Achieving Political Sustainability in Israel
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Sustainability has become the watchword of environmentalists worldwide but somehow or other the concept has not permeated the psyche of those involved in politics.
The dictionary defines sustainability as “using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.” While this generally applies to conserving the natural resources of the planet to ensure our long term ability to survive, isn’t it also applicable to political situations? And wouldn’t the concept of sustainability also apply to Israel? Perhaps so.
The challenge in applying the concept of sustainability to a political situation is that different people look at the concept through very different lenses. For example, there are those who believe that Eretz Israel (i.e. the Land of Israel) as described in the Torah is the resource and, in order to support the concept of sustainability, we must do everything we can to preserve that resource. In theory that all sounds logical. However, much of that resource has already been lost to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and even the most ardent supporters of this approach harbor no hope that those portions of the land will ever be returned to us. Today, those who see sustainability through these lenses are committed to retaining Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) and to recapturing Gaza as well in order to be minimally loyal to the concept of Eretz Israel.
Then there are others who look at sustainability as the challenge before us to maintain what we already have and ensure our long term survival in that space. For those who subscribe to this approach sustainability means retaining all of the land within the oft referenced 1967 borders as well as the large settlement blocs (i.e. Gush Etzion, Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel, etc.) in Judea and Samaria, while acknowledging the Palestinian Arab claim to their roots here and their right to the establishment of an independent state of Palestine on the remaining areas not included in this formulation.
Finally, there is that third group of Israelis who have internalized sustainability to the point where they believe that complete separation from the Palestinian Arab population in Judea and Samaria is the only practical path to sustainability. This group is prepared to close down the settlement enterprise completely, draw a clear border between Israel and the future state of Palestine and then find some way to function in a geographically reduced Israel.
Of course, at some point in time theory must give way to practice. To quote that great American philosopher (and former New York Yankee catcher and manager) Yogi Berra, “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.” So the job of the government then is to understand the multiple theories that are shared by different segments of the population here and see “sustainability” as doing what is best to ensure that our children and grandchildren will still be able to live in an Israel that is both Jewish and democratic without the constant threat of war and terror. None of the three theories of political sustainability described above are solutions in and of themselves. But if three circles are drawn, each representing one of those theories, it will soon become obvious that where those three circles intersect and overlap lie the elements of a theory that can be acceptable to all.
Is that just a theory as well? I think not. Is there something that can be done to put the theory into practice and actually make it happen? I think so.
The first challenge of our government is to shut up. There is altogether too much “noise” in our system which, in the long run, tends to do us more harm than good. Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman is a case in point. His verbal assaults on Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas last week brought no positive value whatsoever to the attempt to find a way to bring the parties back to the negotiating table. While I know that a lot of people like to say that Lieberman says out loud what many of us think, that does not make his diatribes acceptable. When he agreed to accept the position as Foreign Minister, he also agreed, prima facie, to act like a diplomat and not like a bull in a china shop. The fact that the Prime Minister did not disassociate himself from those comments is even less understandable.
The second challenge of the government is to find a creative formula that makes it impossible for the other side to refuse to meet. Last week I suggested a 90-day construction freeze in the territories as a gesture to the Palestinian Arab leadership. That was a mistake on my part and a reader in Chicago suggested something much more sensible, a 90-day construction freeze to begin the day the parties sit down to negotiate. I actually thought that was brilliant on the part of my friend there.
The third challenge for the government is to understand and internalize that sustainability means dealing in realistic expectations and making sure that the messages that come out of government circles, all government agencies, reflect reality and not the wishful thinking of people who are not willing to look at facts and deal with them honestly.
French philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) said “The future belongs to those who give the next generation reason for hope.” That is the true definition of sustainability in politics and both sides here need to internalize this in order for our grandchildren to live here in peace and security.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
One More Chance? Is it Worth the Risk?
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Reading the papers here over the last few days does not help at all to clarify the next steps that Israel should or should not take regarding possible forward movement towards negotiations with the Palestinian Arab leadership.
Earlier this week Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman let loose a barrage of negative comments about Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas saying that he should resign, that Abbas is the obstacle to peace and that the peace process itself would be well-served by his departing the scene.
In re sponse, Israel’s President, Shimon Peres, stated publicly the next day that Chairman Abbas and his Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, are both serious leaders of the Palestinian Arab population, that they are, indeed, reliable peace partners and that we should negotiate with them.
Yuval Diskin, former director of the Shin Bet, Israel’s equivalent of the CIA, in a speech at Ashalim College in the Negev on Wednesday opined that while Abbas and the rest of the Palestinian Arab leadership does not love us, Abbas is squarely against terrorism, and has done more than any other Palestinian Arab leader to quell terrorism. He went on to say that Israel will make a mistake if it does not find a way to negotiate with Abbas as when he steps down (he is now 76 years old) there is no apparent heir and there will, no doubt, be an internal battle for the leadership of Fatah.
This morning, in response to new overtures by the Quartet dealing with re-energizing the peace process here (i.e. the US, Russia, the EU and the UN) Israel’s Prime Minister stated the country’s willingness to immediately sit down with the Palestinian Arab leadership to negotiate peace without preconditions while the representatives on the other side said they are prepared to come to the negotiating table only if Israel ceases all construction in the areas captures in 1967. (Recall that Israel did enforce such a 10-month suspension in 2010 and the Palestinian Arab leadership still did not agree to come to the table. They waited until the 10th month and then said they would sit down and talk if the freeze was extended.)
So what to make of all of this? Down deep the overwhelming majority of Israelis agree that the present situation is not sustainable over the long run. But that understanding starts to fracture when one digs deeper as to what to do next. Options range from acceding to all of the demands of the Palestinian Arab leadership before sitting down to negotiate, to declaring sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) and letting the chips fall where they may.
The question then would seem to be is it worth making one more concession to Palestinian Arab demands in order to see, once and for all, if we do actually have a partner on the other side? In spite of my earlier blog which I clearly titled “no more concessions” I would have to say that I think the process is worth one more shot. If I were making the decisions for the Government of Israel I would say to the Palestinian Arab leadership, ok, we will suspend all construction in the territories captured in 1967 for 90 days but no other pre-conditions to the talks. If the other side is prepared to then sit down and discuss the parameters of an end to the conflict, fine. If not, Israel will have to decide what is in its best interests and proceed on that path.
I am suggesting this for the same reason that I was in favor of the incredibly lopsided prisoner swap that took place last week where we exchanged 1,027 convicts for Gilad Schalit. I agreed with the assessment of the government here that no one can tell what will happen in Egypt over the course of the next 12-18 months. Therefore, as long as we had someone to speak with who was willing to act as an intermediary, we needed to take advantage of that situation.
I believe the same is true now with the Palestinian Arab leadership in Judea and Samaria. While all of us can point to plenty of negatives about their history, and certainly Yuval Diskin is correct when he says they will never love us, the fact is that there is significant security and economic progress being made in the areas under their control and we need to recognize that. Security cooperation between us is the best it has been in years but no one can tell what will be in the future.
So, recognizing all of the pitfalls in going this route, and understanding that we will cross yet another red line, we have taken so many chances for peace in the past that one more now will probably not make much of a difference. We may not succeed in this effort but we probably owe it to future generations to take one more stab at it. Maybe, just maybe, the other side also finally understands this as well.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Reading the papers here over the last few days does not help at all to clarify the next steps that Israel should or should not take regarding possible forward movement towards negotiations with the Palestinian Arab leadership.
Earlier this week Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman let loose a barrage of negative comments about Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas saying that he should resign, that Abbas is the obstacle to peace and that the peace process itself would be well-served by his departing the scene.
In re sponse, Israel’s President, Shimon Peres, stated publicly the next day that Chairman Abbas and his Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, are both serious leaders of the Palestinian Arab population, that they are, indeed, reliable peace partners and that we should negotiate with them.
Yuval Diskin, former director of the Shin Bet, Israel’s equivalent of the CIA, in a speech at Ashalim College in the Negev on Wednesday opined that while Abbas and the rest of the Palestinian Arab leadership does not love us, Abbas is squarely against terrorism, and has done more than any other Palestinian Arab leader to quell terrorism. He went on to say that Israel will make a mistake if it does not find a way to negotiate with Abbas as when he steps down (he is now 76 years old) there is no apparent heir and there will, no doubt, be an internal battle for the leadership of Fatah.
