Jerusalem the Capital of Israel

Jerusalem the Capital of Israel

By Sherwin Pomerantz

During Mitt Romney’s visit to Israel earlier this week there was widespread negative reaction, particularly from the Palestinian Arab leadership about his remark that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.  This came after last week’s bumbling by President Obama’s press secretary when, during a briefing of the White House press corps, he was pressed to answer this question as well and did not.  Rather he kept repeating “you know our position on this issue and it has not changed.”

Odd that any of this should have raised any eyebrows or that the press secretary had a problem with the question.  One need only go to the CIA’s World Factbook which certainly reflects Washington’s position on the issue (see https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html) where it says the following for Israel:

            Capital - Name: Jerusalem

Then it follows with a note that says “Israel proclaimed Jerusalem its capital in 1950, but the U.S., like all other countries maintains its Embassy in Tel Aviv. “

This actually makes sense.  Every country has a right to determine which city will be its capital.  In Israel’s case, the government designated Jerusalem as the capital and all of the government’s offices, the home of the President and Prime Minister as well as the Knesset and the Supreme Court are all situated here.  So there can be no argument with the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and even the U.S. officially acknowledges this, as shown above, even though its embassy is in Tel Aviv which is the choice of any overseas government.

But the Palestinian Arab leadership immediately reacted negatively to Romney’s statement even though President Obama said the same thing on June 6^th 2008 as well when he was a candidate (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWrvPvo8yXc).  Saab Ereket made the incredibly stupid statement saying that Romney’s remarks were an insult to the entire Muslim world.  Really?  Is that all it takes?  By acknowledging what your host government states as a given that insults the entire Muslim world?  Over 20,000 people have died senselessly in Syria over the past 18 months, many of them shot by troops loyal to and directed by the president of the country.  Where is the outrage in the Muslim world about that?

But there is simply no end to this insanity.  The BBC in preparing for the London Olympics put up country pages for all of the participating national delegations.  Each page contained the name of the country, its capital and other pertinent information.  When it came to Israel the capital entry was left blank.  For the non-country of Palestine they listed “East Jerusalem” as the capital for the Palestine Olympic Team.  Of course, once it was called to their attention they changed the Israel page to say that “the seat of government is in Jerusalem” and then added the footnote about the fact that most embassies are in Tel Aviv. 

Perhaps there will come a time when everything will not boil down to symbolism and, as a result, accommodation will find its place in this region.  The late King Hussein of Jordan once said “I want to say a simple thing that the dividing line exists not between Jordan and Israel but between the proponents of peace and the opponents of peace.”  That approach allowed him to make peace with Israel.  Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the present day leadership of our neighboring lands understood that as well? 

US Elections…Cause to Worry?
By Sherwin Pomerantz

 Last week I was present at a dialogue about the upcoming US elections held in Tel Aviv. The four panel participants consisted of a former Israeli ambassador to the US, a former Economic Consul of Israel in Washington as well as two other Israeli analysts, both of whom had spent considerable time in the diplomatic ranks of Israel in Washington. After about 45 minutes of analysis, the moderator asked the panelists to tell the audience whom they would vote for if the US election was held today. (n.b. None of them were American citizens.)

All four of them, when asked, said that they would vote to keep President Obama in office for another four years. In each case the panel members were asked to give their reasons and, amazingly, the reason each gave was the same as that given by every other panel member. That is, that the level of security cooperation between Israel and the US is, today, higher than it has ever been in the history of the relationship. As such, it is important to maintain that level of cooperation as well as its chief supporter, President Obama. I was not the only one in the room who thought that reasoning was faulty.

As any student of political science knows, every government, including the US government, does what it deems is in its best interests when it comes to foreign policy. For the United States of America right now, with the entire Middle East in turmoil, it is obvious to the people at Foggy Bottom that there is only one stable country in the region with which they can engage from a security standpoint and that country is Israel. Syria is engaged in civil war, the fallout from Egypt having elected someone from the Muslim brotherhood as its president is still unclear, Lebanon is subject to the whims of Hezbollah which certainly cannot be considered friendly to the US and Jordan, while an ally, is nowhere near as stable politically as it would like to be in light of what is happening on its borders. As such, the US has increased its security cooperation with Israel because it needs to have an island of stability in this region for its own good and welfare and this would be the case regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

You can probably figure out by now that I left the meeting (a) happy that these people do not vote and (b) depressed that such experienced diplomatic people believe that a second term for the president will be either good for America or for Israel. In my opinion he is good for neither and simply does not deserve a second term.

