126 Days to Go
By Sherwin Pomerantz
The fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly opens 126 days from today, on September 14th with the speeches by heads of state beginning just nine days later on September 23rd. Is Israel ready? I don’t think so.
It is clear to everyone that the thrust of Palestinian diplomatic activity prior to the opening of the General Assembly is to garner worldwide support for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and now Gaza, within the 1967 armistice lines (and that’s what they are, they are not “borders” as they are commonly called by diplomats and the press alike). As it appears today the world community will support that desire even though there is a reasonable chance that the U.S. will, albeit somewhat reluctantly, use its veto to prevent the Security Council from giving its approval to such a move. But that may not be the end of the story. There is always UN Resolution 377 (more about that tomorrow).
The Palestinians have made their position clear. They desire (a) an independent country within the physical confines described above, (b) the right of return of the refugees from 1948 and 1967 (and their descendants), and (c) a capital located in Jerusalem. Of course, coupled with all of that is their insistence (given President Obama’s first raising of the concept) of a freeze on all settlement construction and an understanding, in Mahmoud Abbas’ words, that no Jew will live in the newly created Palestinian state (which, of course, means the dismantling of all settlements). He even went so far as to say that should international peacekeeping forces also be part of the package, that no Jews could be part of those forces either. The Palestinian position could not be clearer. And what is the Israeli position?
Well, sadly, our position is not so clear. Our leadership speaks about seeking peace, our people here want peace, but our government, in spite of the urgings of many on both sides of the aisle, remains mute on what Israel wants and expects as a sovereign nation with a 63 year history of success. My sense is that we cannot afford to be silent and that not putting a plan on the table is significantly more dangerous to our long term survival here than anything we have faced in the last 63 years of our history.
We know from our history that, when we remain silent, conditions are imposed on us which are not generally in our best interests. Approaching a debate on a Palestinian state without our putting on the table our clear and unequivocal demands is tantamount to writing our own death certificate.
For those of us who understand that in order to survive here long term we need to come to some end of the conflict with our neighbors, we know the broad outlines of what our government here should demand as minimum conditions under which we can live side by side with a Palestinian state. They include (a) a demilitarized Palestinian state, (b) the continued existence of the large settlement blocs such as Gush Etzion, Ariel, Ma’ale Adumim, and the like, (c) a very limited right of return for some small percentage of families who were actually forced to leave in 1948 and 1967 [and not those who left voluntarily], (d) the maintenance of a united Jerusalem with the Old City under Israeli supervision and (e) the right of Jews who want to do so to live in the newly created independent Palestine.
Neither their position nor ours will end up to be the final framework and I am not even sure that my suggested points are exactly what we should be putting on the table, but we should put something on the table with the understanding that both sides will need to negotiate the resolution on those points where there is obvious disagreement.
Israel is the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people. We need to keep telling ourselves that over and over again and our leadership needs to believe it as well.
Our Prime Minister is due to make addresses shortly both at the AIPAC conference later this month as well as at a Joint Session of the US Congress. But before he goes to the US for these meetings, he owes it to us, those of us living here and whose future is bound up in this country, to tell us what our government’s position is in response to Palestinian activity in the run-up to the opening of the UN in September. We are owed that and it should be delivered to us here in Israel and not as a news report from America. We deserve nothing less!
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Roger Cohen: Time to Go
ROGER COHEN: TIME TO GO
Roger Cohen, whom the New York Times labels a globalist, penned the following description of Israel in his April 7th op-ed piece circulated on line and in print, as well, in the international edition of the International Herald Tribune:
…the siege mentality of a nation controlling the lives of millions of Palestinians but unsure what to do with them or with the world’s growing disavowal of this corrosive dominion that humiliates its victims and eats into the soul of its masters.
He is, of course, saying this in a piece speaking about Judge Goldstone’s earlier op-ed piece in the Washington Post wherein the learned Judge disavowed some of the negative findings in what has generally become known as the Goldstone Report, although there were three other authors who signed their names to this as well, and they have issued no such retraction.
Not happy with what Judge Goldstone wrote in his own op-ed piece, Cohen could not help but conclude with the following statement, his own “Cohen Report” on the exercise we here in Israel called Operation Cast Lead:
Meanwhile, the facts remain: the 1,400 plus Palestinians dead, the 13 Israelis killed, the devastation, the Hamas rockets – and the need for credible investigation of what all evidence suggests were large-scale, indiscriminate, unlawful Israeli attacks in Gaza, as well as Hamas’ crimes against civilians.
