This is my response to the editorial below which appeared in the NY Times on Friday.
===================================================================================
To the editor of the NY Times:
Your editorial on the need for Israeli Prime Minister to make yet more concessions in order to get the Palestinians to the negotiating table once again bespeaks the paper’s unwillingness to understand the playing field on which Israel is operating.
Israel has already conceded its willingness to agree to a two state solution with a Palestinian state on its border; it has agreed, in principle, to return to the 1967 borders in return for true peace; it has agreed, as well, to allocate a portion of what the world calls East Jerusalem to the Palestinians for its capital; and, in a show of incredible commitment to the peace process itself, it unilaterally withdrew from Gaza displacing thousands of its citizens and destroying over a dozen communities, for which it received absolutely nothing in return save a five year barrage of rockets in the south of the country and the continuing loss of its troop’s lives defending its southern border (witness the death of two of our soldiers on Friday at the hands of Hamas operatives who were trying to lay mines on the border itself).
So, none of us living here can blame the Prime Minister for standing tough on construction anywhere in Jerusalem and even in biblical Judea and Samaria which the world refers to as the West Bank. Israel’s position in this regard is supported by the vast majority of the Israeli public and taking this position in a dialogue with an ally such as the US should not have caused President Obama to treat our Prime Minister during his US visit last week like someone from Equatorial Guinea.
Yes, friends have to be honest with each other. But friends also have to recognize the realities with which each of them are involved and, as both a US and an Israel citizen, I must say that this time I think the reaction of the US administration has been “way over the top” during the post-Biden visit discussions. Frankly, when and if the Palestinian leadership decides to come to the negotiating table in earnest, we here in Israel will still have to have some concessions to offer in order to make peace. The real settlements, not Jerusalem neighborhoods but those small but courageous communities in the West Bank, will probably be on the chopping block at that time. No good negotiator would yield those in advance of the discussion.
Sincerely,
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
=============================================================================
March 27, 2010
EDITORIAL
Mr. Obama and Israel
After taking office last year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel privately told many Americans and Europeans that he was committed to and capable of peacemaking, despite the hard-line positions that he had used to get elected for a second time. Trust me, he told them. We were skeptical when we first heard that, and we’re even more skeptical now.
All this week, the Obama administration had hoped Mr. Netanyahu would give it something to work with, a way to resolve the poisonous contretemps over Jerusalem and to finally restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. It would have been a relief if they had succeeded. Serious negotiations on a two-state solution are in all their interests. And the challenges the United States and Israel face — especially Iran’s nuclear program — are too great for the leaders not to have a close working relationship.
But after a cabinet meeting on Friday, Mr. Netanyahu and his right-wing government still insisted that they would not change their policy of building homes in the city, including East Jerusalem, which Palestinians hope to make the capital of an independent state.
President Obama made pursuing a peace deal a priority and has been understandably furious at Israel’s response. He correctly sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a factor in wider regional instability.
Mr. Netanyahu’s government provoked the controversy two weeks ago when it disclosed plans for 1,600 new housing units in an ultra-orthodox neighborhood in East Jerusalem just as Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. was on a fence-mending visit and Israeli-Palestinian “proximity talks” were to begin.
Last year, Mr. Netanyahu rejected Mr. Obama’s call for a freeze on all settlement building. On Tuesday — just before Mr. Obama hosted Mr. Netanyahu at the White House — Israeli officials revealed plans to build 20 units in the Shepherd Hotel compound of East Jerusalem.
Palestinians are justifiably worried that these projects nibble away at the land available for their future state. The disputes with Israel have made Mr. Obama look weak and have given Palestinians and Arab leaders an excuse to walk away from the proximity talks (in which Mr. Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, would shuttle between Jerusalem and Ramallah) that Washington nurtured.
Mr. Obama was right to demand that Mr. Netanyahu repair the damage. Details of their deliberately low-key White House meeting (no photos, no press, not even a joint statement afterward) have not been revealed. We hope Israel is being pressed to at least temporarily halt building in East Jerusalem as a sign of good faith. Jerusalem’s future must be decided in negotiations.
The administration should also insist that proximity talks, once begun, grapple immediately with core issues like borders and security, not incidentals. And it must ensure that the talks evolve quickly to direct negotiations — the only realistic format for an enduring agreement.
Many Israelis find Mr. Obama’s willingness to challenge Israel unsettling. We find it refreshing that he has forced public debate on issues that must be debated publicly for a peace deal to happen. He must also press Palestinians and Arab leaders just as forcefully.
Questions from Israeli hard-liners and others about his commitment to Israel’s security are misplaced. The question is whether Mr. Netanyahu is able or willing to lead his country to a peace deal. He grudgingly endorsed the two-state solution. Does he intend to get there?
