows what can take place.
I recall the first trip a number of us made to Jordan after the signing of the peace accord between Jerusalem and Amman in the mid-90s. The Jordanian Businessmen’s Association held a luncheon in our honor and during that event there was some indirect Israel-bashing going on, politely, of course. But after lunch, when it was just one person talking to another person, more than one Jordanian said privately to more than one of us visiting, “now that the formal part of the day is over, let’s talk seriously and see what business we can do together.” Today, almost 50% of Jordan’s exports originate in Israel and are finished in factories on the other side of the border. Amazing, is it not, what people-to-people diplomacy can do? And wouldn’t that be better than going down the path to a third intifada? And do we dare not try?
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
113 Days to Go
Were We Too Hard On Obama?
By Sherwin Pomerantz
From today there are 113 days to go until the United Nations General Assembly convenes in New York.
Over the last few days I’ve devoted this blog to dealing with reactions to the speeches given by President Obama both on Thursday night at the State Department and on Sunday at the AIPAC Conference, both in Washington DC. My conclusion was that after the President’s speech of clarification on Sunday we had even more to worry about than after Thursday night. But did all of us who were critical of the President go too far? Did we miss an opportunity to thank him for what he said that we agreed with?
To address that concern I share with you parts of a piece written by Rabbi Mark S. Golub, president and executive producer of Shalom TV, America's national Jewish television network beamed in 41 million homes on virtually every cable system in the United States and in Canada.
Rabbi Golub said:
In last week's speech, the President positioned the Jewish People's right to a safe and secure homeland in Israel as the top priority and reaffirmed America's unwavering commitment and support, what he described in his address to AIPAC on Sunday as "ironclad." The President was eloquent in speaking of America's support of Israel as "rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values;" and specifically struck out against those would apply a double standard in their evaluations of Israel, saying that the U.S. "will stand against attempts to single [Israel] out for criticism in international forums."
Also of extreme import, the President explicitly referred to Israel as the "Jewish" state -- a description which, surprisingly, created significant controversy (even among some American Jews) when Prime Minister Netanyahu insisted on including the words "Jewish state" in describing his own commitment to a two-state solution.
It is noteworthy that he began his actual description of the deadlock in the peace process by publicly acknowledging Palestinian efforts to delegitimize Israel and declaring that those efforts "will end in failure." The President also took on Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinians by warning against any "symbolic" Arab effort to seek statehood in the United Nations in September; singled out Hamas' terror and rejectionism as obstacles to peace; criticized the Palestinians alone for abandoning peace negotiations; and verbalized the overarching message the Jewish community has been pleading with the world to embrace: "Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist."
And finally, in referencing the peace process itself, the President finally acknowledged that no peace can be imposed upon Israel from the outside -- not even by the United States.
The President had every right to expect that the Jewish world would applaud his remarks and that the Arab world would feel it had been dealt a serious dose of reality. Why, then, did the speech engender such a negative reaction within the Jewish community?
I don't understand the degree of hysteria over the President's reference to '67 lines -- and I have not found anyone who can explain it to me.
All President Obama did is articulate the formula which the Jewish world has been arguing for: "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." As the President accurately told his APIAC audience, "There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations."
American Jews who have heard an anti-Israel bias in President Obama's address on the Middle East are not only doing him injustice, they are missing an invaluable opportunity to trumpet the President's positive messages regarding the State of Israel -- ones which he made before the entire world and which the entire world should well heed.
Well, let me tell Rabbi Golub what it is that disturbed me. Rabbi Golub simply misses the point and it seems to me that he is writing from the perspective of a supporter of JStreet and, of course, JStreet was wildly supportive of everything that the President said last Thursday night.
I agree that Obama was trying but he really does not understand the realities of the situation here. For sure, we have been talking about a resolution of borders on the basis of the 1967 armistice lines for years. But we have also been discussing keeping Jerusalem undivided and not permitting a return of all of the refugees of 1948 & 1967 as well as their children and grandchildren to what will be Israel proper. What Golub misses is that by publicly stating that the 1967 armistice lines, plus or minus some land swaps, will be the final borders, and putting off the further discussion of refugees and Jerusalem, we might (actually we will) be faced with a situation where the borders are fixed, a Palestinian state is in place and then we will yet have to negotiate these other issues. At that time we will be in a much weaker position to defend our positions on Jerusalem and refugees than if everything had been dealt with together.
From Obama’s perspective for sure it would be easier to deal with borders and security and leave the other two core issues for later. But from our perspective that would be tantamount to buying a house, signing the papers, taking out the mortgage AND THEN telling the seller ok, let’s now discuss what is being left in the house for the buyer to use. At that point the buyer has no leverage whatsoever. We do not want to be in that situation here.
Netanyahu said to Obama on Friday that history will not give the Jewish people another chance. I would have said to him, instead, that our first mistake will be our last and we simply cannot take the chance.
While I do agree that along with the criticism, the Jewish community might have been better served by complimenting the President for what he said that we could support before being critical of the challenging points. But the fact is that there is yet plenty about which to be worried. And if you have any doubts please take a few minutes and look at this video about Israel`s borders: http://youtu.be/ytWmPqY8TE0 It will then be clear why we should still be worried and why we should continue to let the delegates to the UN know that they must vote against affirming Palestinian statehood at the UN before the parties themselves negotiate the terms of their agreement,. We owe ourselves nothing less.
Were We Too Hard On Obama?
By Sherwin Pomerantz
From today there are 113 days to go until the United Nations General Assembly convenes in New York.
Over the last few days I’ve devoted this blog to dealing with reactions to the speeches given by President Obama both on Thursday night at the State Department and on Sunday at the AIPAC Conference, both in Washington DC. My conclusion was that after the President’s speech of clarification on Sunday we had even more to worry about than after Thursday night. But did all of us who were critical of the President go too far? Did we miss an opportunity to thank him for what he said that we agreed with?
To address that concern I share with you parts of a piece written by Rabbi Mark S. Golub, president and executive producer of Shalom TV, America's national Jewish television network beamed in 41 million homes on virtually every cable system in the United States and in Canada.
Rabbi Golub said:
In last week's speech, the President positioned the Jewish People's right to a safe and secure homeland in Israel as the top priority and reaffirmed America's unwavering commitment and support, what he described in his address to AIPAC on Sunday as "ironclad." The President was eloquent in speaking of America's support of Israel as "rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values;" and specifically struck out against those would apply a double standard in their evaluations of Israel, saying that the U.S. "will stand against attempts to single [Israel] out for criticism in international forums."
Also of extreme import, the President explicitly referred to Israel as the "Jewish" state -- a description which, surprisingly, created significant controversy (even among some American Jews) when Prime Minister Netanyahu insisted on including the words "Jewish state" in describing his own commitment to a two-state solution.
It is noteworthy that he began his actual description of the deadlock in the peace process by publicly acknowledging Palestinian efforts to delegitimize Israel and declaring that those efforts "will end in failure." The President also took on Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinians by warning against any "symbolic" Arab effort to seek statehood in the United Nations in September; singled out Hamas' terror and rejectionism as obstacles to peace; criticized the Palestinians alone for abandoning peace negotiations; and verbalized the overarching message the Jewish community has been pleading with the world to embrace: "Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist."
And finally, in referencing the peace process itself, the President finally acknowledged that no peace can be imposed upon Israel from the outside -- not even by the United States.
The President had every right to expect that the Jewish world would applaud his remarks and that the Arab world would feel it had been dealt a serious dose of reality. Why, then, did the speech engender such a negative reaction within the Jewish community?
I don't understand the degree of hysteria over the President's reference to '67 lines -- and I have not found anyone who can explain it to me.
All President Obama did is articulate the formula which the Jewish world has been arguing for: "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." As the President accurately told his APIAC audience, "There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations."
American Jews who have heard an anti-Israel bias in President Obama's address on the Middle East are not only doing him injustice, they are missing an invaluable opportunity to trumpet the President's positive messages regarding the State of Israel -- ones which he made before the entire world and which the entire world should well heed.
Well, let me tell Rabbi Golub what it is that disturbed me. Rabbi Golub simply misses the point and it seems to me that he is writing from the perspective of a supporter of JStreet and, of course, JStreet was wildly supportive of everything that the President said last Thursday night.
I agree that Obama was trying but he really does not understand the realities of the situation here. For sure, we have been talking about a resolution of borders on the basis of the 1967 armistice lines for years. But we have also been discussing keeping Jerusalem undivided and not permitting a return of all of the refugees of 1948 & 1967 as well as their children and grandchildren to what will be Israel proper. What Golub misses is that by publicly stating that the 1967 armistice lines, plus or minus some land swaps, will be the final borders, and putting off the further discussion of refugees and Jerusalem, we might (actually we will) be faced with a situation where the borders are fixed, a Palestinian state is in place and then we will yet have to negotiate these other issues. At that time we will be in a much weaker position to defend our positions on Jerusalem and refugees than if everything had been dealt with together.
From Obama’s perspective for sure it would be easier to deal with borders and security and leave the other two core issues for later. But from our perspective that would be tantamount to buying a house, signing the papers, taking out the mortgage AND THEN telling the seller ok, let’s now discuss what is being left in the house for the buyer to use. At that point the buyer has no leverage whatsoever. We do not want to be in that situation here.
Netanyahu said to Obama on Friday that history will not give the Jewish people another chance. I would have said to him, instead, that our first mistake will be our last and we simply cannot take the chance.
While I do agree that along with the criticism, the Jewish community might have been better served by complimenting the President for what he said that we could support before being critical of the challenging points. But the fact is that there is yet plenty about which to be worried. And if you have any doubts please take a few minutes and look at this video about Israel`s borders: http://youtu.be/ytWmPqY8TE0 It will then be clear why we should still be worried and why we should continue to let the delegates to the UN know that they must vote against affirming Palestinian statehood at the UN before the parties themselves negotiate the terms of their agreement,. We owe ourselves nothing less.
Monday, May 23, 2011
114 Days to Go
What Still Bothers Me About Obama
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With 114 days to go until the United Nations General Assembly convenes in New York and, given the additional remarks of President Obama on Sunday to the AIPAC Conference in Washington, I am now more bothered by the President than I was after Thursday’s remarks.