Frankly, I am tired of Roger Cohen, the Jewish immigrant from England sitting comfortably in his New York apartment and finding ways to swipe at Israel in every op-ed piece he writes, even if the topic has nothing to do with Israel. But to Roger Cohen, everything in the world has to do with Israel and sometimes he appears obsessed with Israel, but not enough to live here, of course.
For example, during the period October 1-December 10 of last year five of his op-ed pieces alone dealt with Israel, as if there was nothing else going on in the world worthy of his attention. In the last of these columns, on December 10th, he says that
The view that American Jews supportive of Israel but critical of its policies are not “real Jews” is….widespread.
His evidence of course is his intimate knowledge of the core approach of major US Jewish organizations such as AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Well, I know an awful lot of “real Jews’ who are, indeed, critical of our policies here and while I wish there were fewer of them, I would certainly not question their Jewishness, but Cohen does.
He is also sloppy in his analysis of facts. In one of his earlier pieces he said that US President Obama “had virtually no domestic constituency for his attempt to denounce the continued growth of settlements.” Well, some of us here may wish that was true but we all know that a significant segment of American Jewry very definitely agrees with the President.
And, of course, this past week’s description of Israel as a “corrosive dominion that humiliates its victims and eats into the soul of its masters” is certainly not an accurate description of the country in which I have elected to live these last 27 years. To be sure, we have our problems here and the future is anything but secure, that is as clear today as it has been since the second Lebanese war. At that time it became clear that we no longer possessed the dominant deterrent capability that had protected us since 1967. And yes, we do have a challenge before us, how best to live in a land that needs to be fairly shared by two peoples, each of whom claims a historic connection to that land. But solving that problem is the job of those of us who live here, all of us, and not Roger Cohen and his ilk that choose to deal with their discomfort in being Jewish by spewing forth their venom to constantly criticize those of us who have placed our collective futures on the line in this land of our forefathers.
Perhaps the New York Times, as an earlier pundit suggested, should follow the tradition they started when they booted Irving Kristol and do the same with Roger Cohen. We would all be better off as a result.
Roger Cohen, whom the New York Times labels a globalist, penned the following description of Israel in his April 7th op-ed piece circulated on line and in print, as well, in the international edition of the International Herald Tribune:
…the siege mentality of a nation controlling the lives of millions of Palestinians but unsure what to do with them or with the world’s growing disavowal of this corrosive dominion that humiliates its victims and eats into the soul of its masters.
He is, of course, saying this in a piece speaking about Judge Goldstone’s earlier op-ed piece in the Washington Post wherein the learned Judge disavowed some of the negative findings in what has generally become known as the Goldstone Report, although there were three other authors who signed their names to this as well, and they have issued no such retraction.
Not happy with what Judge Goldstone wrote in his own op-ed piece, Cohen could not help but conclude with the following statement, his own “Cohen Report” on the exercise we here in Israel called Operation Cast Lead:
Meanwhile, the facts remain: the 1,400 plus Palestinians dead, the 13 Israelis killed, the devastation, the Hamas rockets – and the need for credible investigation of what all evidence suggests were large-scale, indiscriminate, unlawful Israeli attacks in Gaza, as well as Hamas’ crimes against civilians.
Frankly, I am tired of Roger Cohen, the Jewish immigrant from England sitting comfortably in his New York apartment and finding ways to swipe at Israel in every op-ed piece he writes, even if the topic has nothing to do with Israel. But to Roger Cohen, everything in the world has to do with Israel and sometimes he appears obsessed with Israel, but not enough to live here, of course.
For example, during the period October 1-December 10 of last year five of his op-ed pieces alone dealt with Israel, as if there was nothing else going on in the world worthy of his attention. In the last of these columns, on December 10th, he says that
The view that American Jews supportive of Israel but critical of its policies are not “real Jews” is….widespread.
His evidence of course is his intimate knowledge of the core approach of major US Jewish organizations such as AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Well, I know an awful lot of “real Jews’ who are, indeed, critical of our policies here and while I wish there were fewer of them, I would certainly not question their Jewishness, but Cohen does.
He is also sloppy in his analysis of facts. In one of his earlier pieces he said that US President Obama “had virtually no domestic constituency for his attempt to denounce the continued growth of settlements.” Well, some of us here may wish that was true but we all know that a significant segment of American Jewry very definitely agrees with the President.