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Israel Apartheid Accusations in Portland
Israel Apartheid Accusations in Portland
Earlier today my business partner and I were scheduled to deliver a seminar at a downtown Portland, Oregon hotel on the topic of doing business in Israel and the Middle East. Portland was stop number two on a four city tour which began yesterday in Denver and will move next week to Jackson, Mississippi and then New Orleans.
We had discussed before we left Israel that it was entirely possible that some people, seeing the topic, would decide to use the occasion to demonstrate against Israel by parading outside the seminar venue. So it was no surprise when at 7:30 AM the manager of the hotel came to the site of the seminar to tell us that there were a handful of demonstrators outside the hotel voicing their opposition to Israel knowing that an event related to Israel was scheduled to be held inside the building.
The manager offered that when we left the building if we wanted to use a side entrance he would escort us in that direction. I countered by saying that we were actually guests in the hotel so we had no reason to be concerned about leaving as, after the seminar, our intent was to go back to our rooms. He looked a bit puzzled but simply said he was ready to assist if need be. And that, we thought, was the end of it.
The seminar, sponsored by the Oregon Business Development Department, went well, with an opening presentation by the Mayor of Portland’s Director of International Affairs. After our presentation the floor was thrown open for questions and that’s when the shock began.
In this audience of business people who were presumably there to learn how to enter new export markets in order to increase their sales volume in these difficult economic times, the first questioner wanted to know why a department of the state government was sponsoring an event related to increasing business with an “apartheid” country, a country that was guilty of a host of human rights violations and continued to sieze territory against the laws of the Geneva convention. Not realizing there would be more questions of this type, our response was basically that we do not engage in political discussions during business meetings.
However, the second questioner continued in kind wanting to know why the state was not warning its companies of the danger of doing business with Israeli firms. After all, he continue, the strength of the boycott campaign against Israel continues to grow and local companies may find themselves boycotted in America if they continue to do business with Israel. The representative of Oregon in the room responded by saying that there were dangers in doing business in a lot of places in the world and the Department did its best to apprise local companies of the dangers but did not dissuade them from entering such markets.
But all of this is, of course, not the problem. The problem is that most of us living in Israel, while we hear of incidents like this, tend not to internalize them and that is probably natural. But the official government line, of late, has taken the same tack, saying that while the government is aware of the problem, it is nothing new and, therefore, does not warrant a response. This was the official line a couple of weeks ago after Ambassador to the US Michael Oren was disrespected at a presentation at the University of California/Irvine as were other diplomats in the UK as well.
This mistaken approach that nothing is serious enough to warrant a response, is the same kind of thinking that ultimately results in calamity for the Jewish people. For those who have not seen anti Israel and/or anti Jewish behavior face to face, perhaps it is possible to think this is not serious. But when you see it up close as we did this morning, the clear and present danger makes itself quite obvious.
George Santayana put it best when he opined “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Let’s hope he was wrong.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Portland, Oregon
11 March 2010
Earlier today my business partner and I were scheduled to deliver a seminar at a downtown Portland, Oregon hotel on the topic of doing business in Israel and the Middle East. Portland was stop number two on a four city tour which began yesterday in Denver and will move next week to Jackson, Mississippi and then New Orleans.
We had discussed before we left Israel that it was entirely possible that some people, seeing the topic, would decide to use the occasion to demonstrate against Israel by parading outside the seminar venue. So it was no surprise when at 7:30 AM the manager of the hotel came to the site of the seminar to tell us that there were a handful of demonstrators outside the hotel voicing their opposition to Israel knowing that an event related to Israel was scheduled to be held inside the building.
The manager offered that when we left the building if we wanted to use a side entrance he would escort us in that direction. I countered by saying that we were actually guests in the hotel so we had no reason to be concerned about leaving as, after the seminar, our intent was to go back to our rooms. He looked a bit puzzled but simply said he was ready to assist if need be. And that, we thought, was the end of it.
The seminar, sponsored by the Oregon Business Development Department, went well, with an opening presentation by the Mayor of Portland’s Director of International Affairs. After our presentation the floor was thrown open for questions and that’s when the shock began.
In this audience of business people who were presumably there to learn how to enter new export markets in order to increase their sales volume in these difficult economic times, the first questioner wanted to know why a department of the state government was sponsoring an event related to increasing business with an “apartheid” country, a country that was guilty of a host of human rights violations and continued to sieze territory against the laws of the Geneva convention. Not realizing there would be more questions of this type, our response was basically that we do not engage in political discussions during business meetings.
However, the second questioner continued in kind wanting to know why the state was not warning its companies of the danger of doing business with Israeli firms. After all, he continue, the strength of the boycott campaign against Israel continues to grow and local companies may find themselves boycotted in America if they continue to do business with Israel. The representative of Oregon in the room responded by saying that there were dangers in doing business in a lot of places in the world and the Department did its best to apprise local companies of the dangers but did not dissuade them from entering such markets.