On the surface of it, listening to his 26 minute friendly talk to the 10,000 AIPAC delegates (bless them) gathered in the hall, one could easily walk away saying to oneself “you know, he really is right, peace is something we need to strive for and he has laid out a plan that we all have discussed in the past, so why not go for it?” But what is scary is that the President’s presentation of his vision for peace carried with it multiple promises of strong support from the United States. However, at any number of places during his presentation he simply altered the facts to make the audience believe that when push comes to shove he and his administration are always there for us. Really? I don’t think so.
Some examples of what he said:
“There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations…What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately.”
But as we all know, previous administrations never accepted the 1967 armistice lines as the starting point for any negotiations. It was always assumed by prior administrations that some of the territory gained by Israel during the six-day war would be kept by Israel. Former President Bush even wrote that to former Prime Minister Sharon in 2004 and the Palestinians in earlier negotiations had agreed to this concept as well. What the President did in making this statement (and in his confirmation of it on Monday) was to reset the clock back to June 1967 thereby dramatically hurting Israel’s current negotiating position. Quite a gift to the other side, I would say.
“So when the Durban Review Conference advanced anti-Israel sentiment, we withdrew. When an effort was made to insert the United Nations into matters that should be resolved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, we vetoed it.”
Does he seriously believe that these are true statements of fact? As all of us recall it was Canada, to its credit that withdrew from the conference. History will show that the U.S. participated in the meetings on the agenda, even after it was clear that it was going to be another Israel/Jew-bashing event, thus affording it a reasonable degree of legitimacy.
As for the US’ recent UN Security Council veto, how can any of us forget the incredible strength it took for Amb. Susan Rice to raise her hand during that meeting and, even more disturbing than that was her fawning regret at having to do so. Not the kind of reluctant support that I would brag about if I were this President.
Of course, in his speech on Monday there was also his description of what the United States is doing to address the Iranian threat:
“Here in the U.S., we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime. At the United Nations, we’ve secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime, which have been joined by allies and partners around the world.”
Has he not learned by now that sanctions, per se, are of little value and have, to date, done nothing to stop Iran’s march to nuclear arms capability. I guess he forgot that their reactor went on line last week. And we all remember that when he addressed AIPAC in 2008 as the presumed Democratic candidate for President that he made one of his key points his support for an undivided Jerusalem. But that was just campaign rhetoric to secure the Jewish vote, or so it seems.
So at the end of the day as a citizen of Israel and of the United States as well, I would not want my future security here in Jerusalem to be safeguarded by this particular President. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, also a Democrat, would be a much better choice as his remarks in support of Israel were clear and unequivocal.
To be sure, we do need to reach a peace agreement with our neighbors and our long term security would clearly be much enhanced if we could do so. I also still believe that this is possible. But the realities that the President thinks are the realities here are little more than his desire to pander to a segment of the world’s population that itself has little respect for him, in spite of his avowed goal to see things in a different light.
We need to keep up the pressure on the delegates to the U.N. not to vote to recognize Palestinian statehood in September in our state goal of preserving this land as the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people. Let them hear from you!
What Still Bothers Me About Obama
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With 114 days to go until the United Nations General Assembly convenes in New York and, given the additional remarks of President Obama on Sunday to the AIPAC Conference in Washington, I am now more bothered by the President than I was after Thursday’s remarks.
On the surface of it, listening to his 26 minute friendly talk to the 10,000 AIPAC delegates (bless them) gathered in the hall, one could easily walk away saying to oneself “you know, he really is right, peace is something we need to strive for and he has laid out a plan that we all have discussed in the past, so why not go for it?” But what is scary is that the President’s presentation of his vision for peace carried with it multiple promises of strong support from the United States. However, at any number of places during his presentation he simply altered the facts to make the audience believe that when push comes to shove he and his administration are always there for us. Really? I don’t think so.
Some examples of what he said:
“There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations…What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately.”
But as we all know, previous administrations never accepted the 1967 armistice lines as the starting point for any negotiations. It was always assumed by prior administrations that some of the territory gained by Israel during the six-day war would be kept by Israel. Former President Bush even wrote that to former Prime Minister Sharon in 2004 and the Palestinians in earlier negotiations had agreed to this concept as well. What the President did in making this statement (and in his confirmation of it on Monday) was to reset the clock back to June 1967 thereby dramatically hurting Israel’s current negotiating position. Quite a gift to the other side, I would say.
“So when the Durban Review Conference advanced anti-Israel sentiment, we withdrew. When an effort was made to insert the United Nations into matters that should be resolved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, we vetoed it.”
Does he seriously believe that these are true statements of fact? As all of us recall it was Canada, to its credit that withdrew from the conference. History will show that the U.S. participated in the meetings on the agenda, even after it was clear that it was going to be another Israel/Jew-bashing event, thus affording it a reasonable degree of legitimacy.
As for the US’ recent UN Security Council veto, how can any of us forget the incredible strength it took for Amb. Susan Rice to raise her hand during that meeting and, even more disturbing than that was her fawning regret at having to do so. Not the kind of reluctant support that I would brag about if I were this President.
Of course, in his speech on Monday there was also his description of what the United States is doing to address the Iranian threat:
“Here in the U.S., we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime. At the United Nations, we’ve secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime, which have been joined by allies and partners around the world.”
Has he not learned by now that sanctions, per se, are of little value and have, to date, done nothing to stop Iran’s march to nuclear arms capability. I guess he forgot that their reactor went on line last week. And we all remember that when he addressed AIPAC in 2008 as the presumed Democratic candidate for President that he made one of his key points his support for an undivided Jerusalem. But that was just campaign rhetoric to secure the Jewish vote, or so it seems.
So at the end of the day as a citizen of Israel and of the United States as well, I would not want my future security here in Jerusalem to be safeguarded by this particular President. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, also a Democrat, would be a much better choice as his remarks in support of Israel were clear and unequivocal.
To be sure, we do need to reach a peace agreement with our neighbors and our long term security would clearly be much enhanced if we could do so. I also still believe that this is possible. But the realities that the President thinks are the realities here are little more than his desire to pander to a segment of the world’s population that itself has little respect for him, in spite of his avowed goal to see things in a different light.
We need to keep up the pressure on the delegates to the U.N. not to vote to recognize Palestinian statehood in September in our state goal of preserving this land as the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people. Let them hear from you!
Sunday, May 22, 2011
115 Days to Go
What Bothered Us About Obama
By Sherwin Pomerantz
There are now just 115 days to go until the United Nations General Assembly convenes in New York and, given the remarks of President Obama on Thursday evening, it is more important than ever that we let all of the delegates know what a mistake it would be to vote in favor of the Palestinian push for UN approval for statehood, before the parties themselves negotiate the terms of accommodation.
I am trying to figure out what it was about the President’s remarks, his timing and his approach that bothered so many of us. After all, even I, in an earlier blog, spoke about a peace agreement in the framework of the 1967 armistice lines. And even former Pres. Bush, in his 2004 letter to then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon also used the word “contiguous” regarding a future Palestinian state. So what was it about Thursday’s events that got so many of us upset?
I think there were a number of aspects to the presentation that made many of us uncomfortable.
First of all, it was the timing. It was simply unconscionable on the part of the President to give that particular speech at the same time that the Prime Minister of the US’s strongest ally in the region was literally on a plane en route to meeting with the President on Friday morning. Simply put, it’s not the way friendly nations treat each other. At a minimum it spoke to his arrogance.
Secondly, the formulation of his coda about the conflict when he stated “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines” to which he added “with mutually agreed swaps.” Making that the basis of where the negotiations will start and not recognizing that these lines were never borders in the first place, but just armistice lines, negates the entire principle of the parties negotiating between themselves to determine the final borders.
Former President Bush was much more realistic when he said, in his April 14, 2004 letter to Sharon:
As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
The italics are mine but the text is verbatim. The borders must emerge from negotiations between the parties and not be dictated by any third party to the discussion.
Third, President Obama’s putting off the issues of the return of refugees and the status of Jerusalem to a time after we here in Israel withdraw from Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) puts Israel in an untenable position vis-à-vis those issues. No Israeli leader in his right mind would give up any part of the West Bank without the concomitant resolution of those two difficult issues. Former Pres. Bush understood this as well when he wrote, in that same letter:
The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.
The President could easily have laid out his vision of a peaceful and democratic Middle East without delving into issues which are better left to the negotiators, as difficult as it may be to get everyone to the table.
Given all of this is it any wonder then that some of us are not so sanguine that the US’ will use its veto in the Security Council to stop recognition of Palestine as a country when the UN reconvenes in September? Are any of us sure that this will actually happen? By a President who is ready to bend over backwards to mollify the Arab world?
As such, today it is even more important than it was last week, that the voices of those of us who are again such a move make ourselves heard. Last week I urged everyone to write letters to each and every one of the nations with UN delegations in the New York area letting them know of our displeasure with this move and how much we care about them doing the right thing for peace in the region by not approving the Palestinian initiative. My thought was that if we could get thousands of people to send “snail mail” letters to each delegation not only would the delegates know what we are thinking but, eventually, the local press in the US would pick up on this as well. After all, if every delegation received 10,000 letters then 2 million pieces of mail would flow into New York on this issue and you can bet your bottom dollar that people there would sit up and take notice.
Some of you have asked for the mailing addresses as well as fax and email contacts. Attached is a list of the first 46 countries (A-C) and the rest will follow over the next few days. I still feel that snail mail will make the most impact but, if you find that too big a challenge, then fax is the next best thing and, failing that, e mail.
We, who love Israel, who are committed to its continued place in the family of nations and who understand how important our continued success here is to our people worldwide, owe each other this small act of protest. Do it now! Please!
What Bothered Us About Obama
By Sherwin Pomerantz
There are now just 115 days to go until the United Nations General Assembly convenes in New York and, given the remarks of President Obama on Thursday evening, it is more important than ever that we let all of the delegates know what a mistake it would be to vote in favor of the Palestinian push for UN approval for statehood, before the parties themselves negotiate the terms of accommodation.
I am trying to figure out what it was about the President’s remarks, his timing and his approach that bothered so many of us. After all, even I, in an earlier blog, spoke about a peace agreement in the framework of the 1967 armistice lines. And even former Pres. Bush, in his 2004 letter to then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon also used the word “contiguous” regarding a future Palestinian state. So what was it about Thursday’s events that got so many of us upset?