This morning, in response to new overtures by the Quartet dealing with re-energizing the peace process here (i.e. the US, Russia, the EU and the UN) Israel’s Prime Minister stated the country’s willingness to immediately sit down with the Palestinian Arab leadership to negotiate peace without preconditions while the representatives on the other side said they are prepared to come to the negotiating table only if Israel ceases all construction in the areas captures in 1967. (Recall that Israel did enforce such a 10-month suspension in 2010 and the Palestinian Arab leadership still did not agree to come to the table. They waited until the 10th month and then said they would sit down and talk if the freeze was extended.)
So what to make of all of this? Down deep the overwhelming majority of Israelis agree that the present situation is not sustainable over the long run. But that understanding starts to fracture when one digs deeper as to what to do next. Options range from acceding to all of the demands of the Palestinian Arab leadership before sitting down to negotiate, to declaring sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) and letting the chips fall where they may.
The question then would seem to be is it worth making one more concession to Palestinian Arab demands in order to see, once and for all, if we do actually have a partner on the other side? In spite of my earlier blog which I clearly titled “no more concessions” I would have to say that I think the process is worth one more shot. If I were making the decisions for the Government of Israel I would say to the Palestinian Arab leadership, ok, we will suspend all construction in the territories captured in 1967 for 90 days but no other pre-conditions to the talks. If the other side is prepared to then sit down and discuss the parameters of an end to the conflict, fine. If not, Israel will have to decide what is in its best interests and proceed on that path.
I am suggesting this for the same reason that I was in favor of the incredibly lopsided prisoner swap that took place last week where we exchanged 1,027 convicts for Gilad Schalit. I agreed with the assessment of the government here that no one can tell what will happen in Egypt over the course of the next 12-18 months. Therefore, as long as we had someone to speak with who was willing to act as an intermediary, we needed to take advantage of that situation.
I believe the same is true now with the Palestinian Arab leadership in Judea and Samaria. While all of us can point to plenty of negatives about their history, and certainly Yuval Diskin is correct when he says they will never love us, the fact is that there is significant security and economic progress being made in the areas under their control and we need to recognize that. Security cooperation between us is the best it has been in years but no one can tell what will be in the future.
So, recognizing all of the pitfalls in going this route, and understanding that we will cross yet another red line, we have taken so many chances for peace in the past that one more now will probably not make much of a difference. We may not succeed in this effort but we probably owe it to future generations to take one more stab at it. Maybe, just maybe, the other side also finally understands this as well.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Can You Believe? The Topsy Turvy World Called the Middle East
By Sherwin Pomerantz
I thought I would let the smoke clear after last week’s release of everybody’s son, now Sgt. Major Gilad Schalit, and the agreement by Israel to release over 1,000 convicted terrorists in return before blogging again. Now that some days have passed it is interesting to watch what has happened here in the region in the aftermath of last week’s mixed feelings of joy and concern.
In Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas has announced a government payment of $5,000 to each released terrorist. Of course, the Authority has no funds to pay even its monthly obligations for salaries to government employees so these monies then will need to come from funds supplied each month by the United States and the European Union. Can you believe?
The dichotomy of this situation would be laughable if it were not so sad. On the one hand Abbas regularly states that the Authority is against encouraging terror, while simultaneously rewarding terror through the payment of these release bonuses, partially funded by western governments. At the same time, of course, in speeches since last week’s release Abbas has regularly urged more kidnappings of Israeli soldiers to be used as bargaining chips to force the freeing of the remaining (approximately) 5,000 Arab security prisoners and terrorists still in Israeli jails. Can you believe?
One of the remaining prisoners is Marwan Barghouti who is serving five life terms for his masterminding and involvement in multiple deadly terror attacks against Israelis. Yossi Beilin, one of the architects of the failed Oslo Accords of 1993 and the creator of the Geneva Initiative, is quoted as saying earlier this week: “Barghouti is a political leader, not a terrorist, even if he led others to use terror and was responsible for the second intifada.” In Beilin’s twisted logic being an accessory to a crime or aiding and abetting criminal activity does not make one a criminal. Somewhere during his PhD studies in Political Science at Tel Aviv University he must have been absent the day they spoke about the implications of being an accomplice to a crime. How else to explain this convoluted thinking from one of Israel’s best minds? Can you believe?
During this same period of time Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was killed by rebel forces in his hometown of Sirte. Quickly thereafter Libya’s transitional leader, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil declared the end of the 8-month civil war and set out plans for the future with a strong Islamist tone. After declaring that Libya would be called an Islamic Nation (n.b. nobody seems to mind any nation, Libya, Iran, Iraq, being called Islamic as long as Israel is not called Jewish), he added that Islamic Sharia law would be the basic source of legislation and existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified. No surprises there.
In an insightful comment on the uprisings that have been going on in the Arab world over the past 10 months, Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger writes: “Western observers tend to ignore the significance of the 1,400 year old monopoly of Islam over the religious, educational, social and political aspects of every Arab country. Such a repressive monopoly guarantees an Islamic victory in every democratic process. The 1979 freeing of Iran from the autocracy of the Shah produced the Khomeini Revolution, a radical, oppressive, megalomaniac Islamic regime. The 2002 election in Turkey yielded the less-radical Islamic regime of the Justice and Development Party, headed by Erdogan, who aspires to lead the Islamic World and reinstate the Ottoman Empire.”
He goes on to note: “Arab regimes dread freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, free competition, free press, free Internet and free minds. In 2006, Condoleezza Rice’s insistence upon introducing democracy to Gaza catapulted Hamas terrorists to power. In 1996, Jimmy Carter certified the electoral victory of Arafat, who proceeded to launch an unprecedented campaign of terrorism. In 1979, the eagerness to spread democracy led Western leaders to support the Khomeini Revolution. During 1917-1967, a sustained campaign, by the British empire, to introduce democracy to Arab lands failed decisively.” So why is the current situation so hard to believe?
Our job now must be to resist delusional reasoning that allows us to believe, albeit incorrectly, that things will change for the better in the near term. While the potential for positive movement is present throughout the region, the signs, so far, are less than encouraging.
Dr. Carl Sagan, American astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist and award winning author said before he died in 1996: “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” And that, today, is our test and should be the yardstick by which we assess reality.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
I thought I would let the smoke clear after last week’s release of everybody’s son, now Sgt. Major Gilad Schalit, and the agreement by Israel to release over 1,000 convicted terrorists in return before blogging again. Now that some days have passed it is interesting to watch what has happened here in the region in the aftermath of last week’s mixed feelings of joy and concern.
In Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas has announced a government payment of $5,000 to each released terrorist. Of course, the Authority has no funds to pay even its monthly obligations for salaries to government employees so these monies then will need to come from funds supplied each month by the United States and the European Union. Can you believe?
The dichotomy of this situation would be laughable if it were not so sad. On the one hand Abbas regularly states that the Authority is against encouraging terror, while simultaneously rewarding terror through the payment of these release bonuses, partially funded by western governments. At the same time, of course, in speeches since last week’s release Abbas has regularly urged more kidnappings of Israeli soldiers to be used as bargaining chips to force the freeing of the remaining (approximately) 5,000 Arab security prisoners and terrorists still in Israeli jails. Can you believe?
One of the remaining prisoners is Marwan Barghouti who is serving five life terms for his masterminding and involvement in multiple deadly terror attacks against Israelis. Yossi Beilin, one of the architects of the failed Oslo Accords of 1993 and the creator of the Geneva Initiative, is quoted as saying earlier this week: “Barghouti is a political leader, not a terrorist, even if he led others to use terror and was responsible for the second intifada.” In Beilin’s twisted logic being an accessory to a crime or aiding and abetting criminal activity does not make one a criminal. Somewhere during his PhD studies in Political Science at Tel Aviv University he must have been absent the day they spoke about the implications of being an accomplice to a crime. How else to explain this convoluted thinking from one of Israel’s best minds? Can you believe?
During this same period of time Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was killed by rebel forces in his hometown of Sirte. Quickly thereafter Libya’s transitional leader, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil declared the end of the 8-month civil war and set out plans for the future with a strong Islamist tone. After declaring that Libya would be called an Islamic Nation (n.b. nobody seems to mind any nation, Libya, Iran, Iraq, being called Islamic as long as Israel is not called Jewish), he added that Islamic Sharia law would be the basic source of legislation and existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified. No surprises there.
