Playing with Other People’s Money
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Some of you may have been following the newspaper articles regarding Israel’s decision to withhold tax monies collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.
For those who are not fully familiar with the issue, under the provisions of the Oslo Accords when the Palestinian Authority (PA) was established, it was agreed that Israel would continue to collect all taxes on behalf of people living in the territories under the control of the PA and then turn over those moneys to the PA each month. Currently, Israel is holding about 100 million dollars of said funds, essentially acting in a fiduciary role on behalf of the PA.
When the Palestinian Authority went to UNESCO to request membership in that organization and received it, Israel decided to withhold the payment of these funds as a punishment to the Authority for securing UNESCO membership. While I also decried both the application to UNESCO and UNESCO’s agreement to admit the Authority to membership, it always seemed to me that withholding these payments of monies that rightfully belongs to the Authority had no basis in law.
As November wound on, Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman went one step further and said that Israel should not convey these funds to the Authority because the Authority was using their treasury, part of which was composed of these funds, to do things like give bonuses to the prisoners released in the Schalit exchange and to build homes for those prisoners as well. Earlier this week Lieberman threatened to bring down the Israeli government if the funds were released although everyone agreed that, in principle, it was not in Israel’s best interests to hold these funds indefinitely.
All of this in the face of incontrovertible evidence that the withholding of these funds not only threatens to cause the Authority to collapse but also threatens the successful maintenance of the security apparatus that the Authority has established, much of it in cooperation with Israeli authorities.
Earlier today reports out of Jerusalem seem to indicate that the government’s line on releasing the funds is softening and, hopefully, this latest crisis will soon be resolved.
But the core issue remains and that is the role of a custodian of funds arbitrarily deciding under what conditions those funds can be released, even though the conditions of release are clearly spelled out in the protocols governing the relationship between the parties. There are, of course, those who will argue that the Authority violated the very same principles when it went to the UN for direct recognition or when it applied for membership in UNESCO. But the basic fact remains that the funds are not Israel’s to keep or use and that our country is simply acting as a conduit for the collection and remitting of those funds. End of story!
What bothers many of us living here is that one cannot simply decide to abrogate a commitment as punishment for the other side seemingly acting against those same agreements. Israel has plenty of ways to put pressure on the Authority in retaliation for the Authority’s defiance of principles to which they have agreed. But withholding the payment of funds that do not rightly belong to us is not one of them. Hopefully saner voices will prevail so that we can continue retain the moral high ground.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
At Least Put it on the Agenda
By Ben Dansker
In the 1970’s as a movement of Jewish renewal of sorts took place among young people, it seemed to me then that while few acted upon, the idea of Aliya, of coming to Israel to live, was at least on the agenda. I was a University student during many of those years and after that a young adult embarking on a career and it seemed that most of my Jewish peers, especially those who were to some degree committed to living a Jewish life, with varying levels of Jewish observance, talked about Aliya and many considered it an option. Not all for sure, there were those who chose careers that they felt iwould be impossible to pursue in Israel and others for whom Israel simply did not attract them. But it was part of the conversation of many.
Most of us had spent time in Israel, studying, volunteering, sometimes both and had been captivated by the drama unfolding there and by the experience of being part of a Jewish nation returning to and rebuilding its home. All of us were very well aware of the many difficulties inherent in living in Israel, the distance from family, adjustment to a new culture and language, the security threats, service in the army and most overwhelming per haps in those days, the great financial hardship that living in Israel seemed to be. And very few from those times, even those who seemed the most committed actually made it. My own Aliya took 10 years from my first visit and now 26 years later, I acknowledge that it was not always easy, but it was certainly possible, and certainly the right thing to.
I have no expectation that most western Jews will come to live in Israel and am surprised each time some one comes. What saddens me however is how few seem to even talk about it, consider, think about it. I find it hard to accept the absence of the topic from conversation of even those who seem to have enjoyed, even loved the time they spent it Israel and to have careers that would transplant well. Especially those at a stage in life before school aged children and teenagers and aging sick parents complicate the situation. Yes, I know that there are over 50 thousand missiles pointed at Israel and I know there are some government policies that many of you do not agree with and a culture that is different from yours. I have those 50 thousand missiles pointing at me as well and I don’t always agree with government policy nor am I happy about all aspects of Israeli life (and neither would I be about American life).
We waited for this opportunity for 2000 years and European Jews in the 1920s and 30’s missed an opportunity to save themselves from tragedy. Our prayers for 2000 years have directed us to Zion and Jerusalem. So at least, think about it; talk about it; look into it. Consider it as an option in your lives. At least put in it on your agenda.