I think there were a number of aspects to the presentation that made many of us uncomfortable.
First of all, it was the timing. It was simply unconscionable on the part of the President to give that particular speech at the same time that the Prime Minister of the US’s strongest ally in the region was literally on a plane en route to meeting with the President on Friday morning. Simply put, it’s not the way friendly nations treat each other. At a minimum it spoke to his arrogance.
Secondly, the formulation of his coda about the conflict when he stated “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines” to which he added “with mutually agreed swaps.” Making that the basis of where the negotiations will start and not recognizing that these lines were never borders in the first place, but just armistice lines, negates the entire principle of the parties negotiating between themselves to determine the final borders.
Former President Bush was much more realistic when he said, in his April 14, 2004 letter to Sharon:
As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
The italics are mine but the text is verbatim. The borders must emerge from negotiations between the parties and not be dictated by any third party to the discussion.
Third, President Obama’s putting off the issues of the return of refugees and the status of Jerusalem to a time after we here in Israel withdraw from Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) puts Israel in an untenable position vis-à-vis those issues. No Israeli leader in his right mind would give up any part of the West Bank without the concomitant resolution of those two difficult issues. Former Pres. Bush understood this as well when he wrote, in that same letter:
The United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.
The President could easily have laid out his vision of a peaceful and democratic Middle East without delving into issues which are better left to the negotiators, as difficult as it may be to get everyone to the table.
Given all of this is it any wonder then that some of us are not so sanguine that the US’ will use its veto in the Security Council to stop recognition of Palestine as a country when the UN reconvenes in September? Are any of us sure that this will actually happen? By a President who is ready to bend over backwards to mollify the Arab world?
As such, today it is even more important than it was last week, that the voices of those of us who are again such a move make ourselves heard. Last week I urged everyone to write letters to each and every one of the nations with UN delegations in the New York area letting them know of our displeasure with this move and how much we care about them doing the right thing for peace in the region by not approving the Palestinian initiative. My thought was that if we could get thousands of people to send “snail mail” letters to each delegation not only would the delegates know what we are thinking but, eventually, the local press in the US would pick up on this as well. After all, if every delegation received 10,000 letters then 2 million pieces of mail would flow into New York on this issue and you can bet your bottom dollar that people there would sit up and take notice.
Some of you have asked for the mailing addresses as well as fax and email contacts. Attached is a list of the first 46 countries (A-C) and the rest will follow over the next few days. I still feel that snail mail will make the most impact but, if you find that too big a challenge, then fax is the next best thing and, failing that, e mail.
We, who love Israel, who are committed to its continued place in the family of nations and who understand how important our continued success here is to our people worldwide, owe each other this small act of protest. Do it now! Please!
Friday, May 20, 2011
117 Days to Go
Obama Blows It – Big Time
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With 117 days to go until the United Nations General Assembly convenes in New York, President Obama on Thursday successfully pulled the rug out from under the Prime Minister of Israel while the Prime Minister was in flight and scheduled to meet with President Obama this morning. Some way to treat an ally, was it not?
President Obama accomplished two things in the portion of his speech dealing with Israel and the Palestinians which came, interestingly enough, at the tail end of a 35 minute oration on America’s desire to be loved by the Muslim world. He publicly proclaimed his bias against Israel and in favor of Palestinian demands, and he set preconditions for the negotiations, pre-empting our right to negotiate on our own behalf on some of the most critical issues facing our government.
The President’s newly articulated position puts unreasonable public pressure on Israel in what should be a negotiated process conducted behind closed doors. For sure the issues on which a lasting peace, if it can be built at all, are extremely complicated. But the President has taken sides publicly and blocked Israel’s right to negotiate on these issues without preconditions.
In this round of blogs I have repeatedly emphasized that Israel is the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people and, by inference, the realization of the Zionist dream. Both of those words, legitimate and Zionist seem to make a lot of people uncomfortable these days, many of whom are Jewish themselves. Why this is so impacts directly on the President’s words on Thursday.
The dictionary defines legitimate as (a) being in compliance with the law or lawful as in a legitimate business; (b) being in accord with established or accepted patterns and standards such as using legitimate advertising practices; (c) based on logical reasoning or reasonable as in a legitimate solution to the problem; and (d) authentic or genuine, for example referring to a legitimate complaint. Israel’s creation, of course, having come as a result of a UN resolution to partition the British Mandate of Palestine into two parts, one Jewish and one Arab, gave the Jewish Agency, acting in the name of the Jewish people, the legitimate right to declare Israel’s independence as a free and democratic country in the community of nations.
As for Zionism, dictionaries correctly describe this as a Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland. This was and remains the prime objective of those who came here from all over the world to live and work and remains, to this day, the mission statement of Israel itself.
Therefore, as uncomfortable as the words might make some people, the fact is that this little country at the eastern end of the Mediterranean is, in fact, the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people and the realization of the Zionist dream. And that seems to be what “bugs” the heck out of President Obama. How much easier it would be for him to move forward with his agenda of Arab appeasement, if we were not legitimate. (A different blog will deal with whether the Palestinian people can be called legitimate under these definitions.)
But because there is no question of the legitimate creation of the State of Israel there is no choice left to him in moving forward with his agenda of appeasement, but to attempt to whittle away what we do have here in order to demonstrate to his Arab audience that he really will exert no favoritism towards either Jews or Israel, and he has proven that to us once again last night. After stating unequivocally that “ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action” on a peace initiative, he came down firmly on the side of the Palestinian demand for a return by Israel to its 1967 borders “with mutually agreed land swaps”. In doing so, he pre-empted one of Israel’s key negotiating cards and essentially took it off the table.
The President assured the world that, “Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums.” And he acknowledged that "Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist". But he immediately went on to say with equal vehemence that “the Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.” Well my friends, look closely at the map of Israel and where the West Bank and Gaza sit. The only way to connect those two parcels of land and create contiguity is to create a safe passage between the two which would, in effect, cut Israel in two. But, I guess we could live without contiguity couldn’t we?
He went on to refer to the difficulties posed by “the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas”. He failed, however, to mention that Hamas is number 12 on the US State Department’s List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). The State Department further specifies that “it is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide ‘material support or resources’ to a designated FTO”. It is illegal for Americans to negotiate with an organization on the FTO list, but the President’s speech implies that he is nevertheless prepared to demand that Israel do so, even though he is fully aware that the publicly state goal of Hamas is to eliminate Israel.
Needless to say, in spite of all of this, the Arab press this morning was generally critical of the President for being too soft on Israel. Clearly they would have been happier if he had agreed to sign on to the Hamas charter and its principles.
Jews everywhere must understand and make known that they understand that this is, indeed, the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people and the manifestation of the Zionist dream. Our enemies draw their strength from their perception that we, ourselves, do not believe this to the maximum and our lack of faith in that statement gives them strength. We dare not give them that victory.
Obama Blows It – Big Time
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With 117 days to go until the United Nations General Assembly convenes in New York, President Obama on Thursday successfully pulled the rug out from under the Prime Minister of Israel while the Prime Minister was in flight and scheduled to meet with President Obama this morning. Some way to treat an ally, was it not?
President Obama accomplished two things in the portion of his speech dealing with Israel and the Palestinians which came, interestingly enough, at the tail end of a 35 minute oration on America’s desire to be loved by the Muslim world. He publicly proclaimed his bias against Israel and in favor of Palestinian demands, and he set preconditions for the negotiations, pre-empting our right to negotiate on our own behalf on some of the most critical issues facing our government.
The President’s newly articulated position puts unreasonable public pressure on Israel in what should be a negotiated process conducted behind closed doors. For sure the issues on which a lasting peace, if it can be built at all, are extremely complicated. But the President has taken sides publicly and blocked Israel’s right to negotiate on these issues without preconditions.
In this round of blogs I have repeatedly emphasized that Israel is the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people and, by inference, the realization of the Zionist dream. Both of those words, legitimate and Zionist seem to make a lot of people uncomfortable these days, many of whom are Jewish themselves. Why this is so impacts directly on the President’s words on Thursday.
The dictionary defines legitimate as (a) being in compliance with the law or lawful as in a legitimate business; (b) being in accord with established or accepted patterns and standards such as using legitimate advertising practices; (c) based on logical reasoning or reasonable as in a legitimate solution to the problem; and (d) authentic or genuine, for example referring to a legitimate complaint. Israel’s creation, of course, having come as a result of a UN resolution to partition the British Mandate of Palestine into two parts, one Jewish and one Arab, gave the Jewish Agency, acting in the name of the Jewish people, the legitimate right to declare Israel’s independence as a free and democratic country in the community of nations.
As for Zionism, dictionaries correctly describe this as a Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland. This was and remains the prime objective of those who came here from all over the world to live and work and remains, to this day, the mission statement of Israel itself.
Therefore, as uncomfortable as the words might make some people, the fact is that this little country at the eastern end of the Mediterranean is, in fact, the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people and the realization of the Zionist dream. And that seems to be what “bugs” the heck out of President Obama. How much easier it would be for him to move forward with his agenda of Arab appeasement, if we were not legitimate. (A different blog will deal with whether the Palestinian people can be called legitimate under these definitions.)
But because there is no question of the legitimate creation of the State of Israel there is no choice left to him in moving forward with his agenda of appeasement, but to attempt to whittle away what we do have here in order to demonstrate to his Arab audience that he really will exert no favoritism towards either Jews or Israel, and he has proven that to us once again last night. After stating unequivocally that “ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action” on a peace initiative, he came down firmly on the side of the Palestinian demand for a return by Israel to its 1967 borders “with mutually agreed land swaps”. In doing so, he pre-empted one of Israel’s key negotiating cards and essentially took it off the table.
The President assured the world that, “Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums.” And he acknowledged that "Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist". But he immediately went on to say with equal vehemence that “the Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.” Well my friends, look closely at the map of Israel and where the West Bank and Gaza sit. The only way to connect those two parcels of land and create contiguity is to create a safe passage between the two which would, in effect, cut Israel in two. But, I guess we could live without contiguity couldn’t we?