But all of this is, of course, not the problem. The problem is that most of us living in Israel, while we hear of incidents like this, tend not to internalize them and that is probably natural. But the official government line, of late, has taken the same tack, saying that while the government is aware of the problem, it is nothing new and, therefore, does not warrant a response. This was the official line a couple of weeks ago after Ambassador to the US Michael Oren was disrespected at a presentation at the University of California/Irvine as were other diplomats in the UK as well.
This mistaken approach that nothing is serious enough to warrant a response, is the same kind of thinking that ultimately results in calamity for the Jewish people. For those who have not seen anti Israel and/or anti Jewish behavior face to face, perhaps it is possible to think this is not serious. But when you see it up close as we did this morning, the clear and present danger makes itself quite obvious.
George Santayana put it best when he opined “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Let’s hope he was wrong.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Portland, Oregon
11 March 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Protecting Jewish Heritage Sites Worldwide
The recent announcement by Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that the government has added the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem to Israel’s list of national heritage sites has raised a storm of protest in the Palestinian community that is both worrying and disappointing.
On Tuesday of this week Ismail Hanieyh of Hamas urged Palestinians in the West Bank to rise up against Israeli forces in response to the decision which Palestinian Authority President Abbas has warned may trigger another “intifada” against the Jews.
The worrying aspect of the response clearly relates to our right as a people to be concerned for the long term welfare of sites worldwide that reflect our history and traditions. Most countries in the world, even those not counted among our friends, recognize this right and even respect it. So, in countries where we have good diplomatic relations, such as Poland, the government there has no qualms whatsoever about our paying to rehabilitate synagogues, cemeteries and other community buildings whose existence is testimony to our long history in that particular place. In Egypt the central government itself is paying for the restoration of a historic synagogue in Cairo because they recognize the importance of the structure in the history of that country. Even in Lebanon, where Hizbollah dominates the political scene, work is now under way to bring the historic Magen-Avraham Synagogue in downtown Beirut to its former glory.
As for the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb, of course we should be worried about their long term well being, given where they are located, in territory which most likely will end up in the hands of a Palestinian government when and if a state is created. After all, was it not in October 2000 after Israel gave over Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus to Palestinian control that the site was ransacked and torched and then closed to further visits by Jews? Should we not be afraid that when and if sites such as the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb end up under Palestinian control that they might suffer the same fate as Jacob’s Tomb? And why wouldn’t the Palestinian Authority welcome the contribution of funds from Israel to assist in the upkeep of these sites? Does it make any sense otherwise?
The disappointing side of the response of our “cousins” is that, once again, a recognition by Israel of the importance to us, as Jews, of the burial place of our patriarchs and their wives, is used to encourage anger, resistance and political discomfort rather than applauding the decision for what it is…a statement about our concern for the long term well being of two of the most important sites in the history of the Jewish people.
The story is told that in 1967 when then Defense Minister Moshe Dayan arrived in Hebron to accept the Arab surrender, he was given the keys to the Cave of the Patriarchs and, after touring the inside of the structure, he returned the keys to the Arabs at the site. Later, Rabbi Goren, the Chief Rabbi of the IDF, brought a Torah Scroll and Holy Ark into the Herodian-era structure and hung an Israeli flag outside. The next day he received a telegram from Dayan containing the following orders: “1. Remove the Torah and Ark; 2. Lower the flag; 3. Anyone entering the building must take off his shoes, because it is a mosque.” Rabbi Goren responded by telegram with the following response: “1.The Torah is holy - it stays. 2. The flag means to me what it means to you - if you want to take it down, you do it. I'm not touching it.” Dayan sent an officer into Hebron to remove the flag. On his way back to Jerusalem, the unfortunate man was killed in an auto accident. Dayan then rescinded the other orders he had originally given.
The Roman Senator, Cicero, in his first oration against Cataline began with the Latin words “O tempora, O mores” which translates to “Oh what times, oh what customs” as he bemoaned the viciousness and corruption of the Roman Empire. Today, we might utter the very same words as we listen to the viciousness of the response to seemingly everything we do and, more often than not, by entities which themselves are corrupt as well.
We dare not back down and, in retrospect, perhaps Moshe Dayan really made a mistake in giving up those keys so easily. We should learn a lesson from history.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
February 24, 2010
The recent announcement by Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that the government has added the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem to Israel’s list of national heritage sites has raised a storm of protest in the Palestinian community that is both worrying and disappointing.
On Tuesday of this week Ismail Hanieyh of Hamas urged Palestinians in the West Bank to rise up against Israeli forces in response to the decision which Palestinian Authority President Abbas has warned may trigger another “intifada” against the Jews.
The worrying aspect of the response clearly relates to our right as a people to be concerned for the long term welfare of sites worldwide that reflect our history and traditions. Most countries in the world, even those not counted among our friends, recognize this right and even respect it. So, in countries where we have good diplomatic relations, such as Poland, the government there has no qualms whatsoever about our paying to rehabilitate synagogues, cemeteries and other community buildings whose existence is testimony to our long history in that particular place. In Egypt the central government itself is paying for the restoration of a historic synagogue in Cairo because they recognize the importance of the structure in the history of that country. Even in Lebanon, where Hizbollah dominates the political scene, work is now under way to bring the historic Magen-Avraham Synagogue in downtown Beirut to its former glory.
