Israel and Egypt
For the past three weeks during the unfolding of the unrest in Egypt and other parts of the Arab World, I have intentionally not said anything publicly on the topic. I made that decision because things were simply moving too quickly to keep up with every development and even in this era of 24/7 news one would have had to dedicate every waking minute to following the information stream in order to keep on top of things.
What was interesting to me was that while I made that decision as a private citizen, it seemed that diplomatic departments in every government worldwide were also faced with the same problem. For example, the United States staked out an early position to dump Egyptian President Mubarak and in the words of Press Secretary Gibbs, “when we say immediately, we mean yesterday.” Of course only 36 hours later the tone changed to one of supporting a smooth transition to a new regime and finding a way for President Mubarak to exit gracefully. The original position seemed to be the height of chutzpah but when America internalized the reality the government’s position seemed to make more sense. But of course, the United States capital sits 5,600 miles from Cairo giving the U.S. administration much less to be concerned about than some of Egypt’s closer neighbors.
In Israel, which has shared a relatively peaceful border with Egypt for the last 32 years, the concerns and, therefore, the reactions were much different. Hosni Mubarak, while no great friend of Israel, could certainly be depended upon to maintain the peace treaty and maintain a modicum of civility with his neighbor to the northeast. True, except for attending the funeral of former Prime Minister Rabin of blessed memory, Mubarak never made a visit to Israel always saying that the time was not ripe for such a visit. But our soldiers were not dying on that border and we were able to redirect our security efforts to those borders where every so often we would be embroiled in conflict.
So the concerns here were understandable. It was and remains in our best interests to make sure that whoever comes to power in Egypt will hold to the 1979 peace agreement. It was natural for our leadership to hope that some way could be worked out for Mubarak to remain, if even only for the period during which a new government would take over, in an effort to keep that border situation stable. So, at least as far as the press has reported, our government here used whatever influence it had with the U.S. and its European associates to urge that a way be found for him to remain during any interim period.
As it turned out the street in Egypt was demanding, the demands were made, more or less, peaceably, the message was clear and the new Egyptian Vice-President along with the military had no choice but to accede to the will of the people and convince the President to step down. In retrospect, it all seems rather logical does it not? I actually thought so as well and, therefore, did not see the need to comment.
However, during this period each day I am reading dispatches from both Tom Friedman and Roger Cohen, which appear regularly in the New York Times’ on line edition as well as in the International Herald Tribune whose print edition is published here as well. No surprises there either. Roger Cohen never misses an opportunity to weave the Palestinian-Israel equation into every op-ed even though, in this situation, the revolution was an internal issue for Egyptians vis-à-vis their government, and there was almost no mention made of outside issues. As for Tom Friedman, he attempts to be more balanced, more analytical and is generally closer to the mark……until this morning.
In today’s piece entitled “Postcard from Cairo, Part 2” he lambasts the Government of Israel for choosing the wrong side. He says:
I am more worried today about Israel’s future than I have ever been, because I think that at time of great change in this region – and we have just seen the beginnings of – Israel today has the most out-of-touch, in-bred, unimaginative and cliché-driven cabinet it has ever had.
And why does he take that position? He goes on:
Rather than even listening to what the democracy youth in Tahrir Square were saying and then trying to digest what it meant, this Israeli government took two approaches during the last three weeks: Frantically calling the White House and telling the president he must not abandon Pharoah – to the point where the White House was thoroughly disgusted with its Israeli interlocutors – and using the opportunity to score propaganda points: “Look at us! Look at us! We told you so! We are the only stable country in the region, because we are the only democracy.”
Was that a bad thing for Israel to do? I don’t think so at all. Later in his piece he says that the only person who “got it” here was Natan Sharansky whose 3 page interview in last Friday’s Jerusalem Post contained the statement “that partnerships with dictatorships are unsustainable – that people cannot permanently be repressed, that they will push for freedom the moment they sense some weakness in their tyrannical leadership.”
Sharansky, of course, speaks from personal experience and is correct. But Friedman conveniently chooses not to reference another remark that Sharansky made in that same interview when he said we are a small country with limited resources and if our defense forces are not always at the ready for any eventuality we could lose this country in a day.
What is it about people like Friedman and Cohen that prevents them from “getting” that? Very simply, they do not live here and that gives them a point of reference so very different from those of us who have, indeed, chosen to live here. For us, every decision is potentially the last one we will ever make, if it is wrong. For us, there is no 5,600 mile buffer between us and them. For us, every chance we take can result in that being the last chance we ever take.