He went on to refer to the difficulties posed by “the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas”. He failed, however, to mention that Hamas is number 12 on the US State Department’s List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). The State Department further specifies that “it is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide ‘material support or resources’ to a designated FTO”. It is illegal for Americans to negotiate with an organization on the FTO list, but the President’s speech implies that he is nevertheless prepared to demand that Israel do so, even though he is fully aware that the publicly state goal of Hamas is to eliminate Israel.
Needless to say, in spite of all of this, the Arab press this morning was generally critical of the President for being too soft on Israel. Clearly they would have been happier if he had agreed to sign on to the Hamas charter and its principles.
Jews everywhere must understand and make known that they understand that this is, indeed, the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people and the manifestation of the Zionist dream. Our enemies draw their strength from their perception that we, ourselves, do not believe this to the maximum and our lack of faith in that statement gives them strength. We dare not give them that victory.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
118 Days to Go
A different kind of Counting!
By Sherwin Pomerantz
In my home there are two different kinds of counting going on right now. Each night before we retire my wife and I count the traditional sefirat ha’omer, the counting of the Omer during the seven weeks between Passover and Shavuot. For example, today, May 19th, is the 30th day in the counting cycle.
On this blog I am engaged in a different counting, sefirat ha’um, the counting of the United Nations. Today there are 118 days before the opening of the fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
In the first case, we count one more number each day starting with one on the eve of the second day of Passover and ending with 49 on the day before the holiday of Shavuot, celebrating the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai according to tradition, over 3,500 years ago. The Hebrew word for counting, sefira, has as its root “spr” which is also the root word of sippur (story), mispar (the number) and sapeer (the telling).
A high school classmate of mine from my days in the Bronx but now living in Los Angeles shared with me his interpretation that the basic meaning of a “count,” to “account,” or to “recount,” is to cover everything about the subject. He relates that the English word “supper” actually comes from the Hebrew root “spr” and is named so because that’s the one meal of the day when the whole family can get together at the table and interact, recounting the day’s activity. And supper is looked at with anticipation as the culmination of everyone’s individual lives. In our case we count up in anticipation of celebrating the next holiday in the Jewish calendar when our ancestors became a people guided by God’s law.
But in this blog I am counting down, each day reducing the number of days to the General Assembly meeting because of the anticipatory concern and fear of what may happen there in the monolith of a building at 1st Avenue and 42nd Street. And what might that be?
There is actually a double concern about the General Assembly meeting. One, of course, is the press by the Palestinian Authority leadership to get a massive vote of support for the recognition of Palestinian statehood which will then allow the new country to be seated at the UN.
Now I know that there are lots of legal eagles out there who say that the General Assembly voting in this manner has no meaning because only the Security Council can recommend new members and only countries that have declared themselves to be countries can even be considered. So there are those who say don’t worry about it. But, even if there are real legal impediments to the process, the public relations value of such a vote has ramifications that are way beyond any legal considerations. And most of those are not beneficial to Israel and its position in the family of nations.
But there is a second concern and that is the anti-Israel rhetoric that will precede the vote during the discussion of the issue. We already know and it is widely acknowledged that the United Nations has become the biggest forum for Israel-bashing in the world. Counts (there’s that word again) of anti-Israel resolutions show that those far outnumber resolutions against any other nation. The UN has passed more anti-Israel resolutions in its history than it has against all the other nations of the world combined.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel for details).
Knowing this we must do everything in our power to convince those nations of the world who do not make up the “automatic votes” in the General Assembly as well as all of the members of the Security Council that for it to be true to its charter, the UN cannot, once again, pass yet another resolution that is inimical to the long term existence of a member state.
So, what can we do? We can go to the following web site http://www.un.org/en/members/ where every UN member is listed along with their US mailing address and deluge their representatives there with letters urging them to vote no in favor of Palestinian statehood at this time. We can explain to them that approving the concept of statehood for a group (i.e. Hamas) which has, as one of its basic principles, the elimination of another member of the UN and which concomitantly clearly states that no Jews will be allowed to live in the new country (Fatah) does not qualify to be given the imprimatur of statehood by any UN body.
Those of us living here believe that Israel is the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people and, as such, no group whose espoused purpose is to deprive us of the right to live here should be granted credibility by such a respected international body. This is the minimum we must do and we must do it NOW! Unless we do that, the countdown to September 14th will really be the countdown to calamity.
A different kind of Counting!
By Sherwin Pomerantz
In my home there are two different kinds of counting going on right now. Each night before we retire my wife and I count the traditional sefirat ha’omer, the counting of the Omer during the seven weeks between Passover and Shavuot. For example, today, May 19th, is the 30th day in the counting cycle.
On this blog I am engaged in a different counting, sefirat ha’um, the counting of the United Nations. Today there are 118 days before the opening of the fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
In the first case, we count one more number each day starting with one on the eve of the second day of Passover and ending with 49 on the day before the holiday of Shavuot, celebrating the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai according to tradition, over 3,500 years ago. The Hebrew word for counting, sefira, has as its root “spr” which is also the root word of sippur (story), mispar (the number) and sapeer (the telling).
A high school classmate of mine from my days in the Bronx but now living in Los Angeles shared with me his interpretation that the basic meaning of a “count,” to “account,” or to “recount,” is to cover everything about the subject. He relates that the English word “supper” actually comes from the Hebrew root “spr” and is named so because that’s the one meal of the day when the whole family can get together at the table and interact, recounting the day’s activity. And supper is looked at with anticipation as the culmination of everyone’s individual lives. In our case we count up in anticipation of celebrating the next holiday in the Jewish calendar when our ancestors became a people guided by God’s law.
But in this blog I am counting down, each day reducing the number of days to the General Assembly meeting because of the anticipatory concern and fear of what may happen there in the monolith of a building at 1st Avenue and 42nd Street. And what might that be?
There is actually a double concern about the General Assembly meeting. One, of course, is the press by the Palestinian Authority leadership to get a massive vote of support for the recognition of Palestinian statehood which will then allow the new country to be seated at the UN.
Now I know that there are lots of legal eagles out there who say that the General Assembly voting in this manner has no meaning because only the Security Council can recommend new members and only countries that have declared themselves to be countries can even be considered. So there are those who say don’t worry about it. But, even if there are real legal impediments to the process, the public relations value of such a vote has ramifications that are way beyond any legal considerations. And most of those are not beneficial to Israel and its position in the family of nations.
But there is a second concern and that is the anti-Israel rhetoric that will precede the vote during the discussion of the issue. We already know and it is widely acknowledged that the United Nations has become the biggest forum for Israel-bashing in the world. Counts (there’s that word again) of anti-Israel resolutions show that those far outnumber resolutions against any other nation. The UN has passed more anti-Israel resolutions in its history than it has against all the other nations of the world combined.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel for details).
Knowing this we must do everything in our power to convince those nations of the world who do not make up the “automatic votes” in the General Assembly as well as all of the members of the Security Council that for it to be true to its charter, the UN cannot, once again, pass yet another resolution that is inimical to the long term existence of a member state.
So, what can we do? We can go to the following web site http://www.un.org/en/members/ where every UN member is listed along with their US mailing address and deluge their representatives there with letters urging them to vote no in favor of Palestinian statehood at this time. We can explain to them that approving the concept of statehood for a group (i.e. Hamas) which has, as one of its basic principles, the elimination of another member of the UN and which concomitantly clearly states that no Jews will be allowed to live in the new country (Fatah) does not qualify to be given the imprimatur of statehood by any UN body.
Those of us living here believe that Israel is the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people and, as such, no group whose espoused purpose is to deprive us of the right to live here should be granted credibility by such a respected international body. This is the minimum we must do and we must do it NOW! Unless we do that, the countdown to September 14th will really be the countdown to calamity.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
119 Days to Go
What PA President Abbas Should Have Written
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With 119 days to September 14th and the opening of the fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly, PA President Abbas wrote a New York Times op-ed that can only be described as a gross distortion of the truth. Following is what he should have written.
=============================================================================
Sixty three years ago, a 13-year-old Palestinian boy was taken by his family from his home in the Galilean city of Safed to live in Syria because there was a fear that with the outbreak of war in 1948 things would be safer there. He took up shelter in a canvas tent provided to all the arriving refugees. That child’s story, like that of so many other Palestinians, is mine and, in retrospect, it was a mistake to leave. Rather, we should have remained and worked with the Israelis to build our mutual economies.
.
This month, as we commemorate another year of what we have termed our expulsion — in Arabic nakba, or catastrophe — I think it is time to level with my people, the Palestinian people, and admit that we should have accepted partition in 1947 and built a successful community here similar to what the Israelis have done these past 63 years.
Not having done that we still have cause for hope: this September, at the United Nations General Assembly, we will request international recognition of the State of Palestine on our side of the 1967 armistice line which, while never a border in the formal sense of the word, has been the point of reference for all negotiations since Oslo.
Many are questioning what value there is to such recognition while the Israeli occupation continues. Others have accused us of imperiling the peace process. We believe, however, that there is tremendous value for all Palestinians — those living in the homeland, in self-imposed exile or under occupation to take this step and move the dormant peace process forward.
It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. The Jewish Agency, acting on behalf of the Jewish people, accepted the vote of the U.N. and declared Israel’s independence. We should have done the same.
Instead, our people, along with the armies of five other Arab countries and with the support of two others waged a war with the nascent state of Israel…and lost. While we have told the story for many years of our expulsion from this land after the war, the fact is that our own leadership during the war drove through the streets of Jerusalem in neighborhoods like Talbieh and told the Arabs living there to leave for a few days until we won the war and they would return. Today, 63 years later, the descendants of those who left remain strangers in other lands. To a great extent that is our own fault.
The people who were shot and wounded in the north by Israeli forces on Sunday may have thought that they were symbolically exercising their right to return to their families’ homes. But, in fact, they were really demonstrating their anger at us, the Palestinian Arab leadership who, by our desire to occupy ourselves only with destroying Israel, have denied professional development and economic growth to generations of young people in our communities. And for that mistake I apologize on behalf of all of us who wasted so many of our youth in this non-productive effort.
Thankfully today, we have people like Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and visionary businessman Bashir Masri, who are able to see a future that is not solely fixated on destroying Israel, the only example of dynamic economic growth in this region. Salam Fayyad’s development of the structures needed for state building along with Bashir Masri’s vision in conceiving of a new Palestinian city (Ruwabi) north of Ramallah herald a new vision for our people of which all of us should be proud.