Earlier this year in a TV appearance, entertainer Harry Belafonte actually enunciated this better than anyone when he said:

"When I think of Barack Obama and I think about all that is at stake here I’ve really long since left talking about how many terms he will be as a president. My question is what legacy will he leave having had the opportunity to serve under such hugely dramatic circumstances that boggled the mind and boggled people’s thinking and had such a huge impact on the universal state of things? And how could he have had such a splendid opportunity to do more than most presidents would have ever been able to do and yet let that opportunity slip away from him.

"And I am very cautious of the fact of those who think that he has some hidden agenda and that if only he could be given a second term for us to see the new light new things will be revealed. A new effort will be made to take us to a place other than where we have been and where we languish.

"I just don’t trust that. I don’t think that is either a safe or accurate way to look at the scenario. I think if there was the kind of moral compass serving Barack Obama in the way we had all hoped, the moral force would have helped him make choices. The absence of that force in his equations, the absence of that barometer to guide him when he has to make those decisions which are hugely complicated, especially from the political perspective is disturbing. He should have come to the table with things that I think would have helped us in this moment of crisis."

Of course Belafonte was speaking totally in terms of America and its needs. I would add that during this time of worldwide economic and political stress, the world needed the President of the United States and the United States itself to lead, rather than sit on the sidelines and stay out of trouble. From an Israeli standpoint the last thing we need is a US President who panders to the hurt feelings of the Muslim world who, as a result do not embrace him, but see him as a weak representative of a weakened America.

 We can only hope that in spite of the less than ideal choice the Republicans are offering as an alternative, that the American people will understand the choices before them and do the right thing.

Virtue of Practical Politics

The Virtue of Practical Politics By Sherwin Pomerantz When one analyzes the political battles that rage here on a regular basis, all of them seem to boil down to the same basic issue…a conflict between what opposing factions both of whom believe that one must do the “right” thing based on principle. The challenge, of course, is for both sides to realize that sometimes (actually, often) what makes the most sense is to do what is practical even if there have to be concessions on the issue of principle. So permit me to share some examples with you. Israel finds itself today in what is probably the regionally least stable time since the end of World War II. Egypt, whose deposed leader supported the peace treaty signed by his predecessor and kept the border between us quiet for 30 years, is now led by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood whose principles are, by definition, anti-Israel and anti-Western as well. Syria, who’s about to be deposed leader followed in his later father’s footsteps and kept our common border relatively quiet as well for 45 years, will most probably be headed by new forces which will, most likely, be less than friendly to Israel. Turkey, who has been an ally for decades, is now openly hostile to Israel whenever the opportunity arises. And of course, there is our neighbor to the east, Iran, whose leadership openly calls for our destruction. In an atmosphere such as this with tens of thousands of missiles pointed at us from Hezbollah’s people in Lebanon, we could use an ally and the only one of these countries that has the potential to become that ally once again is Turkey. We know, of course, what the demands are from the Turkish leadership in order to restore full relations between our two countries. And we also know that, in principle, we are correct in not agreeing to those demands. But practical politics would dictate that for our own long term good and welfare we should do what we need to do in order to salvage one political ally in this region as a buffer against the continued growth of Islamic extremism. On another front, there is the recent government initiated report of the Levy Commission indicating that Israel is not an occupier of Judea and Samaria, that we have rights to these areas dating back to the 1920 San Remo Conference and, of course, to the text of the Torah itself. And once again the issue of principle comes to the surface. There is probably no doubt in the minds of most thinking Israelis that the information contained in the report of the Levy Commission is correct. Personally, I think we should have annexed all of the lands captured in 1967 and taken the heat generated by the world’s outrage at that time. It would have lasted only a short while and the “problem” would have been settled (after all, at that time we were seen as heroes in most parts of the world). But, for any number of reasons, Israel did not do that and it is no longer 1967. For better or worse, successive Israeli governments have committed themselves to the “two state solution,” Israel has ceded both authority and land in certain areas to the Palestinians and there is probably no going back on that. So, once again, practical politics would dictate that Israel not endorse the Levy Commission Report as, even though we are correct on principle, the negative fallout worldwide would be one more issue that would sap our strength and the support of our friends. Finally, we have the ongoing issues related to the expiration of the Tal Law and the drafting of members of the ultra-Orthodox community into the Israel Defense Forces. But we are all smart enough to know that this is really not “the” problem. In principle, the religious community is fighting for the right of their members to continue studying religious subjects only into adulthood and not be negatively affected by outside forces, while the secular community maintains that everyone should carry their fair share of the defense burden. In principle both communities can make a strong case for their positions. But practical politics dictates a different position all together. This country given its size and population cannot function fiscally if a continually growing segment of the population is not part of its work force. If the religious community had its way its members would both not serve in the military and not enter the work force. But that approach dooms its members to a life of poverty while concomitantly threatening the fiscal stability of the country as a whole. So practical politics means that concessions will need to be made on both sides so that the ultra-orthodox learn the skills necessary to be fully active members of the greater society while the secular portion of the society makes the required concessions to accommodate the special needs of the ultra-orthodox. Anything less is a recipe for the demise of the Zionist enterprise. Henry Adams, the great grandson of John Adams and the grandson of John Quincy Adams, said “practical politics consists in ignoring facts.” But all of us know that we ignore facts at our own peril and when a country takes that position the peril, in our case, is the end of Israel as we know it. The challenge of leadership is to strike that balance between principle and practicality because when that balance gets imbalanced, disaster lurks just around the corner. As we enter this last week before the 9th of Av observance it should be clear to all of us that enmity among brothers leads to destruction and only the application of practical politics can be our salvation.