In an insightful comment on the uprisings that have been going on in the Arab world over the past 10 months, Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger writes: “Western observers tend to ignore the significance of the 1,400 year old monopoly of Islam over the religious, educational, social and political aspects of every Arab country. Such a repressive monopoly guarantees an Islamic victory in every democratic process. The 1979 freeing of Iran from the autocracy of the Shah produced the Khomeini Revolution, a radical, oppressive, megalomaniac Islamic regime. The 2002 election in Turkey yielded the less-radical Islamic regime of the Justice and Development Party, headed by Erdogan, who aspires to lead the Islamic World and reinstate the Ottoman Empire.”
He goes on to note: “Arab regimes dread freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, free competition, free press, free Internet and free minds. In 2006, Condoleezza Rice’s insistence upon introducing democracy to Gaza catapulted Hamas terrorists to power. In 1996, Jimmy Carter certified the electoral victory of Arafat, who proceeded to launch an unprecedented campaign of terrorism. In 1979, the eagerness to spread democracy led Western leaders to support the Khomeini Revolution. During 1917-1967, a sustained campaign, by the British empire, to introduce democracy to Arab lands failed decisively.” So why is the current situation so hard to believe?
Our job now must be to resist delusional reasoning that allows us to believe, albeit incorrectly, that things will change for the better in the near term. While the potential for positive movement is present throughout the region, the signs, so far, are less than encouraging.
Dr. Carl Sagan, American astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist and award winning author said before he died in 1996: “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” And that, today, is our test and should be the yardstick by which we assess reality.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Is Capital Punishment a Deterrent? And Should we Even Care?
By Sherwin Pomerantz
My blog of Tuesday elicited more responses than normal. Many people felt that history has shown that capital punishment is generally not a deterrent to crime so there is, therefore, no value in Israel’s using that in the future as it will not buy us anything. Should we really care whether that works as a deterrent or not? I’m not sure.
One of my readers thought that my blog was good but that, in a word, he says “I think you guys are screwed. Deterrence requires a value proposition where both sides threaten something of value on the other side. The gap between what your enemy threatens (based on this prisoner exchange) and what you threaten is so wide that you lose either way, and therefore you have no deterrence. You guys need to get outside the box and figure out how to threaten something of value that the Palestinian leaders, terrorists, and the world will understand. The Palestinians have and hold little of value, including people. You have just validated a cheap, easy, effective tactic for your enemy. I would have done the same thing as the return of another 1000 Palestinian heroes will not change the military equation. So, what do you threaten? What can you threaten that your friends will understand and support? Time is short.”
Another reader indicates that “The underlying factor will not go away - our enemy does not value life. A life lost for them at the hands of an enemy may be sad for the immediate family but they will be told and taught they were martyrs to a glorious cause. A person sitting in a prison is a martyr. An executed person is a martyr. A life lost for us, even in the line of duty, is a disaster.”
Someone else wrote “Executing captured perpetrators of terrorist acts will create a price tag. As an example, (our enemies will send) one suicide bomber for every executed terrorist. For us, each life lost is a disaster. This prisoner exchange only underlines how much we value life and how little they do. They understand this and that is why they held him (i.e. Schalit) so long. Until our enemy changes its ways, there will be no great enough deterrent.”
Another writes, “Though I feel sick that these people are being released, the thought of execution, though it may seem somewhat logical if not a gut reaction, leads me to the question Will we challenge our own moral fabric with the introduction of the death penalty?
Further, flattening 1 square kilometer around an area fired from by terrorists is collective punishment. Are we ready to say that a Gazan is an automatic terrorist? Is not our morality the back-bone that keeps this country alive in its fight against its enemies?”
Not to be outdone, of course, the New York Times in an editorial today congratulates Prime Minister Netanyahu for making the deal, for having “twisted himself in an ideological knot to get this deal.” And then, as only the Times can do, it makes the leap to the following conclusion:
“One has to ask: If Mr. Netanyahu can negotiate with Hamas — which shoots rockets at Israel, refuses to recognize Israel’s existence and, on Tuesday, vowed to take even more hostages — why won’t he negotiate seriously with the Palestinian Authority, which Israel relies on to help keep the peace in the West Bank?.... Why can’t he make a similarly impassioned appeal for a settlement freeze for the sake of Israel’s security?” Amazing is it not that there is no reference at all to the fact that Abbas and his cronies have refused to sit down with Israel, even after a 10 month settlement freeze, unless Israel pre-agrees to give up all of its bargaining chips before the dialogue begins?
But the facts are:
»Our enemies seem to place a very low value on the worth of a human life.
»Executing admitted killers who have been convicted in an Israeli court may not be a deterrent.
»Israel does not want to be in a position yet again to have to release convicted murderers in order to redeem our captives.
»We have a limited number of options open to us.
»Things will probably get worse before they get better.
»Our enemies have captured the narrative and made us into the bad guys.
So the options open to us are limited. Given that and considering the financial cost as well of feeding and housing convicted killers (i.e. about $ 40,000 per person per year according to local estimates) I would stand on my earlier position. That is if we apprehend perpetrators of terror attacks where Israeli citizens have died as a result, and if they admit to their crime and are found guilty in an Israeli court then such individuals are guilty of genocide (i.e. as defined, the intentional killing of a [large] group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation) then we have a right to inflict capital punishment on the guilty parties. Israel endorses capital punishment under such circumstances and we would do ourselves a service by letting one and all know that from a certain date, this will be our policy.
Critics may be right that this will not be a major deterrent, but it will be a clear statement to those who choose terror as their vehicle for protest, that we place the same value on their lives as they place on ours. No more, no less. It’s time we drew our own red lines and stood by them.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
My blog of Tuesday elicited more responses than normal. Many people felt that history has shown that capital punishment is generally not a deterrent to crime so there is, therefore, no value in Israel’s using that in the future as it will not buy us anything. Should we really care whether that works as a deterrent or not? I’m not sure.
One of my readers thought that my blog was good but that, in a word, he says “I think you guys are screwed. Deterrence requires a value proposition where both sides threaten something of value on the other side. The gap between what your enemy threatens (based on this prisoner exchange) and what you threaten is so wide that you lose either way, and therefore you have no deterrence. You guys need to get outside the box and figure out how to threaten something of value that the Palestinian leaders, terrorists, and the world will understand. The Palestinians have and hold little of value, including people. You have just validated a cheap, easy, effective tactic for your enemy. I would have done the same thing as the return of another 1000 Palestinian heroes will not change the military equation. So, what do you threaten? What can you threaten that your friends will understand and support? Time is short.”
Another reader indicates that “The underlying factor will not go away - our enemy does not value life. A life lost for them at the hands of an enemy may be sad for the immediate family but they will be told and taught they were martyrs to a glorious cause. A person sitting in a prison is a martyr. An executed person is a martyr. A life lost for us, even in the line of duty, is a disaster.”
Someone else wrote “Executing captured perpetrators of terrorist acts will create a price tag. As an example, (our enemies will send) one suicide bomber for every executed terrorist. For us, each life lost is a disaster. This prisoner exchange only underlines how much we value life and how little they do. They understand this and that is why they held him (i.e. Schalit) so long. Until our enemy changes its ways, there will be no great enough deterrent.”
Another writes, “Though I feel sick that these people are being released, the thought of execution, though it may seem somewhat logical if not a gut reaction, leads me to the question Will we challenge our own moral fabric with the introduction of the death penalty?
Further, flattening 1 square kilometer around an area fired from by terrorists is collective punishment. Are we ready to say that a Gazan is an automatic terrorist? Is not our morality the back-bone that keeps this country alive in its fight against its enemies?”
Not to be outdone, of course, the New York Times in an editorial today congratulates Prime Minister Netanyahu for making the deal, for having “twisted himself in an ideological knot to get this deal.” And then, as only the Times can do, it makes the leap to the following conclusion:
“One has to ask: If Mr. Netanyahu can negotiate with Hamas — which shoots rockets at Israel, refuses to recognize Israel’s existence and, on Tuesday, vowed to take even more hostages — why won’t he negotiate seriously with the Palestinian Authority, which Israel relies on to help keep the peace in the West Bank?.... Why can’t he make a similarly impassioned appeal for a settlement freeze for the sake of Israel’s security?” Amazing is it not that there is no reference at all to the fact that Abbas and his cronies have refused to sit down with Israel, even after a 10 month settlement freeze, unless Israel pre-agrees to give up all of its bargaining chips before the dialogue begins?
But the facts are:
»Our enemies seem to place a very low value on the worth of a human life.