I understand Israel’s concern over our push to have Palestine admitted to the United Nations. But, to us, this is an important symbolic step and one that we would hope would be supported by Israel as well. To generate that support I am prepared to come to Jerusalem immediately, as Anwar Sadat did some years ago, and say to the members of the Knesset, that we (i.e. all of us, Fatah and Hamas as well) are prepared to end the conflict, to stop terrorism, to develop diplomatic relations with Israel and to make the needed compromises that will make this a reality.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his address to the Knesset on Monday, laid out the basic parameters of what Israel could accept. We know that some of the points he raised were painful for him and not popular with his coalition. To be sure we have the same problems on our side. Within that framework we are convinced that over the next 120 days before the opening of the General Assembly our two peoples, without the interference of outside parties, can hammer out the details of an agreement that will permit both of us to go to that meeting with a plan for a new era of reconciliation in this troubled part of the world.
Our quest for recognition as a state should not be seen as a stunt; too many of our men and women have been lost for us to engage in such political theater. We go to the United Nations now to secure the right to live free in our historic homeland and we invite the Government of Israel to partner with us in this quest.
The State of Palestine intends to be a peace-loving nation, committed to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law and the principles of the United Nations Charter. We hope that Israel, after all these years of mutual distrust, will join with us in that quest.
=================================================================================
Some will read this and say “what a dreamer I am.” But futures are built on dreams and the absence of dreams perforce dictates depression. 5-star General and former US President Dwight Eisenhower once said “Pull the string, and it will follow wherever you wish. Push it, and it will go nowhere at all.” When you pull people along you invite them on a journey and the opportunity to dream along with you. It is where we humans differ from the rest of the animal kingdom and what the Creator expects from us as well.
What PA President Abbas Should Have Written
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With 119 days to September 14th and the opening of the fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly, PA President Abbas wrote a New York Times op-ed that can only be described as a gross distortion of the truth. Following is what he should have written.
=============================================================================
Sixty three years ago, a 13-year-old Palestinian boy was taken by his family from his home in the Galilean city of Safed to live in Syria because there was a fear that with the outbreak of war in 1948 things would be safer there. He took up shelter in a canvas tent provided to all the arriving refugees. That child’s story, like that of so many other Palestinians, is mine and, in retrospect, it was a mistake to leave. Rather, we should have remained and worked with the Israelis to build our mutual economies.
.
This month, as we commemorate another year of what we have termed our expulsion — in Arabic nakba, or catastrophe — I think it is time to level with my people, the Palestinian people, and admit that we should have accepted partition in 1947 and built a successful community here similar to what the Israelis have done these past 63 years.
Not having done that we still have cause for hope: this September, at the United Nations General Assembly, we will request international recognition of the State of Palestine on our side of the 1967 armistice line which, while never a border in the formal sense of the word, has been the point of reference for all negotiations since Oslo.
Many are questioning what value there is to such recognition while the Israeli occupation continues. Others have accused us of imperiling the peace process. We believe, however, that there is tremendous value for all Palestinians — those living in the homeland, in self-imposed exile or under occupation to take this step and move the dormant peace process forward.
It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. The Jewish Agency, acting on behalf of the Jewish people, accepted the vote of the U.N. and declared Israel’s independence. We should have done the same.
Instead, our people, along with the armies of five other Arab countries and with the support of two others waged a war with the nascent state of Israel…and lost. While we have told the story for many years of our expulsion from this land after the war, the fact is that our own leadership during the war drove through the streets of Jerusalem in neighborhoods like Talbieh and told the Arabs living there to leave for a few days until we won the war and they would return. Today, 63 years later, the descendants of those who left remain strangers in other lands. To a great extent that is our own fault.
The people who were shot and wounded in the north by Israeli forces on Sunday may have thought that they were symbolically exercising their right to return to their families’ homes. But, in fact, they were really demonstrating their anger at us, the Palestinian Arab leadership who, by our desire to occupy ourselves only with destroying Israel, have denied professional development and economic growth to generations of young people in our communities. And for that mistake I apologize on behalf of all of us who wasted so many of our youth in this non-productive effort.
Thankfully today, we have people like Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and visionary businessman Bashir Masri, who are able to see a future that is not solely fixated on destroying Israel, the only example of dynamic economic growth in this region. Salam Fayyad’s development of the structures needed for state building along with Bashir Masri’s vision in conceiving of a new Palestinian city (Ruwabi) north of Ramallah herald a new vision for our people of which all of us should be proud.
I understand Israel’s concern over our push to have Palestine admitted to the United Nations. But, to us, this is an important symbolic step and one that we would hope would be supported by Israel as well. To generate that support I am prepared to come to Jerusalem immediately, as Anwar Sadat did some years ago, and say to the members of the Knesset, that we (i.e. all of us, Fatah and Hamas as well) are prepared to end the conflict, to stop terrorism, to develop diplomatic relations with Israel and to make the needed compromises that will make this a reality.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, in his address to the Knesset on Monday, laid out the basic parameters of what Israel could accept. We know that some of the points he raised were painful for him and not popular with his coalition. To be sure we have the same problems on our side. Within that framework we are convinced that over the next 120 days before the opening of the General Assembly our two peoples, without the interference of outside parties, can hammer out the details of an agreement that will permit both of us to go to that meeting with a plan for a new era of reconciliation in this troubled part of the world.
Our quest for recognition as a state should not be seen as a stunt; too many of our men and women have been lost for us to engage in such political theater. We go to the United Nations now to secure the right to live free in our historic homeland and we invite the Government of Israel to partner with us in this quest.
The State of Palestine intends to be a peace-loving nation, committed to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law and the principles of the United Nations Charter. We hope that Israel, after all these years of mutual distrust, will join with us in that quest.
=================================================================================
Some will read this and say “what a dreamer I am.” But futures are built on dreams and the absence of dreams perforce dictates depression. 5-star General and former US President Dwight Eisenhower once said “Pull the string, and it will follow wherever you wish. Push it, and it will go nowhere at all.” When you pull people along you invite them on a journey and the opportunity to dream along with you. It is where we humans differ from the rest of the animal kingdom and what the Creator expects from us as well.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
120 Days to Go
Palestinian Arabs: Living in a Self-Created Reality!
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With only 120 days to September 14th and the opening of the fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu took the podium in Israel’s Knesset on Monday and laid out the essence of Israel’s position vis-à-vis forward movement of the peace process. Interestingly, although we are certainly not in contact, every one of his six points was contained in my 10 YES’s in Monday’s blog posting.
For the first time the Prime Minister spoke publicly about Israel’s willingness, in the context of a secure peace and an end to all further Palestinian Arab claims, to withdraw from some of the settlements in Judea and Samaria for which, of course, he was immediately assailed from the right and praised by the left. He also reiterated Israel’s commitment not do divide Jerusalem, for which he was praised by the right and assailed by the Palestinian Arab members of the Knesset. No surprises there at all. At least now we know, more or less, the message he will bring with him when he travels to the U.S. later this week.
But not to be outdone, Mahmoud Abbas, in an editorial in today’s New York Times, speaks about the “Long Overdue Palestinian State” to quote the title of the piece which is, as one would expect, replete with omissions that the Palestinian Authority President finds convenient to dismiss.
For example, he says:
It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled the Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel.
Was that really the case? Clearly the President conveniently omits a paragraph preceding the last sentence above. History will show that in response to the General Assembly resolution and the impending pullout of British forces from the area, the head of the Jewish Agency, David Ben-Gurion, in the name of the Jewish people, declared the establishment of the State of Israel according to the terms of the General Assembly resolution.
The Palestinian Arabs did not do so and, instead, joined by five of the seven countries of the Arab League at that time (i.e. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, backed by Saudi Arabian and Yemenite contingents) invaded the territory in the former British Mandate of Palestine on the night of 14–15 May 1948. The forces of Syria and Egypt launched attacks outside of the proposed Arab section of the Partition Plan while Jordan invaded the proposed "Corpus Separatum", which had yet to be instituted, including the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.
While the Palestinian Arab community, had they accepted the Partition Plan, could have lived in peace with Israel for the last 63 years, they and their leadership made the choice not to do so. And that refusal to accept the resolution of the very General Assembly that Abbas now wants to ratify statehood is the root cause of everything bad that has happened here since 1948.
Abbas goes on to say that:
Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted recognition. Our Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled.
Truth be told, the Palestinian Arab leadership at the time did not declare a state and, therefore, there was nothing for the U.S. to recognize. Had the reverse been true, given the traditional Arabist tendencies of the U.S. State Department, my guess is that recognition would have come immediately. Remember, former Pres. Truman’s recognition of Israel came about against the recommendation even of George Marshall, then his Secretary of State.
But the best line in his diatribe is the following one:
We go to the United Nations now to secure the right to live free in the remaining 22 percent of our historic homeland because we have been negotiating with the State of Israel for 20 years without coming any closer to realizing a state of our own.
Is that a serious statement? As I recall the sides were quite close at Camp David in the year 2000 when Arafat left the negotiations with a solid offer from Israel to which he never responded. And that was just one example, there are others to be sure. And what about the recent 10 month freeze on settlement building by Israel during which time Abbas and his cronies were not willing to sit down with the Netanyahu government only to demand, after the freeze ended, that unless there was a new freeze on settlement building they would not be prepared to negotiate. Was that Israel’s fault as well?
I could go on but the clear message here is proof of the Palestinian Arab’s leadership’s ability to create their own reality and act on that rather than recognizing the real facts supported by the historical record.
With just 120 days to September 14th, thinking Israelis should be grateful for the clear statement of principles that our Prime Minister has finally shared with us before he does so in the U.S. As such, it is incumbent upon us and caring people everywhere to let him know that he has our support for the good and welfare of the future existence of the State of Israel, the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people. We can and should do no less!
Palestinian Arabs: Living in a Self-Created Reality!
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With only 120 days to September 14th and the opening of the fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu took the podium in Israel’s Knesset on Monday and laid out the essence of Israel’s position vis-à-vis forward movement of the peace process. Interestingly, although we are certainly not in contact, every one of his six points was contained in my 10 YES’s in Monday’s blog posting.