GUEST BLOG: The "Great" Debate

The “Great” Debate Ben Dansker Once every few years the public reawakens to the issue of exemption from Army service awarded to full time Yeshiva students and to certain minorities. It’s not that the issue ever disappears from public discourse, but that for most of the time it is a “page two” item and not a headline and certainly not an issue that would threaten one of the strongest government coalitions every put together. The issue of course is not just one of military service, but a concern that there are two societies in Israel, one which is involved in the economic life of the country and one which, by choice, is not. The economic ramifications have been spoken about for a long time and they are not very complicated to understand. An economy cannot typically provide an adequate level of services for all of its citizens if a significant and growing segment of that economy does not contribute, receive salaries and pay taxes. I have two sons who have served in Israel Defense Forces (IDF) combat units and a third son about to begin his service, and I can understand and empathize with the notion that the burden of service should fall equally on all citizens. As a religious Jew I can also empathize with the notion that the study of Torah creates great merit for the Jewish people in the land of Israel. I would not want to tear that world down, but I would want to bring our worlds and world-views somewhat closer. There have been some beginnings of change in the past five or six years. More ultra-orthodox young men are entering the Army, mainly in special frameworks like the Nachal Charedi. More are entering the labor force as well. The rate of change is slow and many would like it to happen faster but I believe that the current “battle” raging as it were in our streets and in our newspapers will if anything cause a retreat rather than encourage continued forward progress. I propose, therefore, that our political leadership work far harder with the ultra-orthodox to find a suitable solution to a problem that they know as well as we, exists. I would suggest to the ultra-orthodox communities to find ways to express appreciation and solidarity with those who do serve. I would not ask that their synagogues recite the prayer for the State of Israel which seems much harder for them than it was to pray for the health of Tsar Nicholas and for many other tyrants through the ages. I would however urge them to recite the formal prayers for the welfare our soldiers. Our soldiers are their soldiers as well. If they are not their son’s they are probably their nephews and if not, they are young Jewish boys fighting and sometimes sacrificing themselves so that the world of Torah in Israel can go on. I would urge a change in the language which I hear with my own ears in which the IDF and its institutions are seen as Treif or Unholy. I have had Charedi relatives more than hint that sending our sons to the army is a mistake. I am willing to believe the Charedim when they say that the IDF and its soldiers are in fact important and precious to them, but I would prefer it if they would find ways to show it. I believe that this too would reduce the flames of passion that are engulfing true believers on both sides of the fence.

God's Army - How Many is Enough?