By Ben Dansker
In the 1970’s as a movement of Jewish renewal of sorts took place among young people, it seemed to me then that while few acted upon, the idea of Aliya, of coming to Israel to live, was at least on the agenda. I was a University student during many of those years and after that a young adult embarking on a career and it seemed that most of my Jewish peers, especially those who were to some degree committed to living a Jewish life, with varying levels of Jewish observance, talked about Aliya and many considered it an option. Not all for sure, there were those who chose careers that they felt iwould be impossible to pursue in Israel and others for whom Israel simply did not attract them. But it was part of the conversation of many.
Most of us had spent time in Israel, studying, volunteering, sometimes both and had been captivated by the drama unfolding there and by the experience of being part of a Jewish nation returning to and rebuilding its home. All of us were very well aware of the many difficulties inherent in living in Israel, the distance from family, adjustment to a new culture and language, the security threats, service in the army and most overwhelming per haps in those days, the great financial hardship that living in Israel seemed to be. And very few from those times, even those who seemed the most committed actually made it. My own Aliya took 10 years from my first visit and now 26 years later, I acknowledge that it was not always easy, but it was certainly possible, and certainly the right thing to.
I have no expectation that most western Jews will come to live in Israel and am surprised each time some one comes. What saddens me however is how few seem to even talk about it, consider, think about it. I find it hard to accept the absence of the topic from conversation of even those who seem to have enjoyed, even loved the time they spent it Israel and to have careers that would transplant well. Especially those at a stage in life before school aged children and teenagers and aging sick parents complicate the situation. Yes, I know that there are over 50 thousand missiles pointed at Israel and I know there are some government policies that many of you do not agree with and a culture that is different from yours. I have those 50 thousand missiles pointing at me as well and I don’t always agree with government policy nor am I happy about all aspects of Israeli life (and neither would I be about American life).
We waited for this opportunity for 2000 years and European Jews in the 1920s and 30’s missed an opportunity to save themselves from tragedy. Our prayers for 2000 years have directed us to Zion and Jerusalem. So at least, think about it; talk about it; look into it. Consider it as an option in your lives. At least put in it on your agenda.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Losing Our Way
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Picture this if you will.
During the time when US citizens were prohibited from traveling to Cuba, a member of the House of Representatives decides to disobey US law and travel to Cuba to speak at the annual observances there of the January 1 1959 overthrow of the Batista government and the rise to power of Fidel Castro and his Communist buddies.
At the celebratory event, the US Representative, present in Cuba illegally, rises to speak and says the following: “I can tell you that the United States is in the midst of passing a series of anti-democratic laws and will soon even pass a ‘Death to Cubans’ law. You should know that US Secretary of State Kissinger is a fascist and should go back to the country of his birth as he has no place in my homeland.”
What do you think would have happened to that legislator? Most likely when he returned to the US Congress he would have been censured and probably removed from his position based on his flagrant violation of US law and his slander of government officials.
Well, yesterday, at a memorial service in Ramallah marking the seventh anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, Ahmad Tibi, an elected member of the Knesset went to Ramallah to speak at the service. According to a report in today’s Jerusalem Post echoed by all of the other news outlets as well, here is what was recorded:
Israeli-Arab lawmaker Ahmad Tibi at a memorial for Yasser Arafat in Ramallah suggested that the Israeli government will soon "propose a 'death to Arabs' law." Tibi, speaking Wednesday before a massive crowd marking the seventh anniversary of the Palestinian leader's death, was referring to several bills offered by right-wing lawmakers targeting the left that critics have labeled as "anti-democratic." He also slammed Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, calling him "the fascist settler that recently came to my homeland," Ynet reported. A former adviser to Arafat, Tibi referred to the late PLO chief as "the father of our homeland."
Note that Ramallah is in Area A, which, according to the Oslo accords, is under full military and civil control of the Palestinian Authority. Israeli citizens, according to Israeli law, are forbidden to enter Area A and, of course, Tibi, as a member of the Knesset is, indeed, an Israeli citizen. So his being there at all was in violation of the law he is sworn to uphold.
Secondly, what is it called when a member of a country’s legislature enters an area forbidden to him by law and then speaks publicly in negative terms about the Foreign Minister of the country in whose parliament he serves? Is it treason? Does that meet the definition of betraying one’s country? Is it sedition? Is it conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of the state? Or is it just plain stupidity along with a desire to show that he is simply not bound by the laws of the parliament in which he serves?