»Executing admitted killers who have been convicted in an Israeli court may not be a deterrent.
»Israel does not want to be in a position yet again to have to release convicted murderers in order to redeem our captives.
»We have a limited number of options open to us.
»Things will probably get worse before they get better.
»Our enemies have captured the narrative and made us into the bad guys.
So the options open to us are limited. Given that and considering the financial cost as well of feeding and housing convicted killers (i.e. about $ 40,000 per person per year according to local estimates) I would stand on my earlier position. That is if we apprehend perpetrators of terror attacks where Israeli citizens have died as a result, and if they admit to their crime and are found guilty in an Israeli court then such individuals are guilty of genocide (i.e. as defined, the intentional killing of a [large] group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation) then we have a right to inflict capital punishment on the guilty parties. Israel endorses capital punishment under such circumstances and we would do ourselves a service by letting one and all know that from a certain date, this will be our policy.
Critics may be right that this will not be a major deterrent, but it will be a clear statement to those who choose terror as their vehicle for protest, that we place the same value on their lives as they place on ours. No more, no less. It’s time we drew our own red lines and stood by them.
Monday, October 17, 2011
After the Exchange: What Israel Should Do Now - The Real Price Tag
By Sherwin Pomerantz
If all goes according to plan tomorrow Gilad Schalit, who has been held by Hamas in Gaza for over five years, will return to Israel and the waiting arms of his parents. In return Israel will release 1,027 convicts and 81 Egyptians jailed here at which time Ilan Grapel, the Israeli-American Emory University law student held in Cairo since June will also be released.
This exchange has elicited very strong feelings on both sides of the political spectrum and questions remain as to whether it was the right thing to do, although I personally remain convinced that it, indeed, was the right thing to do. However, in order to minimize the chances of this type of thing occurring again, Israel must take specific actions in the future to dissuade terrorists from killing our citizens.
In a word, once the full exchange has taken place, our government should make it known to one and all that the penalty for terrorism that results in the death of our citizens, once the perpetrators are found guilty by Israeli courts, will be execution. The world community may think this is a harsh response but people who decide to blow up pizza parlors where normal citizens of Israel are enjoying lunch, must understand that the same punishment they have meted out to our citizens will be meted out to them as well. My guess is that if we do that once or twice when such situations occur, God forbid, again in the future, terrorists will think twice about engaging in such activities.
This was, of course, my big personal disappointment after the pullout from Gaza in 2005. It was my hope that our government would have said to one and all, that now that we are out of Gaza there is a clear international border between Israel and Gaza. Given that, should rockets start coming at us from Gaza, for each attack we will simply obliterate one square kilometer of land around the place from which the rockets were fired. I thought then, as I do now, that it was a strategic error on our part not to have done this. And, of course, not having done so, our citizens in the south of the country paid a huge price for our ineptitude.
Taking a position on future terrorist acts that once the accused person has been found guilty, he or she will be executed, will at least give some small measure of solace to those parents who have previously lost children in terrorist acts and who are now witness to those who are guilty being released back to Arab society. We owe them that much as we do those in the future who might also suffer such losses. And to the perpetrators of these crimes we, of course, owe nothing, except a fair trial before punishment.
The first and second time we carry out such executions we can be sure that the world press will spread those pictures across five columns on page one of the next day’s edition. Nevertheless, I am pretty confident that the risks of there being a third or fourth time will be reduced dramatically in the face of such swift and final justice. We do not ever want to have to witness what we will witness this week, the release of hundreds of unrepentant criminals back into society where they will be able, should they desire to do so, to continue their errant ways.
I remain happy that Israel did the moral thing and rescued one of our young men from the hands of the enemy. But we now must do everything possible to make sure we never have to do this again. That’s the price tag for such action and people who contemplate terror should understand what it will cost them personally. Anything less on our part will be an insult to the memory of those who gave their lives here only because they were Jews.
Martin Luther King Jr, whose memorial was dedicated on Sunday in Washington DC once said: “A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men, purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.” The message should be clear to one and all that we here in Israel pay cash!
By Sherwin Pomerantz
If all goes according to plan tomorrow Gilad Schalit, who has been held by Hamas in Gaza for over five years, will return to Israel and the waiting arms of his parents. In return Israel will release 1,027 convicts and 81 Egyptians jailed here at which time Ilan Grapel, the Israeli-American Emory University law student held in Cairo since June will also be released.
This exchange has elicited very strong feelings on both sides of the political spectrum and questions remain as to whether it was the right thing to do, although I personally remain convinced that it, indeed, was the right thing to do. However, in order to minimize the chances of this type of thing occurring again, Israel must take specific actions in the future to dissuade terrorists from killing our citizens.
In a word, once the full exchange has taken place, our government should make it known to one and all that the penalty for terrorism that results in the death of our citizens, once the perpetrators are found guilty by Israeli courts, will be execution. The world community may think this is a harsh response but people who decide to blow up pizza parlors where normal citizens of Israel are enjoying lunch, must understand that the same punishment they have meted out to our citizens will be meted out to them as well. My guess is that if we do that once or twice when such situations occur, God forbid, again in the future, terrorists will think twice about engaging in such activities.
This was, of course, my big personal disappointment after the pullout from Gaza in 2005. It was my hope that our government would have said to one and all, that now that we are out of Gaza there is a clear international border between Israel and Gaza. Given that, should rockets start coming at us from Gaza, for each attack we will simply obliterate one square kilometer of land around the place from which the rockets were fired. I thought then, as I do now, that it was a strategic error on our part not to have done this. And, of course, not having done so, our citizens in the south of the country paid a huge price for our ineptitude.
Taking a position on future terrorist acts that once the accused person has been found guilty, he or she will be executed, will at least give some small measure of solace to those parents who have previously lost children in terrorist acts and who are now witness to those who are guilty being released back to Arab society. We owe them that much as we do those in the future who might also suffer such losses. And to the perpetrators of these crimes we, of course, owe nothing, except a fair trial before punishment.
The first and second time we carry out such executions we can be sure that the world press will spread those pictures across five columns on page one of the next day’s edition. Nevertheless, I am pretty confident that the risks of there being a third or fourth time will be reduced dramatically in the face of such swift and final justice. We do not ever want to have to witness what we will witness this week, the release of hundreds of unrepentant criminals back into society where they will be able, should they desire to do so, to continue their errant ways.
I remain happy that Israel did the moral thing and rescued one of our young men from the hands of the enemy. But we now must do everything possible to make sure we never have to do this again. That’s the price tag for such action and people who contemplate terror should understand what it will cost them personally. Anything less on our part will be an insult to the memory of those who gave their lives here only because they were Jews.
Martin Luther King Jr, whose memorial was dedicated on Sunday in Washington DC once said: “A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men, purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.” The message should be clear to one and all that we here in Israel pay cash!
Friday, October 14, 2011
Redeeming the Captives II – The Price We Pay
By Sherwin Pomerantz
This morning’s papers have now clearly stated that Gilad Schalit will be returned to Israel on Tuesday of next week via a crossing from Hamas-controlled Gaza directly to Israel, and not via Egypt as originally announced. If all goes according to plan the Schalit family will enjoy a much deserved celebration at their northern home on Tuesday evening as we enter Hoshanna Raba, the day before we begin again the annual cycle of Torah readings. The timing could not be more appropriate as next Thursday in the Hebrew calendar is the annual day of renewal of our faith. For the Schalit family it will be a celebration of the rebirth of their family unit.
Over the last two days responses to my piece written on Wednesday in support of the government’s decision to release 1,000 prisoners (some people have asked me to correct that to “convicts”) has been mixed but is running 2:1 in favor of the position I took. However, the opposing viewpoint has merit as well and it is good to look at the logic of those who disagreed with me.
That logic goes something like this: (a) the future murders that will result from the release of these people from Israel’s jails are too predictable; (b) we feel for Gilad's family and friends, and understand that soldiers don't want their government to abandon them cavalierly, but in the end this was a political decision by the Netanyahu government and not a moral one; (c) one clear and dramatic result of the deal is how it strengthens Hamas (and Hizbollah and fellow travelers such the Muslim Brotherhood) at the expense of the PLO; (d) and once again Israel has damaged its deterrent capability and demonstrated that terrorism pays. Many have added a postscript that in this case the political right was correct in opposing the action of the government.