As for the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb, of course we should be worried about their long term well being, given where they are located, in territory which most likely will end up in the hands of a Palestinian government when and if a state is created. After all, was it not in October 2000 after Israel gave over Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus to Palestinian control that the site was ransacked and torched and then closed to further visits by Jews? Should we not be afraid that when and if sites such as the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb end up under Palestinian control that they might suffer the same fate as Jacob’s Tomb? And why wouldn’t the Palestinian Authority welcome the contribution of funds from Israel to assist in the upkeep of these sites? Does it make any sense otherwise?
The disappointing side of the response of our “cousins” is that, once again, a recognition by Israel of the importance to us, as Jews, of the burial place of our patriarchs and their wives, is used to encourage anger, resistance and political discomfort rather than applauding the decision for what it is…a statement about our concern for the long term well being of two of the most important sites in the history of the Jewish people.
The story is told that in 1967 when then Defense Minister Moshe Dayan arrived in Hebron to accept the Arab surrender, he was given the keys to the Cave of the Patriarchs and, after touring the inside of the structure, he returned the keys to the Arabs at the site. Later, Rabbi Goren, the Chief Rabbi of the IDF, brought a Torah Scroll and Holy Ark into the Herodian-era structure and hung an Israeli flag outside. The next day he received a telegram from Dayan containing the following orders: “1. Remove the Torah and Ark; 2. Lower the flag; 3. Anyone entering the building must take off his shoes, because it is a mosque.” Rabbi Goren responded by telegram with the following response: “1.The Torah is holy - it stays. 2. The flag means to me what it means to you - if you want to take it down, you do it. I'm not touching it.” Dayan sent an officer into Hebron to remove the flag. On his way back to Jerusalem, the unfortunate man was killed in an auto accident. Dayan then rescinded the other orders he had originally given.
The Roman Senator, Cicero, in his first oration against Cataline began with the Latin words “O tempora, O mores” which translates to “Oh what times, oh what customs” as he bemoaned the viciousness and corruption of the Roman Empire. Today, we might utter the very same words as we listen to the viciousness of the response to seemingly everything we do and, more often than not, by entities which themselves are corrupt as well.
We dare not back down and, in retrospect, perhaps Moshe Dayan really made a mistake in giving up those keys so easily. We should learn a lesson from history.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
February 24, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Threat of Interational Apartheid Week
The Threat of International Apartheid Week
As some of my readers may know, the period of time from March 1-14, 2010 has been designated “Apartheid Week” worldwide. You can see more about this attack on Israel’s legitimacy by going to www.apartheidweek.org where the venom of the organizers is clearly spelled out and shared in a video as well.
The theme of the week is boycott, divestment and sanctions, all designed to, as the web site states, “educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system” and clearly aimed at feeding the appetite of those who seek to destroy the state and rid Israel of its Jewish and Zionist roots.
It is amazing to me that given that this is an international event, our government here has been incredibly quiet about the negative ramifications of such an event on world opinion. Unless, of course, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is taking the same position as it took to the insulting treatment given our Ambassador to the US Michael Oren when he tried to speak in California two weeks ago. At that time, in a truly amazing misunderstanding of the situation, the reaction was that this was all being blown out of proportion and that this kind of thing happens all the time.
Well, indeed it does but if there is no reaction, if there is no movement to counter the false accusations and the attendant libelous statements, then we are guilty of aiding and abetting those who seek to discredit us or worse, to destroy us.
To the credit of the US Jewish community, people there have mounted a multi pronged campaign to counter those who support this vile enterprise.
From what I have heard Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods, two national retail food chains there feature Israeli products and the American Jewish Community is urging people to make a point during this period of buying said products and letting the store managers know why the buyers are doing so. There is even a web site, www.buyisraelgoods.org that tells people where they can go to buy Israeli products.
In addition, in certain regions such as the New York metropolitan area student groups have organized to oppose the boycott. One of those, the David Project, also has its own website: www.davidproject.org.
This writer applauds those efforts and wishes those who have committed themselves to spreading the truth, will be successful. Hopefully, all the people around the world who care about preserving Israel’s right to exist as a democratic and Jewish state will take up the challenge and do whatever can be done to discredit the deligitimizing effect of the work of the week’s organizers and make the point that whatever situation actually exists on the ground here, it is definitely not apartheid.
In 1777 Thomas Paine wrote “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” And Andrew Jackson, in his farewell address to the nation in 1837 stated “Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty.”