And, of course, this past week’s description of Israel as a “corrosive dominion that humiliates its victims and eats into the soul of its masters” is certainly not an accurate description of the country in which I have elected to live these last 27 years. To be sure, we have our problems here and the future is anything but secure, that is as clear today as it has been since the second Lebanese war. At that time it became clear that we no longer possessed the dominant deterrent capability that had protected us since 1967. And yes, we do have a challenge before us, how best to live in a land that needs to be fairly shared by two peoples, each of whom claims a historic connection to that land. But solving that problem is the job of those of us who live here, all of us, and not Roger Cohen and his ilk that choose to deal with their discomfort in being Jewish by spewing forth their venom to constantly criticize those of us who have placed our collective futures on the line in this land of our forefathers.
Perhaps the New York Times, as an earlier pundit suggested, should follow the tradition they started when they booted Irving Kristol and do the same with Roger Cohen. We would all be better off as a result.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Israel and Egypt
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.
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.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Response to Roger Cohen - Again
RESPONSE TO ROGER COHEN'S LATEST DIATRIBE
Roger, once again you choose to look at one incident, at one person, at one issue and come up with one solution.
The issue of peace in the Middle East has nothing to do with settlements. Rather, peace is always dependent on the two parties openly recognizing each other's right to "be".
As soon as the leaders of Egypt and Jordan said to Israel we recognize the right of Israel to be in this region, peace became attainable. Towards that end Israel yielded the entire Sinai and dismantled whatever settlements were there and moved the people inside the new borders of Israel. In Jordan's case there was an exchange of some land and an agreement for some long term leases. But in each case the first step was a recognition that those of us living here have a right to be here.
As long as the Palestinians reject that truism, as long as they continue to maintain that every historical record of our 3,500 year existence in this land is a lie (witness their recent denial of any Jewish connection to the Western Wall) there cannot be peace. For sure, other causes will be given as the reason and settlements is one of those issues. But it is not the core issue. The core issue is an unwillingness to recognize our rights in this place even within the 1967 borders (which are not borders at all, but simply lines drawn on a map during a truce negotiation).
I remain unsure why you don't get this and why you think that the case of this young student has anything to do with the peace process. We, like every other country, have our issues with free speech but the issue of peace is, first and foremost, an issue of recognition.
Lordy would I love to debate you on this on one of my frequent trips to America.
Best regards and shabbat shalom
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
sherwin@atid-edi.com
=================================================================================
ORIGINAL ARTICLE APPEARS BELOW:
December 9, 2010
New York Times On Line
The 'Real Jew' Debate
By ROGER COHEN
LONDON — Ira Stup was raised in Philadelphia attending Jewish day school and camps. He found his home in the Jewish community and was “intoxicated with Jewish democracy” as framed in the ideals of Israel’s foundation. Now he has returned deeply troubled from a one-year fellowship based in Tel Aviv.
The worst single incident occurred on Ben Yehuda Street in central Jerusalem. Stup, 24, a Columbia graduate, was returning from a rally with a couple of friends carrying a banner that said, “Zionists are not settlers.” A group of religious Jews wearing yarmulkes approached, spat on them and started punching.
“About 20 people saw the whole thing and just watched. They were screaming, ‘You are not real Jews.’ Most of them were American. It was one of the most disappointing moments of my life — you can disagree as much as you want with a banner but to allow violence and not react is outrageous. For me it was a turning point. Nobody previously had said I was not a real Jew.”
The view that American Jews supportive of Israel but critical of its policies are not “real Jews” is, however, widespread. Israel-right-or-wrong continues to be the core approach of major U.S. Jewish organizations, from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
To oppose the continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank (“Zionists are not settlers”), or question growing anti-Arab bigotry as personified by Israel’s rightist foreign minister and illustrated by the “loyalty oath” debate, or ask whether the “de-legitimization” of Israel might not have something to do with its own actions is to incur these organizations’ steady ire.
Debate remains stifled, despite Peter Beinart’s important piece this year in the New York Review of Books describing growing alienation among young American Jews asked to “check their liberalism at Zionism’s door.” Oh, sure, you can find all sorts of opinions about Israel all over the place; America remains an open society. But Aipac has systematically shunned a debate with J Street, the upstart Jewish organization that supports Israel, opposes the settlements and attempts to reclaim the progressive ideals of Zionism by saying that the systematic oppression of the Palestinians undermines Israel.
“These organizations’ view remains essentially that any time you engage in an activity critical of Israel you are trying to destroy the state of Israel,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, told me. “Here are all these Jewish kids being raised on great liberal values at Hebrew schools — walks for the homeless, Darfur, AIDS — but God forbid we talk about what’s happening in Israel! It’s a dynamic that cuts off discourse.”