So those of us who live here and have chosen to cast our lot with the people if Israel in the land of Israel, have a right and even an obligation to consider, first and foremost, what we think is best for us, just as every other country’s leadership worldwide must do as well. In retrospect perhaps it was the wrong decision to make and now that the die of change is cast in Egypt, for sure we will need to embrace the new leadership and encourage both dialogue and understanding. But we pay the price for our wrong decisions, not Tom Friedman and not Roger Cohen, however well-intentioned they may be. Until the time comes when they are prepared to take the same risks as those of us here, the better part of valor would be to for them to keep their mouths shut.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, February 14, 2011
Monday, November 22, 2010
Open Letter to Ambassador Kurtzer
The following is in response to the OpEd piece of former Amb. Daniel Kurtzer that appeared in the Wahington Post on November 21st. That piece appears below my letter.
Sherwin
=====================================================================================
Open Letter to Amb. Daniel Kurtzer
Dear Ambassador Kurtzer,
In reading your recent op ed in the Washington Post (11/21/10) I was reminded of a visit I paid to the Ambassadorial Residence in Herzlia a few years ago when you held the position of US Ambassador to Israel.
Your mother of blessed memory had just passed away, and you took a week off from your busy schedule at the time to observe the traditional weeklong shiva period in her memory. When I came to the residence and saw the many people lined up to pay their respects, Jews (both religious and secular), non-Jews, Arab dignitaries and others, I thought to myself that this was a real kiddush Hashem, a sanctification of God’s name. Why? Because it demonstrated to the entire community here in Israel that continuing the line of Jewish tradition was important to you and that even as busy as you were at the time with your official duties, you took the time to honor the memory of your mother by respecting the tradition. I was especially taken to see the tremendous pride on your face as you watched your son, a student at the Har Etzion Yeshiva (located in one of the “settlements” that you regard as an obstacle to peace) share his knowledge of Jewish subjects with those in the audience. No doubt your mother’s entry into the next world was accelerated in merit of his learning and this act of devotion on your part.
Why did your op ed remind me of this? Because I believe that the Washington Post piece, no doubt written with the best intentions, is exactly the opposite, a chillul Hashem, a desecration of God’s name.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions and your long years of experience in the region, both as US Ambassador to Egypt and later US Ambassador to Israel has given you a perspective that few others in the world enjoy. But that experience coupled with you, as an identified Jews from an observant family and the beneficiary of a religious education, places upon you an even greater responsibility for the continuation of the line of Jewish tradition than that of the average member of our faith.
Your words carry special meaning, your position gives you increased credibility and your ability to express ideas imbues you with the means to convey your thoughts in an intelligent and cohesive manner. As such you need to be especially careful about what you say and how you say it, recognizing that it is specifically because of whom you are that our enemies can use your words against us.
Somewhere in the near future we will read in the press that Daniel Kurtzer, the Jewish former Ambassador of the United States to Israel said:
• …the United States is poised to reward Israel for its bad behavior.
• …the United States has turned a blind eye to indirect U.S. subsidies for Israeli activities in the territories
• Israel’s security requirements are now merely a bargaining chip with which to negotiate what Jerusalem will or will not do to advance the peace process.
• …how seriously should our (i.e. the US’) defense planners and congressional budget watchers take Israel’s arguments about its security needs….
and, of course, they will be taken out of context, as I have done, and ultimately used against us.
Further, where is the balance? Where is the reference to the fact that the first freeze was in place for 10 months and for the first 9 months the Palestinians refused to come to the negotiating table? Where is the reference that in spite of continual efforts at peace by Israel the people now referred to as Palestinians have not budged one inch from the position taken on November 29th 1947 when partition was voted by the U.N.? Where is the reference that Chairman Abbas has now made it clear that the nascent Palestinian state, when it is established, must be Judenrein and that the same must apply to any international troops stationed there to maintain the peace. And what about the fact that the same U.S. that is now demanding continual freezes from us has never permitted Israel to win any war against our enemies who waged those wars in an effort to destroy us?