Let us hope we are up to the challenge.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem, February 22, 2010
As some of my readers may know, the period of time from March 1-14, 2010 has been designated “Apartheid Week” worldwide. You can see more about this attack on Israel’s legitimacy by going to www.apartheidweek.org where the venom of the organizers is clearly spelled out and shared in a video as well.
The theme of the week is boycott, divestment and sanctions, all designed to, as the web site states, “educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system” and clearly aimed at feeding the appetite of those who seek to destroy the state and rid Israel of its Jewish and Zionist roots.
It is amazing to me that given that this is an international event, our government here has been incredibly quiet about the negative ramifications of such an event on world opinion. Unless, of course, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is taking the same position as it took to the insulting treatment given our Ambassador to the US Michael Oren when he tried to speak in California two weeks ago. At that time, in a truly amazing misunderstanding of the situation, the reaction was that this was all being blown out of proportion and that this kind of thing happens all the time.
Well, indeed it does but if there is no reaction, if there is no movement to counter the false accusations and the attendant libelous statements, then we are guilty of aiding and abetting those who seek to discredit us or worse, to destroy us.
To the credit of the US Jewish community, people there have mounted a multi pronged campaign to counter those who support this vile enterprise.
From what I have heard Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods, two national retail food chains there feature Israeli products and the American Jewish Community is urging people to make a point during this period of buying said products and letting the store managers know why the buyers are doing so. There is even a web site, www.buyisraelgoods.org that tells people where they can go to buy Israeli products.
In addition, in certain regions such as the New York metropolitan area student groups have organized to oppose the boycott. One of those, the David Project, also has its own website: www.davidproject.org.
This writer applauds those efforts and wishes those who have committed themselves to spreading the truth, will be successful. Hopefully, all the people around the world who care about preserving Israel’s right to exist as a democratic and Jewish state will take up the challenge and do whatever can be done to discredit the deligitimizing effect of the work of the week’s organizers and make the point that whatever situation actually exists on the ground here, it is definitely not apartheid.
In 1777 Thomas Paine wrote “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” And Andrew Jackson, in his farewell address to the nation in 1837 stated “Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty.”
Let us hope we are up to the challenge.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem, February 22, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Facing the Hard Facts on Iran
Today’s papers are, as usual, full of articles about Iran and how the world should deal with the growing nuclear threat emanating from that sorry corner of the world.
Talk continues about increasing sanctions, isolating the country and, of course, whether or not a military option exists and, if it is an alternative, which country (or countries) will do it? Frankly, I am tiring of the rhetoric which seems to have no effect whatsoever on the Iranian regime as it continues to thumb its nose at the entire world.
From the Israel Street, it seems to me that it is time to face the facts as they are today and as they pretty much will remain for some time to come:
• Sanctions would be wonderful if they could be applied uniformly but all evidence points to the fact that China and Russia, given their specific interests in cooperating with Iran, will never support effective sanctions again Iran. If they have not been willing to come to the table until now, most probably they never will.
• The US and Israel in particular speak about a military option but again, let’s face the facts. America is already fighting two wars in the region and most probably has no taste for entering a third area of conflict. Admiral Mullen, Head of the US’ Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Israel this week, has said in no uncertain terms that invoking a military option would be a disaster for the region. Anyone that high in the US government does not make statements like this unless they reflect the policy of the administration. So, no doubt, the US will not invoke a military option against Iran anytime soon.
• As for Israel, while we say that we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran, the fact is that a military strike by Israel, if successful, would not stop Iran’s nuclear program as their sites are too numerous and too well hidden to be successfully disabled (Iran is not the Iraq of 29 years ago). Secondly, Israel understands as well that such a strike on our part would cause mass casualties here and there is a real question whether we can psychologically recover from thousands killed and hundreds of thousands injured by Iran’s response to an Israeli attack.
• There is also a great deal of talk about or hope for the destabilizing of the current regime in Iran. But that, too, if it happens, does not guarantee the end of the threat. The basic foundations of the political establishment in Iran operate on a set of principles and objectives that will, most probably, remain in place even if the dissidents were to take over. A new regime might be lest bombastic and even more pleasant to deal with, but we dare not delude ourselves into thinking that a Moussavi or his equivalent will present a kindler, gentler approach to the region and the rest of the world.
We can believe otherwise but the facts are staring us in the face and are difficult to refute.
Having said this, what real options are available to those of us who are sincerely and legitimately concerned about the direction that Iran is taking in its foreign policy? I think that there are only two that have any chance of success and both accept, in principle that the world will have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.
First, the world’s media should simply stop reporting on Iran and its maniacal leader. Every time Ahmadinejad is quoted in the papers spewing forth his vitriol against the US, Israel, the UK, the West, or whoever, it gives him exposure he does not deserve. At the risk of being too simplistic, I say “who cares what he says?” The world press should simply isolate Iran as a news item. Neither Ahmadinejad nor the regime there are important enough for me to read about every time I pick up a paper or go on line. And we can do this one country at a time, starting here.