One would think that at a minimum he would lose his seat in the Knesset and be stripped of his parliamentary immunity. But, of course, this is Israel. And just as another Arab member of the Knesset, Haneen Zoabi, who travelled on the Mavi Marmara in May 2010 to break the blockade of Gaza was not penalized for actively demonstrating against the policies of the government and was not chastened, neither will Tibi. He will come back to Jerusalem, retake his seat in the Knesset and although many people there will be angry with him, there will be no price to pay for such insolence. And once again the Zionist enterprise will be shown to be lacking in the courage to defend its own laws.
O tempora, o mores, shame on the times and its customs, as uttered by Cicero in the Senate of Rome in his second oration against Verres. The founders of the country must be turning over in their graves.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Picture this if you will.
During the time when US citizens were prohibited from traveling to Cuba, a member of the House of Representatives decides to disobey US law and travel to Cuba to speak at the annual observances there of the January 1 1959 overthrow of the Batista government and the rise to power of Fidel Castro and his Communist buddies.
At the celebratory event, the US Representative, present in Cuba illegally, rises to speak and says the following: “I can tell you that the United States is in the midst of passing a series of anti-democratic laws and will soon even pass a ‘Death to Cubans’ law. You should know that US Secretary of State Kissinger is a fascist and should go back to the country of his birth as he has no place in my homeland.”
What do you think would have happened to that legislator? Most likely when he returned to the US Congress he would have been censured and probably removed from his position based on his flagrant violation of US law and his slander of government officials.
Well, yesterday, at a memorial service in Ramallah marking the seventh anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat, Ahmad Tibi, an elected member of the Knesset went to Ramallah to speak at the service. According to a report in today’s Jerusalem Post echoed by all of the other news outlets as well, here is what was recorded:
Israeli-Arab lawmaker Ahmad Tibi at a memorial for Yasser Arafat in Ramallah suggested that the Israeli government will soon "propose a 'death to Arabs' law." Tibi, speaking Wednesday before a massive crowd marking the seventh anniversary of the Palestinian leader's death, was referring to several bills offered by right-wing lawmakers targeting the left that critics have labeled as "anti-democratic." He also slammed Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, calling him "the fascist settler that recently came to my homeland," Ynet reported. A former adviser to Arafat, Tibi referred to the late PLO chief as "the father of our homeland."
Note that Ramallah is in Area A, which, according to the Oslo accords, is under full military and civil control of the Palestinian Authority. Israeli citizens, according to Israeli law, are forbidden to enter Area A and, of course, Tibi, as a member of the Knesset is, indeed, an Israeli citizen. So his being there at all was in violation of the law he is sworn to uphold.
Secondly, what is it called when a member of a country’s legislature enters an area forbidden to him by law and then speaks publicly in negative terms about the Foreign Minister of the country in whose parliament he serves? Is it treason? Does that meet the definition of betraying one’s country? Is it sedition? Is it conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of the state? Or is it just plain stupidity along with a desire to show that he is simply not bound by the laws of the parliament in which he serves?
One would think that at a minimum he would lose his seat in the Knesset and be stripped of his parliamentary immunity. But, of course, this is Israel. And just as another Arab member of the Knesset, Haneen Zoabi, who travelled on the Mavi Marmara in May 2010 to break the blockade of Gaza was not penalized for actively demonstrating against the policies of the government and was not chastened, neither will Tibi. He will come back to Jerusalem, retake his seat in the Knesset and although many people there will be angry with him, there will be no price to pay for such insolence. And once again the Zionist enterprise will be shown to be lacking in the courage to defend its own laws.
O tempora, o mores, shame on the times and its customs, as uttered by Cicero in the Senate of Rome in his second oration against Verres. The founders of the country must be turning over in their graves.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Israel on the Slippery Slope Away from Democracy
By Sherwin Pomerantz
A number of events have occurred here recently that may well be representative of a serious threat to the rule of law and the democratic process which has been the hallmark of Israeli society for so many years. Permit me to share two of them with you.
Jewish Identity Bill
The Knesset has been asked to consider a “Jewish Identity” bill which, in essence, would subordinate democratic rule to the country’s role as a Jewish state. Among the provisions of the bill are a call for Jewish law to serve as an inspiration for new legislation, the elimination of Arabic as an official language of the state (the other two are Hebrew and English) while giving it “special status” and a requirement that the government actively pursue Jewish settlement of all areas while dropping any government obligation to build for other communities living here.