For the first time the Prime Minister spoke publicly about Israel’s willingness, in the context of a secure peace and an end to all further Palestinian Arab claims, to withdraw from some of the settlements in Judea and Samaria for which, of course, he was immediately assailed from the right and praised by the left. He also reiterated Israel’s commitment not do divide Jerusalem, for which he was praised by the right and assailed by the Palestinian Arab members of the Knesset. No surprises there at all. At least now we know, more or less, the message he will bring with him when he travels to the U.S. later this week.
But not to be outdone, Mahmoud Abbas, in an editorial in today’s New York Times, speaks about the “Long Overdue Palestinian State” to quote the title of the piece which is, as one would expect, replete with omissions that the Palestinian Authority President finds convenient to dismiss.
For example, he says:
It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled the Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel.
Was that really the case? Clearly the President conveniently omits a paragraph preceding the last sentence above. History will show that in response to the General Assembly resolution and the impending pullout of British forces from the area, the head of the Jewish Agency, David Ben-Gurion, in the name of the Jewish people, declared the establishment of the State of Israel according to the terms of the General Assembly resolution.
The Palestinian Arabs did not do so and, instead, joined by five of the seven countries of the Arab League at that time (i.e. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, backed by Saudi Arabian and Yemenite contingents) invaded the territory in the former British Mandate of Palestine on the night of 14–15 May 1948. The forces of Syria and Egypt launched attacks outside of the proposed Arab section of the Partition Plan while Jordan invaded the proposed "Corpus Separatum", which had yet to be instituted, including the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.
While the Palestinian Arab community, had they accepted the Partition Plan, could have lived in peace with Israel for the last 63 years, they and their leadership made the choice not to do so. And that refusal to accept the resolution of the very General Assembly that Abbas now wants to ratify statehood is the root cause of everything bad that has happened here since 1948.
Abbas goes on to say that:
Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted recognition. Our Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled.
Truth be told, the Palestinian Arab leadership at the time did not declare a state and, therefore, there was nothing for the U.S. to recognize. Had the reverse been true, given the traditional Arabist tendencies of the U.S. State Department, my guess is that recognition would have come immediately. Remember, former Pres. Truman’s recognition of Israel came about against the recommendation even of George Marshall, then his Secretary of State.
But the best line in his diatribe is the following one:
We go to the United Nations now to secure the right to live free in the remaining 22 percent of our historic homeland because we have been negotiating with the State of Israel for 20 years without coming any closer to realizing a state of our own.
Is that a serious statement? As I recall the sides were quite close at Camp David in the year 2000 when Arafat left the negotiations with a solid offer from Israel to which he never responded. And that was just one example, there are others to be sure. And what about the recent 10 month freeze on settlement building by Israel during which time Abbas and his cronies were not willing to sit down with the Netanyahu government only to demand, after the freeze ended, that unless there was a new freeze on settlement building they would not be prepared to negotiate. Was that Israel’s fault as well?
I could go on but the clear message here is proof of the Palestinian Arab’s leadership’s ability to create their own reality and act on that rather than recognizing the real facts supported by the historical record.
With just 120 days to September 14th, thinking Israelis should be grateful for the clear statement of principles that our Prime Minister has finally shared with us before he does so in the U.S. As such, it is incumbent upon us and caring people everywhere to let him know that he has our support for the good and welfare of the future existence of the State of Israel, the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people. We can and should do no less!
Monday, May 16, 2011
121 Days to Go
What We Must Do Now!
By Sherwin Pomerantz
It is now just 121 days to September 14th and the opening of the fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly. It is clear that we must do something this week to get ready for that event! Yesterday’s Nakba demonstrations on our northern border should have proved to everyone that a problem left unattended does not simply go away.
Over the past week I have been critical of the Prime Minister of Israel given the fact that while the Palestinians have been crystal clear as to what they want in order to agree to an end of the conflict agreement with Israel, our government has been quite unclear as to what it is we want.
A number of respondents have indicated to me that whereas yesterday I enumerated the “no’s” it is time to talk about the “yes’s”.
Of course it is much easier to deal with the “no’s.” Yesterday I said that these were no to the right of return! No to an armed Palestinian state on our borders! No to the re-division of Jerusalem! And no to any agreement with an entity that will not clearly recognize our legitimate right to live here in peace and security.
According to the press, on Thursday of this week US President Obama will lay out his vision for the future of this region. The Palestinians have already laid out theirs. Everyone assumes that Prime Minister Netanyahu when he goes to the U.S. later this week to speak to AIPAC and separately to a joint session of the Congress, will layout Israel’s position. But I am in the camp of people who believe that we, as citizens of the state who whose blood will be the price of victory in any future war, deserve to know what the Prime Minister is thinking before he shares that with the world as part of a U.S. forum. Leaders of countries who choose to make their foreign policy speeches abroad gain little respect from me.
Hopefully in today’s opening speech to the Knesset here in Jerusalem we will get some inkling of what the Prime Minister intends to say in the U.S.
But I promised you the “YESs” so here goes. Following is a statement of principles followed by Sherwin’s 10 Commandments of YES.
The principles:
For the record, we, the Jewish people have moral, historical, religious, and legal claims to the disputed lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea that are every bit as strong, or stronger, than Palestinian claims. Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem make up the heart of the historical Jewish homeland. Legally binding international treaties all designated the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea to be a Jewish national home and that these areas were for centuries home to Jewish communities. Remember it was Jordan which unilaterally occupied this territory from 1948-1967, and also unilaterally renounced all claims to it in 1988!
In addition, the modern State of Israel was built overwhelmingly on land purchased by Jews. The forcibly exiled Jewish people never ceded their claim to their homeland. In fact, there has been a Jewish presence in Jerusalem for three thousand years and the city has been majority-Jewish for over 150 years.
Sherwin’s 10 Commandments of YES
In spite of the principles we acknowledge the following:
1. YES, we are committed to making peace with all of our neighbors and to being good citizens of this corner of the world.
2. YES, we believe that every human being has a right to a dignified life with a government that is committed to his/her welfare at the highest level.
3. YES, we understand that in the long run Israelis and Palestinians have to find a way to live together constructively in this small parcel of land that we inhabit, else we will destroy each other.
4. YES, we know that to accomplish this goal we will both need to make compromises and we are prepared to do so and we hope that the Palestinians are willing to do so as well.
5. YES, we know that it is no longer possible for us to occupy large areas of Judea and Samaria and, in spite of our historical claim to these lands we are prepared to exit from those areas in the context of a peace agreement that ensures security for our people.
6. YES, we understand from statements made by the Palestinian leadership that they would find it preferable if there were no Jews living anywhere in these areas, but evacuating the large settlements blocs such as Gush Etzion, Ma’ale Adumim and Ariel, for example, is simply not an option that we can entertain.
7. YES, we are aware that for the last 63 years since 1948 and for the last 44 years since 1967 the Palestinian leadership with the support of UNRWA has promised the refugees who left their homes here that they would one day return, but for us to agree to that would be committing demographic suicide which we are not prepared to do.
8. YES, in spite of the fact that the armistice lines of 1967 were never borders, but simply lines of demarcation defining who sat where when the fighting stopped, we would be prepared to live within those “borders” in return for a secure peace, an end to the conflict and recognition of Israel as the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people by all Palestinian factions.
9. YES, we understand the visceral need of the Palestinian leadership to have Jerusalem as the capital of its new republic, but we are not prepared to divide the city once again and risk being second class citizens in the holy city as we were from 1948-67. Rather, we would be prepared, again in the context of an end of conflict agreement, to expand the borders of the city towards Abu Dis so that the new Palestinian state could have its capital in Jerusalem.
10. YES, we are even prepared to deal with Hamas and, of course, lift the siege of Gaza, in the context of an end of conflict agreement, their recognition of Israel as the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people, and a complete cessation of all violence amid a demilitarized Palestine.
Our ancestors gathered at Sinai just weeks after the exodus from Egypt responded to God’s offer by saying the words na’aseh v’nishmah, we will listen and we will do. I am not naïve enough to believe that the Palestinians will respond equivalently. But our government, representing the Jewish people in Israel and with an effect on Jews worldwide, must put into play our vision for peace in this region. To do less would be an abrogation of its responsibility to its constituency. The time to put our demands on the table is now!
What We Must Do Now!
By Sherwin Pomerantz
It is now just 121 days to September 14th and the opening of the fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly. It is clear that we must do something this week to get ready for that event! Yesterday’s Nakba demonstrations on our northern border should have proved to everyone that a problem left unattended does not simply go away.
Over the past week I have been critical of the Prime Minister of Israel given the fact that while the Palestinians have been crystal clear as to what they want in order to agree to an end of the conflict agreement with Israel, our government has been quite unclear as to what it is we want.
A number of respondents have indicated to me that whereas yesterday I enumerated the “no’s” it is time to talk about the “yes’s”.
Of course it is much easier to deal with the “no’s.” Yesterday I said that these were no to the right of return! No to an armed Palestinian state on our borders! No to the re-division of Jerusalem! And no to any agreement with an entity that will not clearly recognize our legitimate right to live here in peace and security.
According to the press, on Thursday of this week US President Obama will lay out his vision for the future of this region. The Palestinians have already laid out theirs. Everyone assumes that Prime Minister Netanyahu when he goes to the U.S. later this week to speak to AIPAC and separately to a joint session of the Congress, will layout Israel’s position. But I am in the camp of people who believe that we, as citizens of the state who whose blood will be the price of victory in any future war, deserve to know what the Prime Minister is thinking before he shares that with the world as part of a U.S. forum. Leaders of countries who choose to make their foreign policy speeches abroad gain little respect from me.
Hopefully in today’s opening speech to the Knesset here in Jerusalem we will get some inkling of what the Prime Minister intends to say in the U.S.
But I promised you the “YESs” so here goes. Following is a statement of principles followed by Sherwin’s 10 Commandments of YES.
The principles:
For the record, we, the Jewish people have moral, historical, religious, and legal claims to the disputed lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea that are every bit as strong, or stronger, than Palestinian claims. Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem make up the heart of the historical Jewish homeland. Legally binding international treaties all designated the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea to be a Jewish national home and that these areas were for centuries home to Jewish communities. Remember it was Jordan which unilaterally occupied this territory from 1948-1967, and also unilaterally renounced all claims to it in 1988!