Secondly, the President of Iran, given his continual calls for the destruction of a member state of the United Nations, does not deserve to be hosted by any country that considers itself a member of the community of nations. As such, countries should simply reject any request from Iran for its president to visit. The US, as an example, while it has to allow Ahmadinejad to come to New York for the annual opening session of the UN, does not have to permit him to stay in the country any longer than the time allotted for his speech. To permit him to travel the region and speak to universities and other public policy groups is simply encouraging him to become even more recalcitrant in his approach to countries with which he disagrees. He should be allowed to land, go to the UN, give his obnoxious speech and leave….end of story.
40 years ago when I started my first business in Chicago, I had an accountant with whom I met every month. He was also an investor in the company and at one of those meetings he said something that has stayed with me all these years: “Make sure you never believe your own lies.” We human beings tell ourselves all sorts of stories but we need to make sure that we never believe our own lies.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem, 16 February 2010
Today’s papers are, as usual, full of articles about Iran and how the world should deal with the growing nuclear threat emanating from that sorry corner of the world.
Talk continues about increasing sanctions, isolating the country and, of course, whether or not a military option exists and, if it is an alternative, which country (or countries) will do it? Frankly, I am tiring of the rhetoric which seems to have no effect whatsoever on the Iranian regime as it continues to thumb its nose at the entire world.
From the Israel Street, it seems to me that it is time to face the facts as they are today and as they pretty much will remain for some time to come:
• Sanctions would be wonderful if they could be applied uniformly but all evidence points to the fact that China and Russia, given their specific interests in cooperating with Iran, will never support effective sanctions again Iran. If they have not been willing to come to the table until now, most probably they never will.
• The US and Israel in particular speak about a military option but again, let’s face the facts. America is already fighting two wars in the region and most probably has no taste for entering a third area of conflict. Admiral Mullen, Head of the US’ Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Israel this week, has said in no uncertain terms that invoking a military option would be a disaster for the region. Anyone that high in the US government does not make statements like this unless they reflect the policy of the administration. So, no doubt, the US will not invoke a military option against Iran anytime soon.
• As for Israel, while we say that we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran, the fact is that a military strike by Israel, if successful, would not stop Iran’s nuclear program as their sites are too numerous and too well hidden to be successfully disabled (Iran is not the Iraq of 29 years ago). Secondly, Israel understands as well that such a strike on our part would cause mass casualties here and there is a real question whether we can psychologically recover from thousands killed and hundreds of thousands injured by Iran’s response to an Israeli attack.
• There is also a great deal of talk about or hope for the destabilizing of the current regime in Iran. But that, too, if it happens, does not guarantee the end of the threat. The basic foundations of the political establishment in Iran operate on a set of principles and objectives that will, most probably, remain in place even if the dissidents were to take over. A new regime might be lest bombastic and even more pleasant to deal with, but we dare not delude ourselves into thinking that a Moussavi or his equivalent will present a kindler, gentler approach to the region and the rest of the world.
We can believe otherwise but the facts are staring us in the face and are difficult to refute.
Having said this, what real options are available to those of us who are sincerely and legitimately concerned about the direction that Iran is taking in its foreign policy? I think that there are only two that have any chance of success and both accept, in principle that the world will have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.
First, the world’s media should simply stop reporting on Iran and its maniacal leader. Every time Ahmadinejad is quoted in the papers spewing forth his vitriol against the US, Israel, the UK, the West, or whoever, it gives him exposure he does not deserve. At the risk of being too simplistic, I say “who cares what he says?” The world press should simply isolate Iran as a news item. Neither Ahmadinejad nor the regime there are important enough for me to read about every time I pick up a paper or go on line. And we can do this one country at a time, starting here.
Secondly, the President of Iran, given his continual calls for the destruction of a member state of the United Nations, does not deserve to be hosted by any country that considers itself a member of the community of nations. As such, countries should simply reject any request from Iran for its president to visit. The US, as an example, while it has to allow Ahmadinejad to come to New York for the annual opening session of the UN, does not have to permit him to stay in the country any longer than the time allotted for his speech. To permit him to travel the region and speak to universities and other public policy groups is simply encouraging him to become even more recalcitrant in his approach to countries with which he disagrees. He should be allowed to land, go to the UN, give his obnoxious speech and leave….end of story.
40 years ago when I started my first business in Chicago, I had an accountant with whom I met every month. He was also an investor in the company and at one of those meetings he said something that has stayed with me all these years: “Make sure you never believe your own lies.” We human beings tell ourselves all sorts of stories but we need to make sure that we never believe our own lies.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem, 16 February 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Just in this past week we have seen a number of instances of anti-Israel (read: anti-semitic) outbursts aimed at speakers who have been scheduled to appear at various universities around the world.
For example, the appearance of Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren at the University of California/Irvine was met by numerous verbal outbursts against him and against the “apartheid” State of Israel during his presentation sponsored by the school’s Political Science Department.