Israel’s 1.5 million Arab citizens who represent 20% of the population would then, for all practical purposes, be formally categorized as second class citizens given that their language would no longer be respected at the same level of Hebrew and English and that the government would no longer have an obligation to build in their communities. This is a very different situation from the meaning of the words in Israel’s Declaration of Independence which addresses the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel guaranteeing “full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”
Former Ambassador Moshe Arens, who is certainly no left winger, calls the language issue “a sign of disrespect” in an op-ed in this morning’s Ha’aretz. And of course he is correct.
Knesset Member Avi Dichter who introduced the legislation has now taken it off the table under pressure and has tabled a substitute bill but it is difficult to see how the new bill is any better than the one originally proposed, even though some of the language has been altered. But the fact that the initial bill could have even been given credence is of concern.
Freezing of PA Revenues
Two weeks ago, when the Palestinian Authority successfully applied for membership in UNESCO, Israel reacted by freezing the tax revenues which are collected by Israel on the Authority’s behalf, effectively making it impossible for the Authority to pay its workers their full salaries for October. The framework under which Israel collects tax revenues on behalf of the Authority was an outgrowth of the 1993 Oslo Accords where Israel agreed to assume a fiduciary responsibility on behalf of the Authority. In principle, therefore, Israel has no right at all under any circumstances to withhold those funds.
This is very different than the US withholding its contribution to UNESCO over the same issue. The US has a law which prohibits the Government from contribution to any UN body which recognizes a Palestinian state before such agreements are reached with Israel. So, in that case, the US had no alternative but to withhold its annual payment to UNESCO. In the case of Israel, which is acting as a transfer agent for the funds to the Palestinian Authority, there is simply no legal basis on which to withhold such transfers.
The effect of withholding these payments is to undercut the security operations of the Authority as well as make it virtually impossible for the services provided by the Authority to continue. It is difficult to see how this can be of any value to Israel.
Add to this, of course, the current battle going on between the offices of the Chief Rabbinate and the Orthodox Tzohar rabbis regarding circumventing the hassles that engaged couples need to go through in order to be permitted to marry here; the current dispute over how judges are appointed to the Supreme Court which has deteriorated into a squabble between political parties; or the attempt by the Prime Minister to close down TV’s Channel 10 by not allowing it to refinance its debt presumably just because he and his wife are upset at the way they are treated by that channel’s news desk and one wonders if democracy can survive?
We need to heed the words of John Adams, the 2nd President of the United States who said: “Democracy…while it lasts, is bloodier than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” The slide down that slope seems to get steeper every day and our job as citizens must be to prevent the probable by education and political activity. We dare not do any less.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
A number of events have occurred here recently that may well be representative of a serious threat to the rule of law and the democratic process which has been the hallmark of Israeli society for so many years. Permit me to share two of them with you.
Jewish Identity Bill
The Knesset has been asked to consider a “Jewish Identity” bill which, in essence, would subordinate democratic rule to the country’s role as a Jewish state. Among the provisions of the bill are a call for Jewish law to serve as an inspiration for new legislation, the elimination of Arabic as an official language of the state (the other two are Hebrew and English) while giving it “special status” and a requirement that the government actively pursue Jewish settlement of all areas while dropping any government obligation to build for other communities living here.
Israel’s 1.5 million Arab citizens who represent 20% of the population would then, for all practical purposes, be formally categorized as second class citizens given that their language would no longer be respected at the same level of Hebrew and English and that the government would no longer have an obligation to build in their communities. This is a very different situation from the meaning of the words in Israel’s Declaration of Independence which addresses the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel guaranteeing “full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.”
Former Ambassador Moshe Arens, who is certainly no left winger, calls the language issue “a sign of disrespect” in an op-ed in this morning’s Ha’aretz. And of course he is correct.
Knesset Member Avi Dichter who introduced the legislation has now taken it off the table under pressure and has tabled a substitute bill but it is difficult to see how the new bill is any better than the one originally proposed, even though some of the language has been altered. But the fact that the initial bill could have even been given credence is of concern.
Freezing of PA Revenues
Two weeks ago, when the Palestinian Authority successfully applied for membership in UNESCO, Israel reacted by freezing the tax revenues which are collected by Israel on the Authority’s behalf, effectively making it impossible for the Authority to pay its workers their full salaries for October. The framework under which Israel collects tax revenues on behalf of the Authority was an outgrowth of the 1993 Oslo Accords where Israel agreed to assume a fiduciary responsibility on behalf of the Authority. In principle, therefore, Israel has no right at all under any circumstances to withhold those funds.
This is very different than the US withholding its contribution to UNESCO over the same issue. The US has a law which prohibits the Government from contribution to any UN body which recognizes a Palestinian state before such agreements are reached with Israel. So, in that case, the US had no alternative but to withhold its annual payment to UNESCO. In the case of Israel, which is acting as a transfer agent for the funds to the Palestinian Authority, there is simply no legal basis on which to withhold such transfers.