Ambassador Kurtzer, when intelligent, informed and well respected Jews write pieces like you wrote, they can only be classified as a chillul Hashem, because the result, however well meaning your intentions might be, is that the line of Jewish tradition maintained at such cost over the years, runs the risk of being broken. There are plenty of things that are wrong about Israel, but the thing that most challenges the Jewish people is our ongoing battle against the deniers of truth as they expediently rewrite historical facts to support their anti-Semitic instincts. We have seen enough examples of that this year in the Goldstone Report, Turkey’s response to the flotilla episode and similar diatribes.
The word is still out on whether the current US president has discarded the teachings of the Rev. Wright for a more worldly and universal approach to problem solving. There are, of course, well founded suspicions that he has not. But until we know, we Jews need not do his work for him.
As Jews, it is incumbent upon us to remember that this is the only country that we can call our own and, as such, all of is have an obligation to defend its long term viability. Nothing less will be acceptable.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
=====================================================================================
With settlement deal, U.S. will be rewarding Israel's bad behavior
By Daniel Kurtzer
Sunday, November 21, 2010;
It was only a little over a year and a half ago that the Obama administration demanded a freeze on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including even the "natural growth" of existing settlements. At the time, the administration called settlement activity "illegitimate" and appeared ready to go to the mat with Israel to show just how strongly the United States believed that settlements impede peace.
But now, the administration says it is prepared to pay off Israel to freeze only some of its settlement activity, and only temporarily. For the first time in memory, the United States is poised to reward Israel for its bad behavior.
Here's the offer that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is reported to have put on the table recently: The United States will provide a package of advanced weaponry and military assistance to Israel totaling several billion dollars, all in return for an Israeli commitment to freeze settlement construction for just three months, excluding construction in Jerusalem. During this period, the United States hopes Israel and the Palestinian Authority will negotiate an agreement on the final borders of a future Palestinian state. The Israeli cabinet is weighing the offer, having demanded a letter from Washington confirming the terms.
This is a very bad idea. And while Washington will almost certainly come to regret bribing Israel, Israel may regret receiving such a bribe even more.
Previously, U.S. opposition to settlements resulted in penalties, not rewards, for continued construction. Washington deducted from its loan guarantees to Israel an amount equivalent, dollar for dollar, to the money that Israel spent in the occupied territories. While it's true that the United States has turned a blind eye to indirect U.S. subsidies for Israeli activities in the territories - such as tax deductions for American organizations that fund settlements - the deal now being offered to Israel is of a totally different magnitude. If it goes forward, it will be the first direct benefit that the United States has provided Israel for settlement activities that we have opposed for more than 40 years.
It is not clear that Washington has thought through the implications. Will the United States similarly reward Palestinians for stopping their own bad behavior? Will Washington pay them to, say, halt the incitement against Israel and Jews in their public media and some educational materials - something that shouldn't have
been going on in the first place?
Will the rewards for Israel be automatically renewable? Meaning, if Israel is willing to continue the settlement freeze after three months, will another set of rewards be the price for that?
And what about enforcement? Will the United States demand its money back if it learns about construction during the freeze, even if that construction was not authorized by the Israeli government?
The list of problems is so long that it would not be surprising if the administration were already experiencing buyer's remorse. But the arrangement has an even more serious long-term implication, one that should worry Israel profoundly.
If it goes through, this deal will shake the foundation of the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership. Since the early 1980s, the two countries have cooperated closely on assessing Israeli security, and Washington has promised to ensure Israel's "qualitative military edge" over any combination of potential Arab adversaries.
This commitment has been insulated from the vicissitudes of politics and diplomacy. Whatever the state of U.S.-Israeli relations or the peace process, America's commitment to Israel's security has been manifest. Not so, if this deal materializes. By subjecting Israel's defense needs to the political demands of an American administration, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has done something quite dangerous for Israel - he has made those needs contingent, negotiable, optional. Israel's security requirements are now merely a bargaining chip with which to negotiate what Jerusalem will or will not do to advance the peace process.
Today, the United States has "purchased" a short-term settlements freeze; what will be for sale tomorrow? For that matter, how seriously should our defense planners and congressional budget watchers take Israel's arguments about its security needs when it is prepared to market different elements of its policy for another squadron of advanced aircraft? Does anyone really believe that there is a substantive connection between a three-month settlement freeze and Israel's professed need for more airplanes?