The issues are worth debating at the highest level. Middle East talks have just broken down again, precisely over settlements. President Barack Obama had virtually no domestic constituency for his attempt to denounce the continued growth of settlements as unacceptable and as undermining a two-state peace at its core: land.
Obama was left dangling, more so after the midterms, and had to retreat. This is not merely a failure of the parties. It is a failure of U.S. politics and the way those politics are straitjacketed by an Israel-right-or-wrong mantra that leads inexorably, over time, to one state with more Arabs in it than Jews. What then will remain of the Zionist dream?
Stup’s research took him often to the West Bank. He would come back to Tel Aviv and talk about Palestinian humiliation he’d seen and found that Israelis seemed unaware or unconcerned. He read in one newspaper that 53 percent of Israeli Jews would encourage Israeli Arabs to leave — “and I saw and felt that anecdotally.”
A painful question hardened: “Seeing what the occupation looked like, and given the ideals of Jewish democracy I was raised on, I wondered: Could Israel be failing and could we American Jews be defending that failure?”
It’s time to think again and, above all, think openly. Last month, Ben-Ami was scheduled to speak at a Reform Jewish synagogue, Temple Beth Avodah, in Newton, near Boston. At the last minute the event got canceled because of what the rabbi described as strong opposition from a “small, influential group” within the congregation.
Jewish groups, or Hillel societies, on U.S. campuses sometimes discover they will lose their biggest donors if they allow a J Street youth group to form within them.
Last month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking to the Jewish Federations of North America in New Orleans, was heckled by protesters holding banners suggesting the occupation and loyalty oaths de-legitimize Israel. Their banners were ripped (with teeth) and the young Jews dragged out. Where an important conversation could be held, confrontation prevails.
Stup, moved to act, has joined J Street. This decision caused tremendous pressure on his family back in Philadelphia. One very close family friend came over to his mother’s house recently and accused him of “poisoning the minds of young Jews.” The friendship has been strained to breaking point.
“Why,” Stup asked me, “is it poisoning minds to encourage them to think critically about the actions of the Israeli government?”
Roger, once again you choose to look at one incident, at one person, at one issue and come up with one solution.
The issue of peace in the Middle East has nothing to do with settlements. Rather, peace is always dependent on the two parties openly recognizing each other's right to "be".
As soon as the leaders of Egypt and Jordan said to Israel we recognize the right of Israel to be in this region, peace became attainable. Towards that end Israel yielded the entire Sinai and dismantled whatever settlements were there and moved the people inside the new borders of Israel. In Jordan's case there was an exchange of some land and an agreement for some long term leases. But in each case the first step was a recognition that those of us living here have a right to be here.
As long as the Palestinians reject that truism, as long as they continue to maintain that every historical record of our 3,500 year existence in this land is a lie (witness their recent denial of any Jewish connection to the Western Wall) there cannot be peace. For sure, other causes will be given as the reason and settlements is one of those issues. But it is not the core issue. The core issue is an unwillingness to recognize our rights in this place even within the 1967 borders (which are not borders at all, but simply lines drawn on a map during a truce negotiation).
I remain unsure why you don't get this and why you think that the case of this young student has anything to do with the peace process. We, like every other country, have our issues with free speech but the issue of peace is, first and foremost, an issue of recognition.
Lordy would I love to debate you on this on one of my frequent trips to America.
Best regards and shabbat shalom
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
sherwin@atid-edi.com
=================================================================================
ORIGINAL ARTICLE APPEARS BELOW:
December 9, 2010
New York Times On Line
The 'Real Jew' Debate
By ROGER COHEN
LONDON — Ira Stup was raised in Philadelphia attending Jewish day school and camps. He found his home in the Jewish community and was “intoxicated with Jewish democracy” as framed in the ideals of Israel’s foundation. Now he has returned deeply troubled from a one-year fellowship based in Tel Aviv.
The worst single incident occurred on Ben Yehuda Street in central Jerusalem. Stup, 24, a Columbia graduate, was returning from a rally with a couple of friends carrying a banner that said, “Zionists are not settlers.” A group of religious Jews wearing yarmulkes approached, spat on them and started punching.
“About 20 people saw the whole thing and just watched. They were screaming, ‘You are not real Jews.’ Most of them were American. It was one of the most disappointing moments of my life — you can disagree as much as you want with a banner but to allow violence and not react is outrageous. For me it was a turning point. Nobody previously had said I was not a real Jew.”