The effect of withholding these payments is to undercut the security operations of the Authority as well as make it virtually impossible for the services provided by the Authority to continue. It is difficult to see how this can be of any value to Israel.
Add to this, of course, the current battle going on between the offices of the Chief Rabbinate and the Orthodox Tzohar rabbis regarding circumventing the hassles that engaged couples need to go through in order to be permitted to marry here; the current dispute over how judges are appointed to the Supreme Court which has deteriorated into a squabble between political parties; or the attempt by the Prime Minister to close down TV’s Channel 10 by not allowing it to refinance its debt presumably just because he and his wife are upset at the way they are treated by that channel’s news desk and one wonders if democracy can survive?
We need to heed the words of John Adams, the 2nd President of the United States who said: “Democracy…while it lasts, is bloodier than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” The slide down that slope seems to get steeper every day and our job as citizens must be to prevent the probable by education and political activity. We dare not do any less.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
What to do About Iran? Nothing!
By Sherwin Pomerantz
The IAEA has finally issued its long awaited report on what is really going on with Iran’s nuclear development. The report substantiates the world’s fear that Iran’s intentions are certainly not purely peaceful, that the country has been moving intentionally toward the development of nuclear weapons and in addition, they are working on being able to deliver a nuclear weapon at the tip of an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Is anyone surprised by the report? Israel has been saying exactly this for some time and now the international agency responsible for making such calls has verified this to be the case. Of course, the Iranians along with some of their Russian and Chinese friends claim that the report is biased and full of inaccuracies but that is also to be expected.
So what is the world to do now? Four days ago I wrote that I believe it would be national suicide for Israel to launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. I posited that the casualties here as a result of a counter attack would be more than we could handle and survive. One of my readers who disagreed said that while it is true we could not survive a nuclear attack, it would be better to wipe out their capability and take the risk of a conventional weapon retaliation which would only cause 20,000-50,000 casualties here. Only?
But it also seems clear that the West will not take military action either. The logic goes that it would not be possible to knock out all of the nuclear capabilities in Iran and such an attack would certainly trigger a regional war and possibly even a world war.
That leaves the West with the option of enacting “crippling sanctions”. But that action would probably plunge the world into an economic malaise that would be difficult to recover from. If such sanctions were to be put in place, Iran would no doubt do whatever it could to block the Straits of Hormuz through which 40% of the world’s oil supplies must pass every day. Fuel prices would skyrocket out of control and the world’s economy would be thrown into chaos, as if we don’t already have enough problems. And, of course, the Russians have made it evident that they will use their Security Council veto to block such sanctions at the UN.
Frankly, no pun intended, but the Iranians have the world over a barrel and there are very few choices available to deal with the problem. That being the case, what is the best strategy? In my opinion it is to do nothing.
The first thing we need to realize is that we will not stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Conceivably their timetable can be lengthened but Israel by itself cannot stop them and it is becoming clearer every day that the rest of the world will not do so either. We may have had an opportunity to do something about this three years ago, but that is now history.
The second thing we need to admit is that Israel may be an expendable entity in the minds of the West if the leadership in the West gets to the point where they believe that the elimination of Israel from this part of the world will satisfy the radical Islamists. We all know that even eliminating Israel will not answer the demands of radical Islamists, any more than permitting Hitler to take over the Sudetenland mollified his insane desire for world domination. We dare not put ourselves in the position of becoming the pawn used by the West to satisfy the Iranian desire for regional hegemony.
So the only option that may be left to us and the West is simply to do nothing while stopping all reporting about Iran in the world press. That is, act as if Iran simply does not exist. Stop reporting Ahmadinejad’s rants, stop reporting on Iran’s threats against the world, and stop talking about Iran’s nuclear threat. After all, there are other countries such as Pakistan and North Korea who have nuclear weapons, which are somewhat unstable but about whom we hear very little said. So it should be with Iran as well.
Of course, our defenses against the launch of any weapons from Iran against Israel or any other country should be beefed up to the point where we have some level of advance warning and protection. The West should also have ships continuously patrolling the waters outside the territorial limits of Iran to monitor activities there. But don’t give this maniac any publicity and be ready to deal with him head on should he make good on any of his claims.