There is, of course, no argument whatsoever with this logic. It was/is too heavy a price to pay; yes the people who are released will probably return to terrorism; yes it definitely strengthens Hamas and that’s not a good thing; and, yes, terrorism and obstinacy has won out again. But having said all that, I am still willing to take the risk and hope that our military will be able to take care of these people in the right way should they return to their errant modes of operation, or should others be emboldened to follow their examples. The decision of the government to accept the inflated terms of Hamas (remember that two years ago the price was 450 released convicts, not 1,000) was a moral one and sometimes morality simply wins out, as it should.
Of course, I fully respect the alternative argument and, down deep, have no idea what’s right. I’m just happy that these parents, who have suffered so greatly for five years, will, hopefully, have a whole son returned to them next week and will understand the incredible debt that they owe to all of us for being willing to take this chance and stand by our captured soldiers. We can all be 100% sure that if the shoe were on the other foot, the response by our enemies would not have been so generous.
What everyone needs to understand, both here and abroad, is the simple truth that when it comes to our experiences here there simply is no right or wrong. Each situation needs to be examined on its own merits and then the tough choices have to be made. So I don’t think it is that the “right” was/is “right” but rather that each side has a valid argument and, in this case, an opportunity needed to be grasped before the price went up even further.
We all need to have a special place in our hearts for the anguish of those who have lost loved ones at the hands of these sub-human beings now being released from prison. There are no words of consolation we can offer them, nor is there anything we can do to bring their sons, daughters, spouses and parents back to life. But they, more than any others, can certainly sympathize with the anguish of the parents of Gilad Schalit and, in spite of their angst over the release of the murderers of their loved ones, must also experience just a small amount of joy at the return of one of our boys and the attendant morality of our leadership.
Winston Churchill had it right when he said “A man does what he must – in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures – and that is the basis of all human morality.” So sometimes, morality wins over political expediency, as well it should.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
This morning’s papers have now clearly stated that Gilad Schalit will be returned to Israel on Tuesday of next week via a crossing from Hamas-controlled Gaza directly to Israel, and not via Egypt as originally announced. If all goes according to plan the Schalit family will enjoy a much deserved celebration at their northern home on Tuesday evening as we enter Hoshanna Raba, the day before we begin again the annual cycle of Torah readings. The timing could not be more appropriate as next Thursday in the Hebrew calendar is the annual day of renewal of our faith. For the Schalit family it will be a celebration of the rebirth of their family unit.
Over the last two days responses to my piece written on Wednesday in support of the government’s decision to release 1,000 prisoners (some people have asked me to correct that to “convicts”) has been mixed but is running 2:1 in favor of the position I took. However, the opposing viewpoint has merit as well and it is good to look at the logic of those who disagreed with me.
That logic goes something like this: (a) the future murders that will result from the release of these people from Israel’s jails are too predictable; (b) we feel for Gilad's family and friends, and understand that soldiers don't want their government to abandon them cavalierly, but in the end this was a political decision by the Netanyahu government and not a moral one; (c) one clear and dramatic result of the deal is how it strengthens Hamas (and Hizbollah and fellow travelers such the Muslim Brotherhood) at the expense of the PLO; (d) and once again Israel has damaged its deterrent capability and demonstrated that terrorism pays. Many have added a postscript that in this case the political right was correct in opposing the action of the government.
There is, of course, no argument whatsoever with this logic. It was/is too heavy a price to pay; yes the people who are released will probably return to terrorism; yes it definitely strengthens Hamas and that’s not a good thing; and, yes, terrorism and obstinacy has won out again. But having said all that, I am still willing to take the risk and hope that our military will be able to take care of these people in the right way should they return to their errant modes of operation, or should others be emboldened to follow their examples. The decision of the government to accept the inflated terms of Hamas (remember that two years ago the price was 450 released convicts, not 1,000) was a moral one and sometimes morality simply wins out, as it should.
Of course, I fully respect the alternative argument and, down deep, have no idea what’s right. I’m just happy that these parents, who have suffered so greatly for five years, will, hopefully, have a whole son returned to them next week and will understand the incredible debt that they owe to all of us for being willing to take this chance and stand by our captured soldiers. We can all be 100% sure that if the shoe were on the other foot, the response by our enemies would not have been so generous.
What everyone needs to understand, both here and abroad, is the simple truth that when it comes to our experiences here there simply is no right or wrong. Each situation needs to be examined on its own merits and then the tough choices have to be made. So I don’t think it is that the “right” was/is “right” but rather that each side has a valid argument and, in this case, an opportunity needed to be grasped before the price went up even further.
We all need to have a special place in our hearts for the anguish of those who have lost loved ones at the hands of these sub-human beings now being released from prison. There are no words of consolation we can offer them, nor is there anything we can do to bring their sons, daughters, spouses and parents back to life. But they, more than any others, can certainly sympathize with the anguish of the parents of Gilad Schalit and, in spite of their angst over the release of the murderers of their loved ones, must also experience just a small amount of joy at the return of one of our boys and the attendant morality of our leadership.
Winston Churchill had it right when he said “A man does what he must – in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures – and that is the basis of all human morality.” So sometimes, morality wins over political expediency, as well it should.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Redeeming the Captives – The Highest Jewish Value!
By Sherwin Pomerantz
The news in Israel today, as we are about to enter the week-long celebration of the holiday of Sukkot, is that Israel and Hamas have agreed on the terms required for Hamas to release the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit after over five years of captivity. The price? Israel will release over 1,000 Palestinian Arab prisoners it now holds in its jails in two phases, half now and the other half after Schalit is brought to Egypt from where he will come back to Israel and the waiting arms of his parents. Many of the prisoners to be released have been convicted of multiple acts of terrorism leading to the deaths of hundreds of Israelis. The general understanding, based on prior releases of this type, is that when they return to their homes in Judea, Samaria and Gaza many will also return to their former terrorist activities.
Is the price worth it?
We have been through this before and there is always much debate relating to the redemption of captives or pidyon shvuyim as it is known in Hebrew. Historically, it has been a cardinal principle of Jewish life that, whenever possible, one is obligated to redeem captive Jews. The Talmud terms this a “mitzvah rabbah”, a “great” good deed which we are obligated to perform, adding that captivity is worse than starvation and death. Other strong support for this principle can be found in the writings of Maimonides and the Code of Jewish Law as well. There are authorities, of course, including former IDF (Israel Defense Forces) Rabbi Shlomo Goren who argued against such exchanges as he felt doing so, and thereby releasing terrorists back into society, would endanger the general public. However, a case can be made that IDF soldiers will be less effective in their tasks if they have no faith that, should they be captured, Israel will pay any price to bring them home. In that case there is actually a fear that our troops would prefer retreat to capture, ergo the significant concern.
Finally, there is the general opinion that our enemies will continue to attempt to kidnap our troops regardless of what we do, so the price of redemption is really not an issue and it does not, prima facie, increase terror. What might increase the incidence of kidnapping, of course, is the fact that by making this exchange we are permitting our enemies to claim that the process works. That is, capture an Israeli soldier and hold him/her long enough and Israel will meet the demands of the enemy.
But all of these arguments beg one question that none of the articles in the press have chosen to address, and that is the trauma parents face in such a situation. The loss of a child is such an incredibly devastating experience for a parent and so obviously personal as well, that no one who has not had to go through this can possibly understand what it does to the parents, to their psyches and even to their relationship. In Israel specifically, where we ask every parent to send their 18 year olds to the IDF to serve their country and where the attendant risk is real and palpable, parents (and the young men and women who serve) must believe that our country will do all it can to bring their children back in situations like the one in which Gilad Schalit found himself.
So today, once again, I am proud to be an Israeli and proud of my country, a country that cares so much about its sons and daughters that it understands its obligations to its citizens.
Aristotle is reputed to have said “We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly.” And so we have! Am Yisrael Chai …The people of Israel live…and proudly!
By Sherwin Pomerantz
The news in Israel today, as we are about to enter the week-long celebration of the holiday of Sukkot, is that Israel and Hamas have agreed on the terms required for Hamas to release the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit after over five years of captivity. The price? Israel will release over 1,000 Palestinian Arab prisoners it now holds in its jails in two phases, half now and the other half after Schalit is brought to Egypt from where he will come back to Israel and the waiting arms of his parents. Many of the prisoners to be released have been convicted of multiple acts of terrorism leading to the deaths of hundreds of Israelis. The general understanding, based on prior releases of this type, is that when they return to their homes in Judea, Samaria and Gaza many will also return to their former terrorist activities.