The view that American Jews supportive of Israel but critical of its policies are not “real Jews” is, however, widespread. Israel-right-or-wrong continues to be the core approach of major U.S. Jewish organizations, from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
To oppose the continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank (“Zionists are not settlers”), or question growing anti-Arab bigotry as personified by Israel’s rightist foreign minister and illustrated by the “loyalty oath” debate, or ask whether the “de-legitimization” of Israel might not have something to do with its own actions is to incur these organizations’ steady ire.
Debate remains stifled, despite Peter Beinart’s important piece this year in the New York Review of Books describing growing alienation among young American Jews asked to “check their liberalism at Zionism’s door.” Oh, sure, you can find all sorts of opinions about Israel all over the place; America remains an open society. But Aipac has systematically shunned a debate with J Street, the upstart Jewish organization that supports Israel, opposes the settlements and attempts to reclaim the progressive ideals of Zionism by saying that the systematic oppression of the Palestinians undermines Israel.
“These organizations’ view remains essentially that any time you engage in an activity critical of Israel you are trying to destroy the state of Israel,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, told me. “Here are all these Jewish kids being raised on great liberal values at Hebrew schools — walks for the homeless, Darfur, AIDS — but God forbid we talk about what’s happening in Israel! It’s a dynamic that cuts off discourse.”
The issues are worth debating at the highest level. Middle East talks have just broken down again, precisely over settlements. President Barack Obama had virtually no domestic constituency for his attempt to denounce the continued growth of settlements as unacceptable and as undermining a two-state peace at its core: land.
Obama was left dangling, more so after the midterms, and had to retreat. This is not merely a failure of the parties. It is a failure of U.S. politics and the way those politics are straitjacketed by an Israel-right-or-wrong mantra that leads inexorably, over time, to one state with more Arabs in it than Jews. What then will remain of the Zionist dream?
Stup’s research took him often to the West Bank. He would come back to Tel Aviv and talk about Palestinian humiliation he’d seen and found that Israelis seemed unaware or unconcerned. He read in one newspaper that 53 percent of Israeli Jews would encourage Israeli Arabs to leave — “and I saw and felt that anecdotally.”
A painful question hardened: “Seeing what the occupation looked like, and given the ideals of Jewish democracy I was raised on, I wondered: Could Israel be failing and could we American Jews be defending that failure?”
It’s time to think again and, above all, think openly. Last month, Ben-Ami was scheduled to speak at a Reform Jewish synagogue, Temple Beth Avodah, in Newton, near Boston. At the last minute the event got canceled because of what the rabbi described as strong opposition from a “small, influential group” within the congregation.
Jewish groups, or Hillel societies, on U.S. campuses sometimes discover they will lose their biggest donors if they allow a J Street youth group to form within them.
Last month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking to the Jewish Federations of North America in New Orleans, was heckled by protesters holding banners suggesting the occupation and loyalty oaths de-legitimize Israel. Their banners were ripped (with teeth) and the young Jews dragged out. Where an important conversation could be held, confrontation prevails.
Stup, moved to act, has joined J Street. This decision caused tremendous pressure on his family back in Philadelphia. One very close family friend came over to his mother’s house recently and accused him of “poisoning the minds of young Jews.” The friendship has been strained to breaking point.
“Why,” Stup asked me, “is it poisoning minds to encourage them to think critically about the actions of the Israeli government?”
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.)
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Recognizing Truth and Praising It
The following piece appeared in the Jerusalem Post on November 3rd to which I responded. My response is below the piece by Ray Hanania who is an American of Palestinian origin and an outspoken activist for peace. His syndicated pieces appear regularly throughout the US and in the Jerusalem Post as well. I felt that this particular item needed a strong response and that even Hanania had to know the differences between Israel and its neighbors, whose blatant violations if human rights rarely make it into the world press.
================================================================================
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=193732
JERUSALEM POST
11/032010
Yalla Peace: Unfazed and unafraid
By Ray Hanania
The case of Haneen Zoabi exposes flaws in Israeli democracy. Israel claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East, but sometimes it doesn’t really act like it. A case in point is the growing animosity in Israel toward Haneen Zoabi, an Arab member of Knesset from Balad who insists on testing Israel’s democracy.
Zoabi was among those on the Mavi Marmara – part of the flotilla which attempted to break the Gaza blockade in May. She is resolute in speaking about what she calls discriminatory policies against Arab citizens. I caught up with Zoabi during one of her stops in a tour of the US where she made the case that Israel talks the talk when it comes to democracy but fails to walk the walk.