These options are open to us and if the more “moderate” Arab states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are bothered by a nuclear Iran, then let them deal with it as they see fit. Sometimes isolationism is a good thing and when one is dealing with someone whose logic is totally motivated by some kind of religious zeal, lock him in the closet and throw away the key. We simply may have no other choice.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
The IAEA has finally issued its long awaited report on what is really going on with Iran’s nuclear development. The report substantiates the world’s fear that Iran’s intentions are certainly not purely peaceful, that the country has been moving intentionally toward the development of nuclear weapons and in addition, they are working on being able to deliver a nuclear weapon at the tip of an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Is anyone surprised by the report? Israel has been saying exactly this for some time and now the international agency responsible for making such calls has verified this to be the case. Of course, the Iranians along with some of their Russian and Chinese friends claim that the report is biased and full of inaccuracies but that is also to be expected.
So what is the world to do now? Four days ago I wrote that I believe it would be national suicide for Israel to launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. I posited that the casualties here as a result of a counter attack would be more than we could handle and survive. One of my readers who disagreed said that while it is true we could not survive a nuclear attack, it would be better to wipe out their capability and take the risk of a conventional weapon retaliation which would only cause 20,000-50,000 casualties here. Only?
But it also seems clear that the West will not take military action either. The logic goes that it would not be possible to knock out all of the nuclear capabilities in Iran and such an attack would certainly trigger a regional war and possibly even a world war.
That leaves the West with the option of enacting “crippling sanctions”. But that action would probably plunge the world into an economic malaise that would be difficult to recover from. If such sanctions were to be put in place, Iran would no doubt do whatever it could to block the Straits of Hormuz through which 40% of the world’s oil supplies must pass every day. Fuel prices would skyrocket out of control and the world’s economy would be thrown into chaos, as if we don’t already have enough problems. And, of course, the Russians have made it evident that they will use their Security Council veto to block such sanctions at the UN.
Frankly, no pun intended, but the Iranians have the world over a barrel and there are very few choices available to deal with the problem. That being the case, what is the best strategy? In my opinion it is to do nothing.
The first thing we need to realize is that we will not stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Conceivably their timetable can be lengthened but Israel by itself cannot stop them and it is becoming clearer every day that the rest of the world will not do so either. We may have had an opportunity to do something about this three years ago, but that is now history.
The second thing we need to admit is that Israel may be an expendable entity in the minds of the West if the leadership in the West gets to the point where they believe that the elimination of Israel from this part of the world will satisfy the radical Islamists. We all know that even eliminating Israel will not answer the demands of radical Islamists, any more than permitting Hitler to take over the Sudetenland mollified his insane desire for world domination. We dare not put ourselves in the position of becoming the pawn used by the West to satisfy the Iranian desire for regional hegemony.
So the only option that may be left to us and the West is simply to do nothing while stopping all reporting about Iran in the world press. That is, act as if Iran simply does not exist. Stop reporting Ahmadinejad’s rants, stop reporting on Iran’s threats against the world, and stop talking about Iran’s nuclear threat. After all, there are other countries such as Pakistan and North Korea who have nuclear weapons, which are somewhat unstable but about whom we hear very little said. So it should be with Iran as well.
Of course, our defenses against the launch of any weapons from Iran against Israel or any other country should be beefed up to the point where we have some level of advance warning and protection. The West should also have ships continuously patrolling the waters outside the territorial limits of Iran to monitor activities there. But don’t give this maniac any publicity and be ready to deal with him head on should he make good on any of his claims.
These options are open to us and if the more “moderate” Arab states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are bothered by a nuclear Iran, then let them deal with it as they see fit. Sometimes isolationism is a good thing and when one is dealing with someone whose logic is totally motivated by some kind of religious zeal, lock him in the closet and throw away the key. We simply may have no other choice.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
The Lunacy of Attacking Iran
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Over the past ten days there has been a non-stop dialogue going on in the press about Israel’s consideration of plans to bomb the nuclear facilities of Iran.
Everyone knows the logic. Iran having a nuclear bomb capability would be a threat to the entire region, and given its President’s stated desire to see Israel wiped off the map, should they develop such a weapon we here will be the first recipient of its use.
No doubt, of course, that it would be a bad thing for the entire world if Iran were to successfully develop a nuclear weapon. We are not dealing here with the classic cold war case of the US and the Soviet Union where both parties knew well that neither ever wanted to use that capability, even though both possessed it. There was logic at play among two sworn enemies that prevented the Cuban missile crisis, for example, from escalating into nuclear war. In the case of Iran, whose diplomacy is driven somewhat by the religious fanaticism of Islamic fundamentalism, one cannot assume that diplomatic logic will hold sway.