God’s Army…How Many is Enough? By Sherwin Pomerantz The last month has seen a tremendous amount of press devoted to the discussion of the replacement of Israel’s Tal Law which dealt with the handling of deferments for young people of military age who are studying in religious schools (i.e. yeshivot). The Tal Law was passed on July 23, 2002 in the Knesset as a temporary law which needed to be renewed every five years. The bill enabled a continuation of the military exemptions to yeshiva students subject to the conditions within the bill. According to the law, at the age of 22, yeshiva students were provided with a decision year and could choose between one-year civil service alongside a paying job or a shortened 16-month military service and future service in the reserves as an alternative to continuing to study. Five motions against the law were filed with the High Court of Justice claiming it violated the principle of equality. In 2005, the state admitted, in a response to a Supreme Court petition, that the Tal Law had failed to change enlistment arrangements for ultra-Orthodox Jews, as only a few dozen had enlisted in the army as a result. The law was then extended in 2007 by another five years. On February 21, 2012, the High Court of Justice ruled that the law is unconstitutional. (An interesting term, as Israel does not have a constitution but rather a set of basic laws under which the court makes judgements.) The discussions now under way revolve around (a) a replacement for the law, (b) the feelings of many people in Israel [secular and religious alike] that universal military service should be just that, universal, for both Jews and Arabs and (c) the desire of the Haredi (i.e. ultra-orthodox) community to ensure that its adherents do not have to leave religious studies in order to serve in the military. I am not saying that every member of each of these groups feels the same way about the issue, but rather that this is the general platform on which the arguments are being aired. The Haredi leadership, particularly those who follow the rulings of the Sephardi Chief Rabbi, Shlomo Amar, has circled the wagons, as it were, urging its adherents to resist any law that would draft yeshiva students into the military. Rabbi Amar even has urged his disciples to cancel their normal vacation in the weeks leading up to the beginning of the Hebrew month of Elul in August, and to remain in their schools studying and praying for the “severe decree” to be annulled. The logic goes that those who remain in yeshivot studying, also form an army, but an army of God, whose studying also contributes to the long term survival of Israel as a Jewish country. It is difficult to argue against the value of study, but one can raise a legitimate question as to how many people need to be conscripted into such an army. Today in Israel there are, by general count, 60,000 Haredim of military age who receive exemptions from military service each year. Most estimates peg the Haredi population of Israel at about 700,000 people or about 12% of the population. Statistics show that less than 50% of Haredim are in the work force, with the bulk of the rest involved in study. So one could ask the question: Does the Army of God need to be that large? There is also concern in the Israeli Arab community as, up to this point in time, members of that community have also been exempt from military service. The committees looking into the issue are also focusing on addressing that issue of non-universality of service as it applies to that sector as well. But let’s look at the problem from a different angle. In 2010, the last year for which such figures were published, 47.5% of first graders were either Arabs or Haredim. The growth rate of the Haredi school system is 39 times greater than that of the state secular schools, and that of the Arab school system is 13 times greater. These are not demographic forecasts, which can turn out to be false; these are children who have already been born and are awaiting their turn in the education system but, sadly, unless the social fabric of the country changes, will not enter either the military or the work force. And, quite frankly, we need them in both places. OECD figures show that among developed countries Israel has the highest percentage of workers absent from the work force who could be working. And it is not only the Haredim who do not work that contribute to this number. In the Israeli Arab sector there is a similar situation but as result of other causes. While an increasing percentage of Israeli Arabs are securing college diplomas, Israeli industry has been slow to integrate such people into the work force, causing a great many of these well educated people to work in areas below their intellectual capabilities. So it is the combination of all of these factors that worry those whose responsibility it is to keep this country financially viable and economically stable. Truth be told, we need the brainpower of members of both communities in the work force in order for Israel to maintain its technological edge which is so critical to its economic progress. We need young people from both communities, whose percentage of the overall population continues to grow, to learn the skills required to keep the work force of this country up to the standards of the 21st century and beyond. To be sure we who are members of the shrinking majority need to change how we view these minorities, as they will not remain minorities much longer. Aluf Benn wrote in Ha’aretz two years ago: “We must recognize that our future depends on integrating Arabs and haredim into mainstream society. Instead of considering them freeloaders who want to eat our cake, we must start viewing them as a great opportunity: If Israel has managed to reach its current standard of living without them (in the work force), one can only imagine where we could go with the added talent and motivation that is not currently being tapped. These are enormous economic resources – far great than the natural gas reserves found off Haifa.” But in order to achieve this goal the leadership of those communities must also admit to this truth and encourage their people to grasp the opportunities that are critical to ensuring that all of us will be around and successful 40 years from now as we are today. That is the key issue on which the debate should be based as not acknowledging this truth may put the entire enterprise called Israel at risk and, under those conditions, even the Army of God may not be able to save it.