“I am not afraid of what the Israelis are trying to do to me,” Zoabi told me at a Chicago convention of Palestinian Americans.
“The attacks by right-wing members of Knesset and politicians do not bother me. I am not afraid to stand up to them. I am strong.”
Zoabi is defiant, and her views can’t easily be brushed aside.
The first woman elected on an Arab slate to the Knesset in March 2009, and the third Arab woman elected to the Knesset altogether, Zoabi comes from a long line of Arab Israelis from Nazareth who have engaged in politics.
She is related to Seif el-Din e- Zoubi, a former mayor of Nazareth who served in the Knesset between 1949 and 1959, and from 1965 until 1979, and to Abed el-Aziz el-Zoubi, a deputy health minister and the first Arab member of an Israeli government.
But none of her relatives faced the anger and hostility that has been directed against her over the past year. Her support for the flotilla ignited a wave of harsh criticism. Jewish Knesset members have called for her to be prosecuted and stripped of the immunity that Knesset members enjoy.
Zoabi brushed aside the rising criticism as “a reflection of the new realities in Israel” that have pushed the Jewish state from the center to the extreme Right.
“Actually, this bothers the [Jewish] Israelis more than it bothers me. The criticism and anti-Arab hatred has become more severe, growing in intensity since the second intifada. It escalated even more after the Lebanon war,” Zoabi said.
She said the backlash against Arabs citizens challenging Israeli policies started with Azmi Bishara, a Knesset member who was very critical. Following the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Bishara was accused of high treason and charges were brought against him following allegations that he aided the enemy during wartime, was in contact with a foreign agent and involved in money-laundering activities. After being stripped of his immunity, Bishara fled Israel and resigned from the Knesset in 2007 via the Israeli Embassy in Cairo.
“The deterioration between Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis began with Bishara,” Zoabi said. “But it has reached a tipping point.”
CRITICISM IS a hallmark of true democracies.
The more Israel tries to silence Arab critics, the more it exposes the limits of its democracy.
“Israelis have always been racist against Arab citizens. It is growing,” Zoabi argued. “But I don’t see that as a threat to me as a Palestinian. It is a threat to the normalcy of life of the Israelis themselves. At one time, the racism was rational, a part of the Jewish character of the state. Today, that racism is more and more irrational.”
The only satisfaction that Israelis might get from all this is that Arabs in America are politically dysfunctional.
Although they can draw large crowds to conferences marked by angry speeches, like the one held in a suburb of Chicago this past weekend, the events get little or no coverage in the mainstream media. Americans are not hearing Palestinian complaints. Yet.
Palestinians in America do most of their talking to themselves. But one day that will change and Americans will look more closely at Israel’s policies toward its Arab citizens. Zoabi symbolizes a crack that continues to grow in the wall of Israel’s claim to the “only democracy in the Middle East.”
===============================================================================
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Letters/Article.aspx?id=193909
JERUSALEM POST
November 4, 2010
She should thank her lucky stars
Sir, – When Ray Hanania speaks about MK Haneen Zoabi and her claim that Israel only claims to be a democratic state (“Unfazed and unafraid,” Yalla peace, November 3), he misses a major point.
If Zoabi was a citizen of any other country in the region, whether Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq or Iran, and then boarded a boat to break a blockade that the country maintained against an enemy entity, she would probably disappear one day and never be heard from again.
Even American citizens, living in that great democracy of the West, would have been arrested 10 years ago if they attempted to travel to Cuba.
Our legislators have to understand that being a Knesset member carries with it certain obligations to uphold the laws of the country they serve. Attempting to run a government blockade is nothing less than the willful breaking of the law.
Zoabi should be arrested and tried for treason – that’s what real democracies would do. So I guess she is right, this is not a real democracy and she should thank her lucky stars for that.
SHERWIN POMERANTZ
Jerusalem
================================================================================
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=193732
JERUSALEM POST
11/032010
Yalla Peace: Unfazed and unafraid
By Ray Hanania
The case of Haneen Zoabi exposes flaws in Israeli democracy. Israel claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East, but sometimes it doesn’t really act like it. A case in point is the growing animosity in Israel toward Haneen Zoabi, an Arab member of Knesset from Balad who insists on testing Israel’s democracy.
Zoabi was among those on the Mavi Marmara – part of the flotilla which attempted to break the Gaza blockade in May. She is resolute in speaking about what she calls discriminatory policies against Arab citizens. I caught up with Zoabi during one of her stops in a tour of the US where she made the case that Israel talks the talk when it comes to democracy but fails to walk the walk.