Is the price worth it?
We have been through this before and there is always much debate relating to the redemption of captives or pidyon shvuyim as it is known in Hebrew. Historically, it has been a cardinal principle of Jewish life that, whenever possible, one is obligated to redeem captive Jews. The Talmud terms this a “mitzvah rabbah”, a “great” good deed which we are obligated to perform, adding that captivity is worse than starvation and death. Other strong support for this principle can be found in the writings of Maimonides and the Code of Jewish Law as well. There are authorities, of course, including former IDF (Israel Defense Forces) Rabbi Shlomo Goren who argued against such exchanges as he felt doing so, and thereby releasing terrorists back into society, would endanger the general public. However, a case can be made that IDF soldiers will be less effective in their tasks if they have no faith that, should they be captured, Israel will pay any price to bring them home. In that case there is actually a fear that our troops would prefer retreat to capture, ergo the significant concern.
Finally, there is the general opinion that our enemies will continue to attempt to kidnap our troops regardless of what we do, so the price of redemption is really not an issue and it does not, prima facie, increase terror. What might increase the incidence of kidnapping, of course, is the fact that by making this exchange we are permitting our enemies to claim that the process works. That is, capture an Israeli soldier and hold him/her long enough and Israel will meet the demands of the enemy.
But all of these arguments beg one question that none of the articles in the press have chosen to address, and that is the trauma parents face in such a situation. The loss of a child is such an incredibly devastating experience for a parent and so obviously personal as well, that no one who has not had to go through this can possibly understand what it does to the parents, to their psyches and even to their relationship. In Israel specifically, where we ask every parent to send their 18 year olds to the IDF to serve their country and where the attendant risk is real and palpable, parents (and the young men and women who serve) must believe that our country will do all it can to bring their children back in situations like the one in which Gilad Schalit found himself.
So today, once again, I am proud to be an Israeli and proud of my country, a country that cares so much about its sons and daughters that it understands its obligations to its citizens.
Aristotle is reputed to have said “We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly.” And so we have! Am Yisrael Chai …The people of Israel live…and proudly!
Sunday, October 9, 2011
The Silly Jewish State Called Israel - NOT !
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Over the last months Israel, through its Prime Minister, has been demanding that before we are prepared to sit down and negotiate yet again with the Palestinian Arab leadership we want them to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state. From our end we understand that this means one with democratic principles and full respect for all of its inhabitants regardless of their religion, as has been our custom. This certainly seems like a reasonable request and one that is significantly less problematic that their demand that before sitting down with us we agree to cease all construction in the areas captured during the six day war and agree to those armistice lines as the beginning of our negotiations.
The Palestinian Arab leadership has not agreed to this demand on our part and, of late, the reasons being given and being supported by other political leaders in the west are nothing short of illogical.
For example, Sari Nusseibah, a well-known Professor of Philosophy at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, in an op-ed piece on Aljazeera.net entitled “Why Israel Can’t be a Jewish State” writes:
"Nevertheless, it remains true that, in the Old Testament, God commands the Jewish state in the land of Israel to come into being through warfare and violent dispossession of the original inhabitants. Moreover, this command has its roots in the very Covenant of God with Abraham (or rather "Abram" at that time) in the Bible and it thus forms one of the core tenets of Judaism as such, at least as we understand it. No one then can blame Palestinians and descendants of the ancient Canaanites, Jebusites and others who inhabited the land before the Ancient Israelites (as seen in the Bible itself) for a little trepidation as regards what recognizing Israel as a "Jewish State" means for them, particularly to certain Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews. No one then can blame Palestinians for asking if recognizing Israel as a "Jewish State" means recognizing the legitimacy of offensive warfare or violence against them by Israel to take what remains of Palestine from them."
Quite amazing is it not? First of all, that Nusseibah makes the claim that today’s Palestinians are the descendant of the ancient Canaanites, Jebusites and others who lived in Israel before the Children of Israel got here, trying to give credence to the fact that the Palestinian history in this land is older than ours. The positive side of this, of course, is the de facto recognition of our long history here which most Palestinian Arab leaders often try very hard to negate.
The final conclusion that if today’s Palestinian Arab leadership were to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, this would lead us to attack the non-Jewish population in the land and kill them is pure nonsense. Better Nusseibah and others should castigate Assad in Syria for killing, as of this weekend, over 2900 of his own people who are simply demanding their God-given rights to free speech and democratic representation. But that’s the fodder for another blog.
As if this is not enough to turn one’s stomach, the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, in an interview in the French magazine Le Canard Echaȋne, says “It is silly to talk about a Jewish state. It would be like saying that this table is Catholic.” He then added, “There are two million Arabs in Israel.” Yet this is the same Sarkozy who sees no problem with other nations with whom he has relations, such as Iran, whose official name is the “Islamic Republic of Iran” even though there are, today, about 25,000 Jews living in Iran (down from the 100,000-150,000 who lived there prior to 1948), 300,000-350,000 Bahai’s, and 300,000 Christians. Yet the official name of the country is the “Islamic Republic of Iran.” By the way Pakistan and Afghanistan also call themselves, officially, Islamic republics as well.
All of this reminds me of the remark Daniel Bernard made in 2001, who at the time was the French Ambassador to the United Kingdom. At a dinner party that year he said “All the current trouble in the world are because of that shitty little country Israel. Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?”
I do not think that the concept of a Jewish state is a silly one. The idea of a Jewish Commonwealth dates back to biblical times and was certainly the understanding of the founders of Israel as recorded thusly in our Declaration of Independence:
Accordingly we, members of the People’s Council, representative of the Jewish community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British mandate over Eretz-Israel and, by virtue of our natural and historic right and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel to be known as the State of Israel.
The world must understand that those of us who have chosen to live here have done so because we believe that Israel is a Jewish country even if many of us also understand that to do so successfully we need to find a way to accommodate the needs of others who may not feel the same way. We need to be committed to do all in our power to make that a reality, but others who have trouble with the concept need to see it as their problem not ours.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Over the last months Israel, through its Prime Minister, has been demanding that before we are prepared to sit down and negotiate yet again with the Palestinian Arab leadership we want them to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state. From our end we understand that this means one with democratic principles and full respect for all of its inhabitants regardless of their religion, as has been our custom. This certainly seems like a reasonable request and one that is significantly less problematic that their demand that before sitting down with us we agree to cease all construction in the areas captured during the six day war and agree to those armistice lines as the beginning of our negotiations.
The Palestinian Arab leadership has not agreed to this demand on our part and, of late, the reasons being given and being supported by other political leaders in the west are nothing short of illogical.
For example, Sari Nusseibah, a well-known Professor of Philosophy at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, in an op-ed piece on Aljazeera.net entitled “Why Israel Can’t be a Jewish State” writes:
"Nevertheless, it remains true that, in the Old Testament, God commands the Jewish state in the land of Israel to come into being through warfare and violent dispossession of the original inhabitants. Moreover, this command has its roots in the very Covenant of God with Abraham (or rather "Abram" at that time) in the Bible and it thus forms one of the core tenets of Judaism as such, at least as we understand it. No one then can blame Palestinians and descendants of the ancient Canaanites, Jebusites and others who inhabited the land before the Ancient Israelites (as seen in the Bible itself) for a little trepidation as regards what recognizing Israel as a "Jewish State" means for them, particularly to certain Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews. No one then can blame Palestinians for asking if recognizing Israel as a "Jewish State" means recognizing the legitimacy of offensive warfare or violence against them by Israel to take what remains of Palestine from them."
Quite amazing is it not? First of all, that Nusseibah makes the claim that today’s Palestinians are the descendant of the ancient Canaanites, Jebusites and others who lived in Israel before the Children of Israel got here, trying to give credence to the fact that the Palestinian history in this land is older than ours. The positive side of this, of course, is the de facto recognition of our long history here which most Palestinian Arab leaders often try very hard to negate.
The final conclusion that if today’s Palestinian Arab leadership were to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, this would lead us to attack the non-Jewish population in the land and kill them is pure nonsense. Better Nusseibah and others should castigate Assad in Syria for killing, as of this weekend, over 2900 of his own people who are simply demanding their God-given rights to free speech and democratic representation. But that’s the fodder for another blog.