Israel, of course, has the military capability of exercising a first strike on much of Iran’s nuclear production facilities and, according to informed sources here, that would delay (not eliminate) Iran’s development by four years. But would the risk be worth it? I think not. Iran would immediately respond to any attack with whatever firepower they had and, most likely, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza would join the fray. By some estimates there are upwards of 100,000 missiles aimed at Israel from these two locations as I write this.
But even if those numbers are exaggerated, the casualty count in Israel as a result of the response to such an attack will, I fear, be much more than our emergency services could handle and the country could very well slip into chaos. Do we really want to unleash such forces against us for a possible delay of four years in Iran’s nuclear development? Does that make any sense at all?
Perhaps the fear of an Iranian attack on Israel even if they have nuclear weapons is unrealistic in the first place. The Iranian leadership may be fervently religious but no one credits them for being either stupid or unrealistic. They know that an attack by Iran against Israel will unleash both Israel’s formidable military response as well as a response from the US which is pledged to defend Israel in the case of such an attack. Logic would dictate that even in the face of Islamist fundamentalism, the leadership of Iran will not choose to launch such an attack given the obvious and predictable circumstances that will follow.
This reasoning would lead any sane Israeli leader to the conclusion that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is not in the best interests of the future of Israel. Further, that the best defense against Iran is to make sure that our military machine has the capability to strike back, and strike back hard should they attack us. In the humble opinion of this writer any other strategy at this point in time would be nothing less than lunacy on the part of our government. The saber rattling should stop, and stop quickly as contemplating the fallout from such an attack on our part could potentially mean the end of the enterprise called Israel as we know it.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Over the past ten days there has been a non-stop dialogue going on in the press about Israel’s consideration of plans to bomb the nuclear facilities of Iran.
Everyone knows the logic. Iran having a nuclear bomb capability would be a threat to the entire region, and given its President’s stated desire to see Israel wiped off the map, should they develop such a weapon we here will be the first recipient of its use.
No doubt, of course, that it would be a bad thing for the entire world if Iran were to successfully develop a nuclear weapon. We are not dealing here with the classic cold war case of the US and the Soviet Union where both parties knew well that neither ever wanted to use that capability, even though both possessed it. There was logic at play among two sworn enemies that prevented the Cuban missile crisis, for example, from escalating into nuclear war. In the case of Iran, whose diplomacy is driven somewhat by the religious fanaticism of Islamic fundamentalism, one cannot assume that diplomatic logic will hold sway.
Israel, of course, has the military capability of exercising a first strike on much of Iran’s nuclear production facilities and, according to informed sources here, that would delay (not eliminate) Iran’s development by four years. But would the risk be worth it? I think not. Iran would immediately respond to any attack with whatever firepower they had and, most likely, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza would join the fray. By some estimates there are upwards of 100,000 missiles aimed at Israel from these two locations as I write this.
But even if those numbers are exaggerated, the casualty count in Israel as a result of the response to such an attack will, I fear, be much more than our emergency services could handle and the country could very well slip into chaos. Do we really want to unleash such forces against us for a possible delay of four years in Iran’s nuclear development? Does that make any sense at all?
Perhaps the fear of an Iranian attack on Israel even if they have nuclear weapons is unrealistic in the first place. The Iranian leadership may be fervently religious but no one credits them for being either stupid or unrealistic. They know that an attack by Iran against Israel will unleash both Israel’s formidable military response as well as a response from the US which is pledged to defend Israel in the case of such an attack. Logic would dictate that even in the face of Islamist fundamentalism, the leadership of Iran will not choose to launch such an attack given the obvious and predictable circumstances that will follow.
This reasoning would lead any sane Israeli leader to the conclusion that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is not in the best interests of the future of Israel. Further, that the best defense against Iran is to make sure that our military machine has the capability to strike back, and strike back hard should they attack us. In the humble opinion of this writer any other strategy at this point in time would be nothing less than lunacy on the part of our government. The saber rattling should stop, and stop quickly as contemplating the fallout from such an attack on our part could potentially mean the end of the enterprise called Israel as we know it.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The UNESCO Vote…What it Really Means
By Sherwin Pomerantz
This week’s vote by UNESCO, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization to admit Palestine into full membership is clearly in violation of its own constitution.
Art II.2 of the UNESCO Constitution states: “Subject to the conditions of the Agreement between this Organization and the United Nations Organization, approved pursuant to Article X of this Constitution, states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference.
As a non-member of the United Nations, the Palestinian Authority which aims to create a future state called Palestine is, today, not a state at all. It is perhaps true that there are those who can make a cogent argument that it has many of the trappings of a state and has successfully built a number of institutions required for statehood, but it is definitely not a state under the commonly accepted definition which the UN itself uses.