Israel’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Danny Ayalon, who is also a former Ambassador to the U.S., was verbally assaulted at a speech he tried to give at Oxford University earlier this week.
Ben Gurion University of the Negev’s Professor of History and prolific writer, Benny Morris, was recently dis-invited by the Israel Society at Cambridge University after protestors accused him of being guilty of “Islamaphobia” and “racism.”
While universities have never been a source of significant support for Israel, of late the chances of any Israeli speaker appearing at a university forum anywhere in the west without being harassed or verbally assaulted are almost nil.
And yet, what is our response as Jews and as Israelis? In articles that appeared in this morning’s papers here the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has taken the position that this kind of verbal haranguing and protest is standard on university campuses and that the media is blowing the importance of such actions way out of proportion. I disagree.
For our government to take an official position that this is just more of the same and for the organized Jewish community in these locations to remain virtually silent gives the impression to the rest of the good citizens of each community that we, as Jews, do not care what the protestors say or what the heckler’s do. Frankly, we cannot afford that kind of passivity as we know, from our history, that passive response to these kinds of anti-semitic acts (even though they may be couched in anti-Israel terms….there is no difference any longer) generally leads to more serious infringements on our rights as members of the human race.
So what should our response be? At a minimum, every time one of these events occurs anywhere in the world, the local Jewish community, along with its real friends and supporters, should immediately mount a massive protest march denouncing the disrespect being shown to visiting dignitaries while underscoring the ultimate danger to all of the community’s citizens should this type of activity be allowed to continue.
16 years ago in Billings, Montana, the (really) small Jewish community there was traumatized when a rock was thrown through the window of the bedroom of a Jewish youngster whose parents had the audacity to exhibit a Chanukah Menorah in the window of the home. At that time the Jewish community stood up and with the incredible support of the majority of the citizens of that city, made the public statement: “Not in Our Town.” The result was an outpouring of support from the local citizenry which sent a message to the bigots that this type of behavior is not acceptable and a national movement began which spread throughout the country.
Today, we must also say, in every location where such anti-semitic events occur, “Not in Our Town” and that message must be loud and clear and supported, as well, by the Government of Israel that has, as its obligation, to be the Government of the Jewish People. Else we abandon our responsibility to our brethren worldwide and to the promise that gave rise to the birth of this country in the first place.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
February 11, 2010
For example, the appearance of Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren at the University of California/Irvine was met by numerous verbal outbursts against him and against the “apartheid” State of Israel during his presentation sponsored by the school’s Political Science Department.
Israel’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Danny Ayalon, who is also a former Ambassador to the U.S., was verbally assaulted at a speech he tried to give at Oxford University earlier this week.
Ben Gurion University of the Negev’s Professor of History and prolific writer, Benny Morris, was recently dis-invited by the Israel Society at Cambridge University after protestors accused him of being guilty of “Islamaphobia” and “racism.”
While universities have never been a source of significant support for Israel, of late the chances of any Israeli speaker appearing at a university forum anywhere in the west without being harassed or verbally assaulted are almost nil.
And yet, what is our response as Jews and as Israelis? In articles that appeared in this morning’s papers here the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has taken the position that this kind of verbal haranguing and protest is standard on university campuses and that the media is blowing the importance of such actions way out of proportion. I disagree.
For our government to take an official position that this is just more of the same and for the organized Jewish community in these locations to remain virtually silent gives the impression to the rest of the good citizens of each community that we, as Jews, do not care what the protestors say or what the heckler’s do. Frankly, we cannot afford that kind of passivity as we know, from our history, that passive response to these kinds of anti-semitic acts (even though they may be couched in anti-Israel terms….there is no difference any longer) generally leads to more serious infringements on our rights as members of the human race.
So what should our response be? At a minimum, every time one of these events occurs anywhere in the world, the local Jewish community, along with its real friends and supporters, should immediately mount a massive protest march denouncing the disrespect being shown to visiting dignitaries while underscoring the ultimate danger to all of the community’s citizens should this type of activity be allowed to continue.
16 years ago in Billings, Montana, the (really) small Jewish community there was traumatized when a rock was thrown through the window of the bedroom of a Jewish youngster whose parents had the audacity to exhibit a Chanukah Menorah in the window of the home. At that time the Jewish community stood up and with the incredible support of the majority of the citizens of that city, made the public statement: “Not in Our Town.” The result was an outpouring of support from the local citizenry which sent a message to the bigots that this type of behavior is not acceptable and a national movement began which spread throughout the country.
Today, we must also say, in every location where such anti-semitic events occur, “Not in Our Town” and that message must be loud and clear and supported, as well, by the Government of Israel that has, as its obligation, to be the Government of the Jewish People. Else we abandon our responsibility to our brethren worldwide and to the promise that gave rise to the birth of this country in the first place.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
February 11, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Should Israelis Residing Abroad Vote in Israeli Elections?