As if this is not enough to turn one’s stomach, the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, in an interview in the French magazine Le Canard Echaȋne, says “It is silly to talk about a Jewish state. It would be like saying that this table is Catholic.” He then added, “There are two million Arabs in Israel.” Yet this is the same Sarkozy who sees no problem with other nations with whom he has relations, such as Iran, whose official name is the “Islamic Republic of Iran” even though there are, today, about 25,000 Jews living in Iran (down from the 100,000-150,000 who lived there prior to 1948), 300,000-350,000 Bahai’s, and 300,000 Christians. Yet the official name of the country is the “Islamic Republic of Iran.” By the way Pakistan and Afghanistan also call themselves, officially, Islamic republics as well.
All of this reminds me of the remark Daniel Bernard made in 2001, who at the time was the French Ambassador to the United Kingdom. At a dinner party that year he said “All the current trouble in the world are because of that shitty little country Israel. Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?”
I do not think that the concept of a Jewish state is a silly one. The idea of a Jewish Commonwealth dates back to biblical times and was certainly the understanding of the founders of Israel as recorded thusly in our Declaration of Independence:
Accordingly we, members of the People’s Council, representative of the Jewish community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British mandate over Eretz-Israel and, by virtue of our natural and historic right and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel to be known as the State of Israel.
The world must understand that those of us who have chosen to live here have done so because we believe that Israel is a Jewish country even if many of us also understand that to do so successfully we need to find a way to accommodate the needs of others who may not feel the same way. We need to be committed to do all in our power to make that a reality, but others who have trouble with the concept need to see it as their problem not ours.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Israel Is Its Own Worst Enemy? - NOT !
By Sherwin Pomerantz
30 years ago today, October 6th, Anwar Sadat, then the President of Egypt, was assassinated in Cairo by terrorists who were against the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel which was signed two years earlier on the White House lawn in Washington. The treaty followed his breakthrough trip to Jerusalem 16 months earlier in 1977 when he shocked Israel and the world by announcing his readiness to travel to Israel and find a way to make peace with the Jewish state.
I was still living in the US at the time and clearly remember the excitement that was generated in Jewish communities worldwide regarding this breakthrough in the way an Arab leader was prepared to look at Israel. He was invited to speak in the Knesset and laid out a plan for peace that resulted in the first ever peace agreement between Israel and an Arab country (for the full text of the speech see http://www.ibiblio.org/sullivan/docs/Knesset-speech.html). The agreement was based on agreed upon issues of mutual security as well as an Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian lands (i.e. primarily the Sinai) captured during the Six Day War. Sadly he later paid a high price for having taken this initiative but for those of us living here, the border between our countries has been peaceful for the last 30 years.
This all came to me as I was reading today’s op-ed by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, entitled “Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy?” In it he makes a number of bold statements that demonstrate both his own misunderstanding of the situation here and the slanted information that gets out through the world press. He says: “Nothing is more corrosive than Israel’s growth of settlements because they erode hope of a peace agreement in the future.” And of course today everything over the green line is classified as a settlement even if it is a large contiguous neighborhood of Jerusalem, such as Gilo, Ramot or Ramat Shlomo.
But why is this so commonly accepted as fact? And when did the definition of a settlement become every community over the green line? And why can’s Jews continue to live in those communities after a Palestiniain state is created? Why does Abbas’ wish that the new state be Judenrein be taken as an accepted fact? Doesn’t that bother anyone?
As you may recall when former Prime Minister Sharon and former US President Bush met in Washington in 2004 and Bush issued his famous follow up letter to Sharon, he specified that “already existing major Israeli population centers” will remain within Israel, even if they are over the green line. And there was no outcry! The understanding was that this meant Gush Etzion, Ariel, and Ma’ale Adumim for example; in other words areas relatively deep inside Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank). Ramot and Gilo in Jerusalem were never even on the table.
What happened of course is that President Obama moved the goal posts by saying last year that settlement construction anywhere over the green line must stop. Israel never agreed in the past to stop such construction, especially when it was related to the natural growth of these communities and the Palestinian Arab leadership never refused to negotiate even though construction was in progress. But when the goal posts were moved Israel was forced into a 10 month construction freeze which, as expected, did not bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. So I cannot agree with Kristof’s other statement that “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is isolating his country, and, to be blunt, his hard line on settlements seems like a national suicide policy.” Simply not true in light of the real facts.
Kristof continues by castigating the present administration here for its clumsy handling of relations with Turkey as if the deteriorating relationship is strictly Israel’s fault. He says “Mr. Netanyahu has also undermined Israeli security by burning bridges with Israel’s most important friend in the region, Turkey.” He, of course, conveniently makes no reference to the possibility that this relationship began to unravel long before May 2010 and seems to be a reflection of Erdogan’s long term plan to be the political leader of the Muslim world. Of course, for him to achieve that goal, bashing Israel at every opportunity and threatening war are simply the tools he needs to use to curry favor with other political forces in most Muslim countries. To assist him in achieving that goal Israel simply has to exist.
In retrospect, Sadat was right when he referred to the virtual wall that separated us from the Egyptians during his Knesset speech in 1997. In his words, “This wall constitutes a psychological barrier between us, a barrier of suspicion, a barrier of rejection, a barrier of fear or deception, a barrier of hallucination without any action, deed or decision. A barrier of distorted and eroded interpretation of every event and statement. It is this psychological barrier that I described in official statements as constituting 70 percent of the whole problem.”
His words then continue to be true today and, sadly, today there is no Sadat in the Arab World and, equally sad, no Menachem Begin (who welcomed Sadat to Jerusalem) in Israel. We here in Israel are not our own worst enemy although there is no doubt that we could certainly be getting our points across to the world in a more beneficial manner than we have done until now.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
30 years ago today, October 6th, Anwar Sadat, then the President of Egypt, was assassinated in Cairo by terrorists who were against the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel which was signed two years earlier on the White House lawn in Washington. The treaty followed his breakthrough trip to Jerusalem 16 months earlier in 1977 when he shocked Israel and the world by announcing his readiness to travel to Israel and find a way to make peace with the Jewish state.
I was still living in the US at the time and clearly remember the excitement that was generated in Jewish communities worldwide regarding this breakthrough in the way an Arab leader was prepared to look at Israel. He was invited to speak in the Knesset and laid out a plan for peace that resulted in the first ever peace agreement between Israel and an Arab country (for the full text of the speech see http://www.ibiblio.org/sullivan/docs/Knesset-speech.html). The agreement was based on agreed upon issues of mutual security as well as an Israeli withdrawal from Egyptian lands (i.e. primarily the Sinai) captured during the Six Day War. Sadly he later paid a high price for having taken this initiative but for those of us living here, the border between our countries has been peaceful for the last 30 years.
This all came to me as I was reading today’s op-ed by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, entitled “Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy?” In it he makes a number of bold statements that demonstrate both his own misunderstanding of the situation here and the slanted information that gets out through the world press. He says: “Nothing is more corrosive than Israel’s growth of settlements because they erode hope of a peace agreement in the future.” And of course today everything over the green line is classified as a settlement even if it is a large contiguous neighborhood of Jerusalem, such as Gilo, Ramot or Ramat Shlomo.
But why is this so commonly accepted as fact? And when did the definition of a settlement become every community over the green line? And why can’s Jews continue to live in those communities after a Palestiniain state is created? Why does Abbas’ wish that the new state be Judenrein be taken as an accepted fact? Doesn’t that bother anyone?
As you may recall when former Prime Minister Sharon and former US President Bush met in Washington in 2004 and Bush issued his famous follow up letter to Sharon, he specified that “already existing major Israeli population centers” will remain within Israel, even if they are over the green line. And there was no outcry! The understanding was that this meant Gush Etzion, Ariel, and Ma’ale Adumim for example; in other words areas relatively deep inside Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank). Ramot and Gilo in Jerusalem were never even on the table.
What happened of course is that President Obama moved the goal posts by saying last year that settlement construction anywhere over the green line must stop. Israel never agreed in the past to stop such construction, especially when it was related to the natural growth of these communities and the Palestinian Arab leadership never refused to negotiate even though construction was in progress. But when the goal posts were moved Israel was forced into a 10 month construction freeze which, as expected, did not bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. So I cannot agree with Kristof’s other statement that “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is isolating his country, and, to be blunt, his hard line on settlements seems like a national suicide policy.” Simply not true in light of the real facts.