In addition, the modern State of Israel was built overwhelmingly on land purchased by Jews. The forcibly exiled Jewish people never ceded their claim to their homeland. In fact, there has been a Jewish presence in Jerusalem for three thousand years and the city has been majority-Jewish for over 150 years.
Sherwin’s 10 Commandments of YES
In spite of the principles we acknowledge the following:
1. YES, we are committed to making peace with all of our neighbors and to being good citizens of this corner of the world.
2. YES, we believe that every human being has a right to a dignified life with a government that is committed to his/her welfare at the highest level.
3. YES, we understand that in the long run Israelis and Palestinians have to find a way to live together constructively in this small parcel of land that we inhabit, else we will destroy each other.
4. YES, we know that to accomplish this goal we will both need to make compromises and we are prepared to do so and we hope that the Palestinians are willing to do so as well.
5. YES, we know that it is no longer possible for us to occupy large areas of Judea and Samaria and, in spite of our historical claim to these lands we are prepared to exit from those areas in the context of a peace agreement that ensures security for our people.
6. YES, we understand from statements made by the Palestinian leadership that they would find it preferable if there were no Jews living anywhere in these areas, but evacuating the large settlements blocs such as Gush Etzion, Ma’ale Adumim and Ariel, for example, is simply not an option that we can entertain.
7. YES, we are aware that for the last 63 years since 1948 and for the last 44 years since 1967 the Palestinian leadership with the support of UNRWA has promised the refugees who left their homes here that they would one day return, but for us to agree to that would be committing demographic suicide which we are not prepared to do.
8. YES, in spite of the fact that the armistice lines of 1967 were never borders, but simply lines of demarcation defining who sat where when the fighting stopped, we would be prepared to live within those “borders” in return for a secure peace, an end to the conflict and recognition of Israel as the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people by all Palestinian factions.
9. YES, we understand the visceral need of the Palestinian leadership to have Jerusalem as the capital of its new republic, but we are not prepared to divide the city once again and risk being second class citizens in the holy city as we were from 1948-67. Rather, we would be prepared, again in the context of an end of conflict agreement, to expand the borders of the city towards Abu Dis so that the new Palestinian state could have its capital in Jerusalem.
10. YES, we are even prepared to deal with Hamas and, of course, lift the siege of Gaza, in the context of an end of conflict agreement, their recognition of Israel as the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people, and a complete cessation of all violence amid a demilitarized Palestine.
Our ancestors gathered at Sinai just weeks after the exodus from Egypt responded to God’s offer by saying the words na’aseh v’nishmah, we will listen and we will do. I am not naïve enough to believe that the Palestinians will respond equivalently. But our government, representing the Jewish people in Israel and with an effect on Jews worldwide, must put into play our vision for peace in this region. To do less would be an abrogation of its responsibility to its constituency. The time to put our demands on the table is now!
Saturday, May 14, 2011
122 Days to Go
By Sherwin Pomerantz
122 days from today, September 14th, is the opening of the fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly. I don’t think we are ready for that.
This weekend’s newspapers underscored the need for the Government of Israel, our government, to publicly state what our position is regarding any future peace deal. After all, the Palestinians have made it clear in two places over the weekend.
Saeb Erekat, the Chief Palestinian negotiator, in an op-ed in Friday’s Ha’aretz made the following statements:
We will continue to work hard on gaining international recognition for the State of Palestine on the 1967 border with East Jerusalem as its capital…The Israel occupation of Palestinian land must end.
He goes on to repeat the canard that is present in pretty much every statement coming from the Palestinian side when he says:
We have respected their (i.e. Israel’s) choice by negotiating with every single government since 1991, including with the current Israeli coalition government, not a single member of which recognizes Palestinian rights.
Of course, he makes no reference at all to the fact that even though the Palestinians today demand a building freeze on settlements before they will negotiate further, they totally refused to meet during the last 10 month freeze. Nor does he state anywhere the recognition of the fact that this land is the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people.
In today’s Jerusalem Post Palestinian Authority President goes further when he states:
The Palestinian authority will never neglect the “right of return” for Palestinians to their original homes inside Israel. Every Palestinian has the right to see Palestine and return to the homeland, because our homeland is our final destination. Our message to the world is that we want a state on the 1967 borders and a just solution on the basis of the [2002] Arab Peace Initiative. But we won’t accept at all a Palestinian state that does not have Jerusalem as its capital. We believe in the principle of a two-state solution and we have recognized it for the past 17 years, but they [Israel] don’t agree to the two state solution.
Can the Palestinian position be any clearer? Isn’t it obvious that we here in Israel should make our opening position equally strong?
As always, the “left” will say that these statements by the Palestinians are for internal consumption and their negotiators know that all of these objectives will not be realized. They understand, for example, that Israel can never agree to the right of return for all who were displaced in 1948 and 1967. But do they? And even if this is so, why do we not take it seriously, at least at the outset?
In negotiations each party must state its opening positions clearly and without equivocation knowing full well that all of the stated objectives will not be realized. So what is holding up our government from doing this? The fear of putting the coalition in jeopardy? Or have we simply lost our way and no longer even know what our opening position must be?
Well, middle Israel, the man on the street, knows full well the parameters on which we must stand and the Prime Minister would find himself with the support of over 75% of the populace if he stated the obvious. No to the right of return! No to an armed Palestinian state on our borders! No to the re-division of Jerusalem! And no to any agreement with an entity that will not clearly recognize our legitimate right to live here in peace and security.
On Thursday of this week US President Obama will lay out his vision for the future of this region. The Palestinians have already laid out theirs. Don’t we have a right to expect our government to do the same in the name of the State of Israel and the Jewish people? And to do that sooner rather than later?
By Sherwin Pomerantz
122 days from today, September 14th, is the opening of the fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly. I don’t think we are ready for that.
This weekend’s newspapers underscored the need for the Government of Israel, our government, to publicly state what our position is regarding any future peace deal. After all, the Palestinians have made it clear in two places over the weekend.
Saeb Erekat, the Chief Palestinian negotiator, in an op-ed in Friday’s Ha’aretz made the following statements:
We will continue to work hard on gaining international recognition for the State of Palestine on the 1967 border with East Jerusalem as its capital…The Israel occupation of Palestinian land must end.
He goes on to repeat the canard that is present in pretty much every statement coming from the Palestinian side when he says:
We have respected their (i.e. Israel’s) choice by negotiating with every single government since 1991, including with the current Israeli coalition government, not a single member of which recognizes Palestinian rights.
Of course, he makes no reference at all to the fact that even though the Palestinians today demand a building freeze on settlements before they will negotiate further, they totally refused to meet during the last 10 month freeze. Nor does he state anywhere the recognition of the fact that this land is the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people.
In today’s Jerusalem Post Palestinian Authority President goes further when he states:
The Palestinian authority will never neglect the “right of return” for Palestinians to their original homes inside Israel. Every Palestinian has the right to see Palestine and return to the homeland, because our homeland is our final destination. Our message to the world is that we want a state on the 1967 borders and a just solution on the basis of the [2002] Arab Peace Initiative. But we won’t accept at all a Palestinian state that does not have Jerusalem as its capital. We believe in the principle of a two-state solution and we have recognized it for the past 17 years, but they [Israel] don’t agree to the two state solution.
Can the Palestinian position be any clearer? Isn’t it obvious that we here in Israel should make our opening position equally strong?
As always, the “left” will say that these statements by the Palestinians are for internal consumption and their negotiators know that all of these objectives will not be realized. They understand, for example, that Israel can never agree to the right of return for all who were displaced in 1948 and 1967. But do they? And even if this is so, why do we not take it seriously, at least at the outset?
In negotiations each party must state its opening positions clearly and without equivocation knowing full well that all of the stated objectives will not be realized. So what is holding up our government from doing this? The fear of putting the coalition in jeopardy? Or have we simply lost our way and no longer even know what our opening position must be?
Well, middle Israel, the man on the street, knows full well the parameters on which we must stand and the Prime Minister would find himself with the support of over 75% of the populace if he stated the obvious. No to the right of return! No to an armed Palestinian state on our borders! No to the re-division of Jerusalem! And no to any agreement with an entity that will not clearly recognize our legitimate right to live here in peace and security.
On Thursday of this week US President Obama will lay out his vision for the future of this region. The Palestinians have already laid out theirs. Don’t we have a right to expect our government to do the same in the name of the State of Israel and the Jewish people? And to do that sooner rather than later?
Thursday, May 12, 2011
125 Days to Go
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Today is 125 days until the opening of the fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 14th.
Yesterday I started the countdown so that we don’t lose track of time and for us to be fully aware of the serious problems that loom before us.
I had made mention in Wednesday’s blog about UN Resolution 377. Here is the quick background on that resolution.
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 377 (V), the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, states that, in cases where the United Nations Security Council fails to act in order to maintain international peace and security, owing to disagreement between its five permanent members, the matter shall be addressed immediately by the General Assembly, using the mechanism of the emergency special session.
The Uniting for Peace resolution—also known as the "Acheson Plan"—was adopted on November 3rd 1950, after fourteen days of Assembly discussions, by a vote of 52 to 5 (Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic voted against), with 2 abstentions (India and Argentina).
In it, the General Assembly “resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security."
To facilitate prompt action by the General Assembly in the case of a dead-locked Security Council, the resolution created the mechanism of the "emergency special session" (ESS), which can be called upon the basis of either a procedural vote in the Security Council, or within twenty-four hours of a request by a majority of UN Members being received by the Secretary-General. In procedural votes, the permanent members of the Security Council do not have the ability to block the adoption of draft resolutions, so unlike substantive matters, such resolutions can be adopted without their consent.
Emergency special sessions have been convened under this procedure on ten occasions, with the most recent convened in 1997. However, unlike preceding ESSs, the tenth ESS has been 'adjourned' and 'resumed' on numerous occasions, over the past several years, and remains adjourned. Indeed, more than ten separate 'meetings' of this ESS have been held by the Assembly, since the Year 2000.