These short-sighted tactics will lead both the United States and Israel into a long-term bind. Washington will be left fending off a landslide of demands from others who hope to be rewarded for their bad behavior, to be paid for stopping what they should never have been doing. Israel, meanwhile, will be left struggling to explain how precious its settlements really are if a payoff - albeit a high one - is enough to see them frozen.
And both countries will need a new rationale for the exceedingly steep price of what Israel calls its security requirements, but which will now look more like poker chips used to secure American aid.
This bargaining exercise has been unseemly all along. If it proceeds, both sides will probably regret it. But the deal has not yet been sealed. And it is not too late to start over.
(Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, teaches Middle East politics at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.)
Sherwin
=====================================================================================
Open Letter to Amb. Daniel Kurtzer
Dear Ambassador Kurtzer,
In reading your recent op ed in the Washington Post (11/21/10) I was reminded of a visit I paid to the Ambassadorial Residence in Herzlia a few years ago when you held the position of US Ambassador to Israel.
Your mother of blessed memory had just passed away, and you took a week off from your busy schedule at the time to observe the traditional weeklong shiva period in her memory. When I came to the residence and saw the many people lined up to pay their respects, Jews (both religious and secular), non-Jews, Arab dignitaries and others, I thought to myself that this was a real kiddush Hashem, a sanctification of God’s name. Why? Because it demonstrated to the entire community here in Israel that continuing the line of Jewish tradition was important to you and that even as busy as you were at the time with your official duties, you took the time to honor the memory of your mother by respecting the tradition. I was especially taken to see the tremendous pride on your face as you watched your son, a student at the Har Etzion Yeshiva (located in one of the “settlements” that you regard as an obstacle to peace) share his knowledge of Jewish subjects with those in the audience. No doubt your mother’s entry into the next world was accelerated in merit of his learning and this act of devotion on your part.
Why did your op ed remind me of this? Because I believe that the Washington Post piece, no doubt written with the best intentions, is exactly the opposite, a chillul Hashem, a desecration of God’s name.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions and your long years of experience in the region, both as US Ambassador to Egypt and later US Ambassador to Israel has given you a perspective that few others in the world enjoy. But that experience coupled with you, as an identified Jews from an observant family and the beneficiary of a religious education, places upon you an even greater responsibility for the continuation of the line of Jewish tradition than that of the average member of our faith.
Your words carry special meaning, your position gives you increased credibility and your ability to express ideas imbues you with the means to convey your thoughts in an intelligent and cohesive manner. As such you need to be especially careful about what you say and how you say it, recognizing that it is specifically because of whom you are that our enemies can use your words against us.
Somewhere in the near future we will read in the press that Daniel Kurtzer, the Jewish former Ambassador of the United States to Israel said:
• …the United States is poised to reward Israel for its bad behavior.
• …the United States has turned a blind eye to indirect U.S. subsidies for Israeli activities in the territories
• Israel’s security requirements are now merely a bargaining chip with which to negotiate what Jerusalem will or will not do to advance the peace process.
• …how seriously should our (i.e. the US’) defense planners and congressional budget watchers take Israel’s arguments about its security needs….
and, of course, they will be taken out of context, as I have done, and ultimately used against us.
Further, where is the balance? Where is the reference to the fact that the first freeze was in place for 10 months and for the first 9 months the Palestinians refused to come to the negotiating table? Where is the reference that in spite of continual efforts at peace by Israel the people now referred to as Palestinians have not budged one inch from the position taken on November 29th 1947 when partition was voted by the U.N.? Where is the reference that Chairman Abbas has now made it clear that the nascent Palestinian state, when it is established, must be Judenrein and that the same must apply to any international troops stationed there to maintain the peace. And what about the fact that the same U.S. that is now demanding continual freezes from us has never permitted Israel to win any war against our enemies who waged those wars in an effort to destroy us?
Ambassador Kurtzer, when intelligent, informed and well respected Jews write pieces like you wrote, they can only be classified as a chillul Hashem, because the result, however well meaning your intentions might be, is that the line of Jewish tradition maintained at such cost over the years, runs the risk of being broken. There are plenty of things that are wrong about Israel, but the thing that most challenges the Jewish people is our ongoing battle against the deniers of truth as they expediently rewrite historical facts to support their anti-Semitic instincts. We have seen enough examples of that this year in the Goldstone Report, Turkey’s response to the flotilla episode and similar diatribes.
The word is still out on whether the current US president has discarded the teachings of the Rev. Wright for a more worldly and universal approach to problem solving. There are, of course, well founded suspicions that he has not. But until we know, we Jews need not do his work for him.