Remembering Yitzchak Shamir

Remembering Yitzchak Shamir By Sherwin Pomerantz Yesterday the State of Israel buried another of its former prime ministers, Yitzchak Shamir of blessed memory, who held that position from 1983-84 and again from 1996-1992. Born Icchak Jaziernicky in 1918 in what is now Belarus, he was Israel’s longest serving prime minister next to David Ben Gurion. I remember the first week I was in Israel as a new immigrant in early February, 1984. I was walking one evening in the area of Liberty Bell Park in Jerusalem and Shamir was walking from what was then the LaRomme Hotel (now the Inbal) to the King Solomon Sheraton Hotel (now the King Solomon) just across the street. In those days people at his level of government were still able to walk the streets freely with just one bodyguard. I walked up to him, unhindered, and introduced myself saying that I had just moved to Israel. After asking me where I came from, he looked at me with those steely eyes of his and said, simply, “Welcome home and happy that you are here.” And when Yitzchak Shamir said something, you just knew that he meant it. He was a man of high principle, honest, modest and not in the least bit desirous of the normal trappings that now come with such a high position in government. He was most consistent when it came to the security of Israel. It was clear that in his heart of hearts he never believed in the concept of making peace with our Arab neighbors and even voted against the peace treaty with Egypt. He was not against making peace, he just felt that the negotiated cost was simply too high for what Israel got in return. He went, reluctantly, to the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference because the United States gave him no choice. But there is a story told, which may or may not be true, that at one point during his stay he called the members of the Israeli delegation to his room and, beginning with the Yiddish word for “children” he said: “Kinderlach, this is the beginning of the end.” That was in keeping with his overall philosophy that nothing changes here. As he said many times when confronted by an opportunity to negotiate and compromise, “The Arabs are the same Arabs and the sea is the same sea.” I thought of him today as I was reading the transcript of yesterday’s meeting of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council held in Geneva. On the very day when Human Rights Watch reported that at least 1,776 children have been killed in Syria since February, 2011, the UN Human Rights Council devoted the entire day to the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, better known as “a day against Israel” which is a permanent feature of every council meeting with this being the only country-specific item on the agenda. Speakers from the great defenders of human rights in the region included: • Iran who spoke of the “flagrant violations of the human rights of Palestinians.” • Syria praised Special Rapporteur Richard Falk “for his bravery” and pointed out that “Israel’s occupation remains the main obstacle to peace and stability in the region.” • Cuba accused Israel of “genocide.” • Libya condemned “acts of torture and abuse to which Palestinian detainees had been subject.” • Saudi Arabia condemned Israel’s “continued and systematic violation of the rights of the Palestinian people.” • Egypt expressed concern over the “arrogance that Israel displays towards the Council and the country’s refusal to cooperate with the study of Israeli practices in the occupied Palestinian territories.” • Sudan called on the international community to pressure Israel to “live up to its international obligations.” And the list goes on with country after country whose own records of human rights violations, for sure, exponentially exceed anything you will see here. Shamir once said “We have said that Israel has had a very bad history with the United Nations, and whoever cares for himself in Israel distances himself from the organization.” It is difficult to argue with that position given the actions of the Human Rights Council. Regarding peace, it would be depressing to think that Shamir may have been correct in his hard line assessment of the prospects for peace in the region. Certainly to those of us who had hoped for some other truth, the possibility of his being correct is disheartening. In an interview given to Daniel Pipes in 1998, Shamir’s response to the question “What are the greatest dangers facing Israel?” was “The establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel.” Was he right or wrong? Time will tell but one has to give him credit for consistency and an unbending loyalty to the long term security of Israel as the eternal homeland of the Jewish people. For that alone we need to respect his memory.