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.