Kristof continues by castigating the present administration here for its clumsy handling of relations with Turkey as if the deteriorating relationship is strictly Israel’s fault. He says “Mr. Netanyahu has also undermined Israeli security by burning bridges with Israel’s most important friend in the region, Turkey.” He, of course, conveniently makes no reference to the possibility that this relationship began to unravel long before May 2010 and seems to be a reflection of Erdogan’s long term plan to be the political leader of the Muslim world. Of course, for him to achieve that goal, bashing Israel at every opportunity and threatening war are simply the tools he needs to use to curry favor with other political forces in most Muslim countries. To assist him in achieving that goal Israel simply has to exist.
In retrospect, Sadat was right when he referred to the virtual wall that separated us from the Egyptians during his Knesset speech in 1997. In his words, “This wall constitutes a psychological barrier between us, a barrier of suspicion, a barrier of rejection, a barrier of fear or deception, a barrier of hallucination without any action, deed or decision. A barrier of distorted and eroded interpretation of every event and statement. It is this psychological barrier that I described in official statements as constituting 70 percent of the whole problem.”
His words then continue to be true today and, sadly, today there is no Sadat in the Arab World and, equally sad, no Menachem Begin (who welcomed Sadat to Jerusalem) in Israel. We here in Israel are not our own worst enemy although there is no doubt that we could certainly be getting our points across to the world in a more beneficial manner than we have done until now.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
-9 Days Since Friday – No More Concessions!
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With three days this past weekend to think about the coming year I’ve had a significant amount of time to mull over the past months during the countdown to the UN, the speech that Mahmoud Abbas gave at the UN, the world’s reactions, Netanyahu’s speech and the aftermath of that strange week. My conclusion after all of this cogitating is that the watchword of Israel from this point forward should be “No More Concessions” when it comes to getting the Palestinian Arab leadership to the peace talks. There is simply no logical reason at all why we here in Israel should have to do anything more than we have already done to encourage the other side to sit down and talk peace.
Why do I say this? Well, to me the answers are obvious.
First of all, we have made all kinds of concessions already and it has gotten us nowhere. As Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN wrote in the Washington Post last week, “Two Israeli peace proposals, in 2000 and 2008 met virtually all of the Palestinian’s’ demands for a sovereign state in the areas won by Israel in the 1967 war – in the West bank, Gaza and even East Jerusalem. But Palestinian President Yasser Arafat rejected the first offer and Abbas ignored the second, for the very same reason their predecessors spurned the 1947 Partition Plan.” Each time, accepting a Palestinian State meant accepting the Jewish State, a concession that they were unwilling to make, so why should we make any more concessions?
Charles Krauthammer in a September 29th op-ed in the New York Times wrote “Israel gave up land without peace in south Lebanon in 2000, and in return, received war (the Lebanon war of 2006) and 50,000 Hezbollah missiles now targeted on the Israeli homeland. In 2005, Israel gave up land without peace in Gaza, and again was rewarded with war – and constant rocket attack from an openly genocidal Palestinian mini-state.” So, why should we make any more concessions?
In 2010 Israel agreed to a settlement freeze for 10 months, to which the Palestinian Arab leadership responded by boycotting the talks for 9 months, showing up during the last days of the freeze and then walking out again when Israel would not guarantee, in advance, the claim to any territory beyond the 1967 lines. This, in violation of every prior agreement which stipulated that such demands are to be the subject of negotiations, not their precondition. So why make any more concessions?
Add to all of this the consistent mantra of the Palestinian Arab leadership questioning our historic claim to the land. Dennis Prager relates an interview he conducted earlier last month with Ghassan Khatib, Director of Government Media for the Palestinian Authority and the spokesman for Abbas. Prager asked him “Do the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state?” His answer was “no!” He went on to say that there is no Jewish people, so how can there be a Jewish country? The Palestinian position seems to be that there is a religion called Judaism, but no such thing as a Jewish people. This concept was further supported by Abbas’ UN speech where he said “I come before you today from the Holy Land, the land of Palestine, the land of divine messages, ascension of the Prophet Muhammad and the birthplace of Jesus Christ.” No intelligent being can think that this formulation which omitted any reference to the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel was accidental.
Personally, I still believe that for the long term success of the enterprise called Israel, we need to find a way to make permanent peace with our neighbors. But no one in their right mind enters a negotiation having shown all their cards up front, or having made compromises before the negotiations begin. Prime Minister Netanyahu has offered to go to Ramallah to meet with Abbas, has invited Abbas to come to Jerusalem and has even agreed to meet in a neutral location like Brussels. But the other side continues to set preconditions to any meeting and, every few months, seems to add yet another precondition. Given those circumstances we may as well stand our ground and say enough! The world will not like us any better if we make more concessions and it certainly seems as if the world cannot like us any less.
So, at this point, the best strategy would seem to be the one that our government is following, in effect saying, as former US Secretary of State James Baker said to then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, “Call us when you are serious about peace. Here is our number.” Netanyahu should send the same message to Abbas and then wait for the call. My guess is that he will have a long wait.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With three days this past weekend to think about the coming year I’ve had a significant amount of time to mull over the past months during the countdown to the UN, the speech that Mahmoud Abbas gave at the UN, the world’s reactions, Netanyahu’s speech and the aftermath of that strange week. My conclusion after all of this cogitating is that the watchword of Israel from this point forward should be “No More Concessions” when it comes to getting the Palestinian Arab leadership to the peace talks. There is simply no logical reason at all why we here in Israel should have to do anything more than we have already done to encourage the other side to sit down and talk peace.
Why do I say this? Well, to me the answers are obvious.
First of all, we have made all kinds of concessions already and it has gotten us nowhere. As Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN wrote in the Washington Post last week, “Two Israeli peace proposals, in 2000 and 2008 met virtually all of the Palestinian’s’ demands for a sovereign state in the areas won by Israel in the 1967 war – in the West bank, Gaza and even East Jerusalem. But Palestinian President Yasser Arafat rejected the first offer and Abbas ignored the second, for the very same reason their predecessors spurned the 1947 Partition Plan.” Each time, accepting a Palestinian State meant accepting the Jewish State, a concession that they were unwilling to make, so why should we make any more concessions?
Charles Krauthammer in a September 29th op-ed in the New York Times wrote “Israel gave up land without peace in south Lebanon in 2000, and in return, received war (the Lebanon war of 2006) and 50,000 Hezbollah missiles now targeted on the Israeli homeland. In 2005, Israel gave up land without peace in Gaza, and again was rewarded with war – and constant rocket attack from an openly genocidal Palestinian mini-state.” So, why should we make any more concessions?
In 2010 Israel agreed to a settlement freeze for 10 months, to which the Palestinian Arab leadership responded by boycotting the talks for 9 months, showing up during the last days of the freeze and then walking out again when Israel would not guarantee, in advance, the claim to any territory beyond the 1967 lines. This, in violation of every prior agreement which stipulated that such demands are to be the subject of negotiations, not their precondition. So why make any more concessions?
Add to all of this the consistent mantra of the Palestinian Arab leadership questioning our historic claim to the land. Dennis Prager relates an interview he conducted earlier last month with Ghassan Khatib, Director of Government Media for the Palestinian Authority and the spokesman for Abbas. Prager asked him “Do the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state?” His answer was “no!” He went on to say that there is no Jewish people, so how can there be a Jewish country? The Palestinian position seems to be that there is a religion called Judaism, but no such thing as a Jewish people. This concept was further supported by Abbas’ UN speech where he said “I come before you today from the Holy Land, the land of Palestine, the land of divine messages, ascension of the Prophet Muhammad and the birthplace of Jesus Christ.” No intelligent being can think that this formulation which omitted any reference to the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel was accidental.
Personally, I still believe that for the long term success of the enterprise called Israel, we need to find a way to make permanent peace with our neighbors. But no one in their right mind enters a negotiation having shown all their cards up front, or having made compromises before the negotiations begin. Prime Minister Netanyahu has offered to go to Ramallah to meet with Abbas, has invited Abbas to come to Jerusalem and has even agreed to meet in a neutral location like Brussels. But the other side continues to set preconditions to any meeting and, every few months, seems to add yet another precondition. Given those circumstances we may as well stand our ground and say enough! The world will not like us any better if we make more concessions and it certainly seems as if the world cannot like us any less.
So, at this point, the best strategy would seem to be the one that our government is following, in effect saying, as former US Secretary of State James Baker said to then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, “Call us when you are serious about peace. Here is our number.” Netanyahu should send the same message to Abbas and then wait for the call. My guess is that he will have a long wait.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