“I am not afraid of what the Israelis are trying to do to me,” Zoabi told me at a Chicago convention of Palestinian Americans.
“The attacks by right-wing members of Knesset and politicians do not bother me. I am not afraid to stand up to them. I am strong.”
Zoabi is defiant, and her views can’t easily be brushed aside.
The first woman elected on an Arab slate to the Knesset in March 2009, and the third Arab woman elected to the Knesset altogether, Zoabi comes from a long line of Arab Israelis from Nazareth who have engaged in politics.
She is related to Seif el-Din e- Zoubi, a former mayor of Nazareth who served in the Knesset between 1949 and 1959, and from 1965 until 1979, and to Abed el-Aziz el-Zoubi, a deputy health minister and the first Arab member of an Israeli government.
But none of her relatives faced the anger and hostility that has been directed against her over the past year. Her support for the flotilla ignited a wave of harsh criticism. Jewish Knesset members have called for her to be prosecuted and stripped of the immunity that Knesset members enjoy.
Zoabi brushed aside the rising criticism as “a reflection of the new realities in Israel” that have pushed the Jewish state from the center to the extreme Right.
“Actually, this bothers the [Jewish] Israelis more than it bothers me. The criticism and anti-Arab hatred has become more severe, growing in intensity since the second intifada. It escalated even more after the Lebanon war,” Zoabi said.
She said the backlash against Arabs citizens challenging Israeli policies started with Azmi Bishara, a Knesset member who was very critical. Following the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Bishara was accused of high treason and charges were brought against him following allegations that he aided the enemy during wartime, was in contact with a foreign agent and involved in money-laundering activities. After being stripped of his immunity, Bishara fled Israel and resigned from the Knesset in 2007 via the Israeli Embassy in Cairo.
“The deterioration between Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis began with Bishara,” Zoabi said. “But it has reached a tipping point.”
CRITICISM IS a hallmark of true democracies.
The more Israel tries to silence Arab critics, the more it exposes the limits of its democracy.
“Israelis have always been racist against Arab citizens. It is growing,” Zoabi argued. “But I don’t see that as a threat to me as a Palestinian. It is a threat to the normalcy of life of the Israelis themselves. At one time, the racism was rational, a part of the Jewish character of the state. Today, that racism is more and more irrational.”
The only satisfaction that Israelis might get from all this is that Arabs in America are politically dysfunctional.
Although they can draw large crowds to conferences marked by angry speeches, like the one held in a suburb of Chicago this past weekend, the events get little or no coverage in the mainstream media. Americans are not hearing Palestinian complaints. Yet.
Palestinians in America do most of their talking to themselves. But one day that will change and Americans will look more closely at Israel’s policies toward its Arab citizens. Zoabi symbolizes a crack that continues to grow in the wall of Israel’s claim to the “only democracy in the Middle East.”
===============================================================================
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Letters/Article.aspx?id=193909
JERUSALEM POST
November 4, 2010
She should thank her lucky stars
Sir, – When Ray Hanania speaks about MK Haneen Zoabi and her claim that Israel only claims to be a democratic state (“Unfazed and unafraid,” Yalla peace, November 3), he misses a major point.
If Zoabi was a citizen of any other country in the region, whether Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq or Iran, and then boarded a boat to break a blockade that the country maintained against an enemy entity, she would probably disappear one day and never be heard from again.
Even American citizens, living in that great democracy of the West, would have been arrested 10 years ago if they attempted to travel to Cuba.
Our legislators have to understand that being a Knesset member carries with it certain obligations to uphold the laws of the country they serve. Attempting to run a government blockade is nothing less than the willful breaking of the law.
Zoabi should be arrested and tried for treason – that’s what real democracies would do. So I guess she is right, this is not a real democracy and she should thank her lucky stars for that.
SHERWIN POMERANTZ
Jerusalem
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Insulting God
Insulting God
The pictures at Ben Gurion Airport of last week’s migration of Jews traveling to Uman for Rosh Hashona to be in the city where Rabbi Nachman z’l is buried generated a mixed reaction in me.
On the one hand, to see close to 18,000 people traveling to one place to join together in celebrating the Jewish New Year is, as the Yiddishists among us might say, Gevaldik (i.e. loosely translated as “grand:).
On the other hand some male travelers chose to wear a scarf under their traditional hats, with nothing but the slimmest of slits for their eyes, while others made original use of airlines’ sleep masks to cover their eyes. The move, according to a report in Yedioth Ahronoth, was meant to “protect” their eyes from immodest views, read “women.”