For the record, the Uniting for Peace resolution was initiated by the United States, and submitted by the "Joint Seven-Powers" in October 1950, as a means of circumventing further Soviet vetoes during the course of the Korean War.
What does this mean for Israel? Very simply, even if the US, by means of its Security Council veto, prevents the UN recognition of an independent Palestinian state, the General Assembly basically, through Resolution 377, has the ability to override the Security Council. Should it choose to do so and approve the petition to recognize Palestine unilaterally, Israel would then find 350,000 of its citizens living in a “foreign” country overnight and be faced with a demand from a sovereign power that they be removed. Under extreme conditions it is possible to visualize international forces being brought in to assist the newly established Palestinian state to forcibly remove the Israelis, perhaps even at gunpoint. Sound far-fetched? I’m not so sure. In today’s world, anything is possible.
Remember, Israel is the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people. Do we who live here believe that? If we do it would seem to me that we not only need to keep telling ourselves that over and over again but also act as if we believe it. That means laying out our own plan for the future that ensures our survival here. It was Nelson Mandela who said “I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognize Israel, within secure borders.” This should be our mantra as well as our expectation of what the world community should understand. This is our precondition for Palestinian statehood, nothing less!
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Today is 125 days until the opening of the fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 14th.
Yesterday I started the countdown so that we don’t lose track of time and for us to be fully aware of the serious problems that loom before us.
I had made mention in Wednesday’s blog about UN Resolution 377. Here is the quick background on that resolution.
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 377 (V), the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, states that, in cases where the United Nations Security Council fails to act in order to maintain international peace and security, owing to disagreement between its five permanent members, the matter shall be addressed immediately by the General Assembly, using the mechanism of the emergency special session.
The Uniting for Peace resolution—also known as the "Acheson Plan"—was adopted on November 3rd 1950, after fourteen days of Assembly discussions, by a vote of 52 to 5 (Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic voted against), with 2 abstentions (India and Argentina).
In it, the General Assembly “resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security."
To facilitate prompt action by the General Assembly in the case of a dead-locked Security Council, the resolution created the mechanism of the "emergency special session" (ESS), which can be called upon the basis of either a procedural vote in the Security Council, or within twenty-four hours of a request by a majority of UN Members being received by the Secretary-General. In procedural votes, the permanent members of the Security Council do not have the ability to block the adoption of draft resolutions, so unlike substantive matters, such resolutions can be adopted without their consent.
Emergency special sessions have been convened under this procedure on ten occasions, with the most recent convened in 1997. However, unlike preceding ESSs, the tenth ESS has been 'adjourned' and 'resumed' on numerous occasions, over the past several years, and remains adjourned. Indeed, more than ten separate 'meetings' of this ESS have been held by the Assembly, since the Year 2000.
For the record, the Uniting for Peace resolution was initiated by the United States, and submitted by the "Joint Seven-Powers" in October 1950, as a means of circumventing further Soviet vetoes during the course of the Korean War.
What does this mean for Israel? Very simply, even if the US, by means of its Security Council veto, prevents the UN recognition of an independent Palestinian state, the General Assembly basically, through Resolution 377, has the ability to override the Security Council. Should it choose to do so and approve the petition to recognize Palestine unilaterally, Israel would then find 350,000 of its citizens living in a “foreign” country overnight and be faced with a demand from a sovereign power that they be removed. Under extreme conditions it is possible to visualize international forces being brought in to assist the newly established Palestinian state to forcibly remove the Israelis, perhaps even at gunpoint. Sound far-fetched? I’m not so sure. In today’s world, anything is possible.
Remember, Israel is the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people. Do we who live here believe that? If we do it would seem to me that we not only need to keep telling ourselves that over and over again but also act as if we believe it. That means laying out our own plan for the future that ensures our survival here. It was Nelson Mandela who said “I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognize Israel, within secure borders.” This should be our mantra as well as our expectation of what the world community should understand. This is our precondition for Palestinian statehood, nothing less!
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
126 Days to Go
By Sherwin Pomerantz
The fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly opens 126 days from today, on September 14th with the speeches by heads of state beginning just nine days later on September 23rd. Is Israel ready? I don’t think so.
It is clear to everyone that the thrust of Palestinian diplomatic activity prior to the opening of the General Assembly is to garner worldwide support for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and now Gaza, within the 1967 armistice lines (and that’s what they are, they are not “borders” as they are commonly called by diplomats and the press alike). As it appears today the world community will support that desire even though there is a reasonable chance that the U.S. will, albeit somewhat reluctantly, use its veto to prevent the Security Council from giving its approval to such a move. But that may not be the end of the story. There is always UN Resolution 377 (more about that tomorrow).
The Palestinians have made their position clear. They desire (a) an independent country within the physical confines described above, (b) the right of return of the refugees from 1948 and 1967 (and their descendants), and (c) a capital located in Jerusalem. Of course, coupled with all of that is their insistence (given President Obama’s first raising of the concept) of a freeze on all settlement construction and an understanding, in Mahmoud Abbas’ words, that no Jew will live in the newly created Palestinian state (which, of course, means the dismantling of all settlements). He even went so far as to say that should international peacekeeping forces also be part of the package, that no Jews could be part of those forces either. The Palestinian position could not be clearer. And what is the Israeli position?
Well, sadly, our position is not so clear. Our leadership speaks about seeking peace, our people here want peace, but our government, in spite of the urgings of many on both sides of the aisle, remains mute on what Israel wants and expects as a sovereign nation with a 63 year history of success. My sense is that we cannot afford to be silent and that not putting a plan on the table is significantly more dangerous to our long term survival here than anything we have faced in the last 63 years of our history.
We know from our history that, when we remain silent, conditions are imposed on us which are not generally in our best interests. Approaching a debate on a Palestinian state without our putting on the table our clear and unequivocal demands is tantamount to writing our own death certificate.
For those of us who understand that in order to survive here long term we need to come to some end of the conflict with our neighbors, we know the broad outlines of what our government here should demand as minimum conditions under which we can live side by side with a Palestinian state. They include (a) a demilitarized Palestinian state, (b) the continued existence of the large settlement blocs such as Gush Etzion, Ariel, Ma’ale Adumim, and the like, (c) a very limited right of return for some small percentage of families who were actually forced to leave in 1948 and 1967 [and not those who left voluntarily], (d) the maintenance of a united Jerusalem with the Old City under Israeli supervision and (e) the right of Jews who want to do so to live in the newly created independent Palestine.
Neither their position nor ours will end up to be the final framework and I am not even sure that my suggested points are exactly what we should be putting on the table, but we should put something on the table with the understanding that both sides will need to negotiate the resolution on those points where there is obvious disagreement.
Israel is the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people. We need to keep telling ourselves that over and over again and our leadership needs to believe it as well.
Our Prime Minister is due to make addresses shortly both at the AIPAC conference later this month as well as at a Joint Session of the US Congress. But before he goes to the US for these meetings, he owes it to us, those of us living here and whose future is bound up in this country, to tell us what our government’s position is in response to Palestinian activity in the run-up to the opening of the UN in September. We are owed that and it should be delivered to us here in Israel and not as a news report from America. We deserve nothing less!
By Sherwin Pomerantz
The fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly opens 126 days from today, on September 14th with the speeches by heads of state beginning just nine days later on September 23rd. Is Israel ready? I don’t think so.
It is clear to everyone that the thrust of Palestinian diplomatic activity prior to the opening of the General Assembly is to garner worldwide support for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and now Gaza, within the 1967 armistice lines (and that’s what they are, they are not “borders” as they are commonly called by diplomats and the press alike). As it appears today the world community will support that desire even though there is a reasonable chance that the U.S. will, albeit somewhat reluctantly, use its veto to prevent the Security Council from giving its approval to such a move. But that may not be the end of the story. There is always UN Resolution 377 (more about that tomorrow).
The Palestinians have made their position clear. They desire (a) an independent country within the physical confines described above, (b) the right of return of the refugees from 1948 and 1967 (and their descendants), and (c) a capital located in Jerusalem. Of course, coupled with all of that is their insistence (given President Obama’s first raising of the concept) of a freeze on all settlement construction and an understanding, in Mahmoud Abbas’ words, that no Jew will live in the newly created Palestinian state (which, of course, means the dismantling of all settlements). He even went so far as to say that should international peacekeeping forces also be part of the package, that no Jews could be part of those forces either. The Palestinian position could not be clearer. And what is the Israeli position?
Well, sadly, our position is not so clear. Our leadership speaks about seeking peace, our people here want peace, but our government, in spite of the urgings of many on both sides of the aisle, remains mute on what Israel wants and expects as a sovereign nation with a 63 year history of success. My sense is that we cannot afford to be silent and that not putting a plan on the table is significantly more dangerous to our long term survival here than anything we have faced in the last 63 years of our history.
We know from our history that, when we remain silent, conditions are imposed on us which are not generally in our best interests. Approaching a debate on a Palestinian state without our putting on the table our clear and unequivocal demands is tantamount to writing our own death certificate.
For those of us who understand that in order to survive here long term we need to come to some end of the conflict with our neighbors, we know the broad outlines of what our government here should demand as minimum conditions under which we can live side by side with a Palestinian state. They include (a) a demilitarized Palestinian state, (b) the continued existence of the large settlement blocs such as Gush Etzion, Ariel, Ma’ale Adumim, and the like, (c) a very limited right of return for some small percentage of families who were actually forced to leave in 1948 and 1967 [and not those who left voluntarily], (d) the maintenance of a united Jerusalem with the Old City under Israeli supervision and (e) the right of Jews who want to do so to live in the newly created independent Palestine.
Neither their position nor ours will end up to be the final framework and I am not even sure that my suggested points are exactly what we should be putting on the table, but we should put something on the table with the understanding that both sides will need to negotiate the resolution on those points where there is obvious disagreement.
Israel is the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people. We need to keep telling ourselves that over and over again and our leadership needs to believe it as well.
Our Prime Minister is due to make addresses shortly both at the AIPAC conference later this month as well as at a Joint Session of the US Congress. But before he goes to the US for these meetings, he owes it to us, those of us living here and whose future is bound up in this country, to tell us what our government’s position is in response to Palestinian activity in the run-up to the opening of the UN in September. We are owed that and it should be delivered to us here in Israel and not as a news report from America. We deserve nothing less!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