To qualify as a subject under the traditional definition of international law, a state has to be sovereign: It needs a defined territory, a population, a government, and the ability to engage in diplomatic or foreign relations. Clearly the land now overseen by the Palestinian Authority is not sovereign, its territorial borders are not accepted by international bodies and it is certainly not solvent. The permanent cut off of donor funds would bankrupt the authority in 30 days.
Yet 107 countries voted in favor of the proposal to admit Palestine, 14 voted against and 52 countries abstained. All of this on the heels of the recent interview by Egypt’s Dream2TV on October 23rd where Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas said: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state (of Israel), or a Jewish State.” Commenting afterwards on the recent release of 1,027 convicts in order to bring Gilad Schalit back home he said: Hamas kidnapped, or rather captured, a solider, and managed to keep him for five years and that is a good thing. We don’t deny it. On the contrary, it’s a good thing that on a small strip of land, 40 x 7 kilometers, they were able to keep him and hide him.” Later in Ramallah at a celebration honoring the release of the convicts he added, “We need more Gilad Schalits so we can ultimately free all of our people held in Israeli jails.”
One wonders therefore, what kind of contribution this new group can make to UNESCO when its own educational approach is to vilify its neighbors at every turn and which continues to use textbooks in its schools which talk about Jews as dogs, vermin and other less than laudable terms.
The United States was right to cut off funding to UNESCO given a 1994 law on the books of the US Congress that barred funding “any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood.”
There are those who believe, probably with good cause, that at the end of the day the Palestinian Arab leadership has no interest in ending the conflict with Israel. In spite of the evidence I still hold out hope because, as I said earlier this week, I do not believe that the current situation is sustainable. But concessions are not a one way street, and if the Palestinian Arab leadership persists in thumbing its nose at the fundamental principles of international diplomacy, it will get what it deserves and should not complain about it. The door to our Prime Minister’s office is open wide and Abbas should take advantage of it before it is sealed shut.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
This week’s vote by UNESCO, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization to admit Palestine into full membership is clearly in violation of its own constitution.
Art II.2 of the UNESCO Constitution states: “Subject to the conditions of the Agreement between this Organization and the United Nations Organization, approved pursuant to Article X of this Constitution, states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference.
As a non-member of the United Nations, the Palestinian Authority which aims to create a future state called Palestine is, today, not a state at all. It is perhaps true that there are those who can make a cogent argument that it has many of the trappings of a state and has successfully built a number of institutions required for statehood, but it is definitely not a state under the commonly accepted definition which the UN itself uses.
To qualify as a subject under the traditional definition of international law, a state has to be sovereign: It needs a defined territory, a population, a government, and the ability to engage in diplomatic or foreign relations. Clearly the land now overseen by the Palestinian Authority is not sovereign, its territorial borders are not accepted by international bodies and it is certainly not solvent. The permanent cut off of donor funds would bankrupt the authority in 30 days.
Yet 107 countries voted in favor of the proposal to admit Palestine, 14 voted against and 52 countries abstained. All of this on the heels of the recent interview by Egypt’s Dream2TV on October 23rd where Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas said: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state (of Israel), or a Jewish State.” Commenting afterwards on the recent release of 1,027 convicts in order to bring Gilad Schalit back home he said: Hamas kidnapped, or rather captured, a solider, and managed to keep him for five years and that is a good thing. We don’t deny it. On the contrary, it’s a good thing that on a small strip of land, 40 x 7 kilometers, they were able to keep him and hide him.” Later in Ramallah at a celebration honoring the release of the convicts he added, “We need more Gilad Schalits so we can ultimately free all of our people held in Israeli jails.”
One wonders therefore, what kind of contribution this new group can make to UNESCO when its own educational approach is to vilify its neighbors at every turn and which continues to use textbooks in its schools which talk about Jews as dogs, vermin and other less than laudable terms.
The United States was right to cut off funding to UNESCO given a 1994 law on the books of the US Congress that barred funding “any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood.”
There are those who believe, probably with good cause, that at the end of the day the Palestinian Arab leadership has no interest in ending the conflict with Israel. In spite of the evidence I still hold out hope because, as I said earlier this week, I do not believe that the current situation is sustainable. But concessions are not a one way street, and if the Palestinian Arab leadership persists in thumbing its nose at the fundamental principles of international diplomacy, it will get what it deserves and should not complain about it. The door to our Prime Minister’s office is open wide and Abbas should take advantage of it before it is sealed shut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