As Jews, it is incumbent upon us to remember that this is the only country that we can call our own and, as such, all of is have an obligation to defend its long term viability. Nothing less will be acceptable.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
=====================================================================================
With settlement deal, U.S. will be rewarding Israel's bad behavior
By Daniel Kurtzer
Sunday, November 21, 2010;
It was only a little over a year and a half ago that the Obama administration demanded a freeze on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including even the "natural growth" of existing settlements. At the time, the administration called settlement activity "illegitimate" and appeared ready to go to the mat with Israel to show just how strongly the United States believed that settlements impede peace.
But now, the administration says it is prepared to pay off Israel to freeze only some of its settlement activity, and only temporarily. For the first time in memory, the United States is poised to reward Israel for its bad behavior.
Here's the offer that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is reported to have put on the table recently: The United States will provide a package of advanced weaponry and military assistance to Israel totaling several billion dollars, all in return for an Israeli commitment to freeze settlement construction for just three months, excluding construction in Jerusalem. During this period, the United States hopes Israel and the Palestinian Authority will negotiate an agreement on the final borders of a future Palestinian state. The Israeli cabinet is weighing the offer, having demanded a letter from Washington confirming the terms.
This is a very bad idea. And while Washington will almost certainly come to regret bribing Israel, Israel may regret receiving such a bribe even more.
Previously, U.S. opposition to settlements resulted in penalties, not rewards, for continued construction. Washington deducted from its loan guarantees to Israel an amount equivalent, dollar for dollar, to the money that Israel spent in the occupied territories. While it's true that the United States has turned a blind eye to indirect U.S. subsidies for Israeli activities in the territories - such as tax deductions for American organizations that fund settlements - the deal now being offered to Israel is of a totally different magnitude. If it goes forward, it will be the first direct benefit that the United States has provided Israel for settlement activities that we have opposed for more than 40 years.
It is not clear that Washington has thought through the implications. Will the United States similarly reward Palestinians for stopping their own bad behavior? Will Washington pay them to, say, halt the incitement against Israel and Jews in their public media and some educational materials - something that shouldn't have
been going on in the first place?
Will the rewards for Israel be automatically renewable? Meaning, if Israel is willing to continue the settlement freeze after three months, will another set of rewards be the price for that?
And what about enforcement? Will the United States demand its money back if it learns about construction during the freeze, even if that construction was not authorized by the Israeli government?
The list of problems is so long that it would not be surprising if the administration were already experiencing buyer's remorse. But the arrangement has an even more serious long-term implication, one that should worry Israel profoundly.
If it goes through, this deal will shake the foundation of the U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership. Since the early 1980s, the two countries have cooperated closely on assessing Israeli security, and Washington has promised to ensure Israel's "qualitative military edge" over any combination of potential Arab adversaries.
This commitment has been insulated from the vicissitudes of politics and diplomacy. Whatever the state of U.S.-Israeli relations or the peace process, America's commitment to Israel's security has been manifest. Not so, if this deal materializes. By subjecting Israel's defense needs to the political demands of an American administration, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has done something quite dangerous for Israel - he has made those needs contingent, negotiable, optional. Israel's security requirements are now merely a bargaining chip with which to negotiate what Jerusalem will or will not do to advance the peace process.
Today, the United States has "purchased" a short-term settlements freeze; what will be for sale tomorrow? For that matter, how seriously should our defense planners and congressional budget watchers take Israel's arguments about its security needs when it is prepared to market different elements of its policy for another squadron of advanced aircraft? Does anyone really believe that there is a substantive connection between a three-month settlement freeze and Israel's professed need for more airplanes?
These short-sighted tactics will lead both the United States and Israel into a long-term bind. Washington will be left fending off a landslide of demands from others who hope to be rewarded for their bad behavior, to be paid for stopping what they should never have been doing. Israel, meanwhile, will be left struggling to explain how precious its settlements really are if a payoff - albeit a high one - is enough to see them frozen.
And both countries will need a new rationale for the exceedingly steep price of what Israel calls its security requirements, but which will now look more like poker chips used to secure American aid.
This bargaining exercise has been unseemly all along. If it proceeds, both sides will probably regret it. But the deal has not yet been sealed. And it is not too late to start over.
(Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, teaches Middle East politics at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