The Hasidim involved went through the entire airport security check with the covers on or briefly off and looking down, followed by what can only be described as a mad dash towards the safety of the plane, as reported in local papers. The makeshift blindfolds were taken off only when they were seated on the plane. They were put back on when the female flight attendants began making the rounds with the food carts.
The Kiev airport saw a repeat performance, to the surprise of its security personnel, especially, of course, the females among them.
After the shock of seeing this mimicry of the Taliban, I thought about it a bit more and realized how insulted God must be by the behavior of those who, in the name of religion, tamper with His creations.
According to tradition, God created man in his own image (Genesis 1:27). Although, according to biblical text, man sinned very early in the game, as it were, the fact is that man remains created in God’s image albeit now with the ability to judge right from wrong, to make choices and to attempt to live the kind of righteous life that God intended. To live righteously God provided all of us with the tools necessary to make judgments and avoid temptations, so as not to stray off the straight and narrow as it were. Given all that has been bequeathed to us as human beings, why do we need to insulate ourselves further from supposed temptations by tampering with God’s work?
It seems to me that putting on a scarf to shield one’s eyes from looking at women, is nothing more than an insult to God and his work. After all God endowed us with the capacity to keep such things in perspective. By adding a scarf, for example, those who do so are basically saying to God “you really did not create such a perfect being and I am too weak to carry out your injunctions without such an addition to my clothing.”
No doubt those who chose to dress themselves in this manner will object to this line of thinking on my part. They may say that they are doing this in an attempt to observe God’s laws. But the obvious fact is that by dressing thusly, they are putting the final nail in the coffin of our people’s ability to observe God’s laws without multiple physical aids which, by their use, testify to their belief that man, as created by God, does not have the ability to live the kind of life that God intended for him.
What a sad commentary on the status of religious life today and what an insult to the Creator. How disappointed He must be in some of his children.
The pictures at Ben Gurion Airport of last week’s migration of Jews traveling to Uman for Rosh Hashona to be in the city where Rabbi Nachman z’l is buried generated a mixed reaction in me.
On the one hand, to see close to 18,000 people traveling to one place to join together in celebrating the Jewish New Year is, as the Yiddishists among us might say, Gevaldik (i.e. loosely translated as “grand:).
On the other hand some male travelers chose to wear a scarf under their traditional hats, with nothing but the slimmest of slits for their eyes, while others made original use of airlines’ sleep masks to cover their eyes. The move, according to a report in Yedioth Ahronoth, was meant to “protect” their eyes from immodest views, read “women.”
The Hasidim involved went through the entire airport security check with the covers on or briefly off and looking down, followed by what can only be described as a mad dash towards the safety of the plane, as reported in local papers. The makeshift blindfolds were taken off only when they were seated on the plane. They were put back on when the female flight attendants began making the rounds with the food carts.
The Kiev airport saw a repeat performance, to the surprise of its security personnel, especially, of course, the females among them.
After the shock of seeing this mimicry of the Taliban, I thought about it a bit more and realized how insulted God must be by the behavior of those who, in the name of religion, tamper with His creations.
According to tradition, God created man in his own image (Genesis 1:27). Although, according to biblical text, man sinned very early in the game, as it were, the fact is that man remains created in God’s image albeit now with the ability to judge right from wrong, to make choices and to attempt to live the kind of righteous life that God intended. To live righteously God provided all of us with the tools necessary to make judgments and avoid temptations, so as not to stray off the straight and narrow as it were. Given all that has been bequeathed to us as human beings, why do we need to insulate ourselves further from supposed temptations by tampering with God’s work?
It seems to me that putting on a scarf to shield one’s eyes from looking at women, is nothing more than an insult to God and his work. After all God endowed us with the capacity to keep such things in perspective. By adding a scarf, for example, those who do so are basically saying to God “you really did not create such a perfect being and I am too weak to carry out your injunctions without such an addition to my clothing.”
No doubt those who chose to dress themselves in this manner will object to this line of thinking on my part. They may say that they are doing this in an attempt to observe God’s laws. But the obvious fact is that by dressing thusly, they are putting the final nail in the coffin of our people’s ability to observe God’s laws without multiple physical aids which, by their use, testify to their belief that man, as created by God, does not have the ability to live the kind of life that God intended for him.
What a sad commentary on the status of religious life today and what an insult to the Creator. How disappointed He must be in some of his children.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