The latest brouhaha in Israel revolves around a change being proposed in the election law that would permit Israeli citizens living abroad to vote in national elections by, presumably, going to their local Israeli embassy or consulate and casting their ballots there.
The “pro” forces are saying that Israeli citizenship carries with it the right to vote, regardless of where a person may be living at the moment, while the “anti” forces are taking the position that unless a person lives here and carries the burden of his/her actions on a daily basis, the right to vote is not an inherent one transferable to any location on earth. Other “anti” forces also add their fear that because, in their opinion, so many Israelis living abroad are “right wing” politically (not something that I have found to be true, by the way), that the current government is supporting such a move in order to bolster its position in the next election.
But the entire argument misses the point. The issue at hand is really: What defines citizenship in Israel? In most democratic countries citizenship is something you carry with you from place to place so that the rights and obligations of citizenship remain with the individual regardless of where the person resides at any given moment in time. US citizens, for example, have the obligation to file US tax returns and pay the required taxes wherever they may live, that is an obligation. But they also have a right to vote in national elections wherever they may live and the two would seem to go hand in hand. Similar regulations apply to British and Danish citizens as well as those from a number of other countries as well.
Of course, much of the current criticism revolves around claims that Israelis living abroad have chosen to “opt out” and are really citizens in name only, with nothing more than a visceral connection to the country. But there are also many Israelis who are abroad during elections for other reasons. Some are traveling, some are stationed abroad temporarily by their employers to manage the operations of Israeli companies in those countries while others are studying at universities or gaining valuable international experience which they intend to take back to Israel at some time.
So, as in everything else, the issues are not black and white, but in most cases are rather gray. While Israel has never, in the past, extended the right to vote to citizens abroad, the country really is disenfranchising a large segment of the population, many of whom really are active citizens of the state.
For those of us in middle Israel, the solution is an obvious one. There should be some basic tests of active citizenship that are applied to those living abroad and wanting to vote that will legitimize their request and which request should be answered in the affirmative. These might include holding a valid Israeli passport, possessing an up to date Israeli identity card, having paid Israeli income tax as required and any other proofs of actively being a citizen of Israel, even though the person is physically domiciled abroad.
But to deny this basic right of citizenship to people living abroad out of a fear as to how they will vote or for any other similarly illogic reason makes the state guilty of “stealing” an inherent right of citizens of democratic countries and should not be permitted to continue unchallenged.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
February 9, 2010
The latest brouhaha in Israel revolves around a change being proposed in the election law that would permit Israeli citizens living abroad to vote in national elections by, presumably, going to their local Israeli embassy or consulate and casting their ballots there.
The “pro” forces are saying that Israeli citizenship carries with it the right to vote, regardless of where a person may be living at the moment, while the “anti” forces are taking the position that unless a person lives here and carries the burden of his/her actions on a daily basis, the right to vote is not an inherent one transferable to any location on earth. Other “anti” forces also add their fear that because, in their opinion, so many Israelis living abroad are “right wing” politically (not something that I have found to be true, by the way), that the current government is supporting such a move in order to bolster its position in the next election.
But the entire argument misses the point. The issue at hand is really: What defines citizenship in Israel? In most democratic countries citizenship is something you carry with you from place to place so that the rights and obligations of citizenship remain with the individual regardless of where the person resides at any given moment in time. US citizens, for example, have the obligation to file US tax returns and pay the required taxes wherever they may live, that is an obligation. But they also have a right to vote in national elections wherever they may live and the two would seem to go hand in hand. Similar regulations apply to British and Danish citizens as well as those from a number of other countries as well.
Of course, much of the current criticism revolves around claims that Israelis living abroad have chosen to “opt out” and are really citizens in name only, with nothing more than a visceral connection to the country. But there are also many Israelis who are abroad during elections for other reasons. Some are traveling, some are stationed abroad temporarily by their employers to manage the operations of Israeli companies in those countries while others are studying at universities or gaining valuable international experience which they intend to take back to Israel at some time.
So, as in everything else, the issues are not black and white, but in most cases are rather gray. While Israel has never, in the past, extended the right to vote to citizens abroad, the country really is disenfranchising a large segment of the population, many of whom really are active citizens of the state.
For those of us in middle Israel, the solution is an obvious one. There should be some basic tests of active citizenship that are applied to those living abroad and wanting to vote that will legitimize their request and which request should be answered in the affirmative. These might include holding a valid Israeli passport, possessing an up to date Israeli identity card, having paid Israeli income tax as required and any other proofs of actively being a citizen of Israel, even though the person is physically domiciled abroad.
But to deny this basic right of citizenship to people living abroad out of a fear as to how they will vote or for any other similarly illogic reason makes the state guilty of “stealing” an inherent right of citizens of democratic countries and should not be permitted to continue unchallenged.
Sherwin Pomerantz
Jerusalem
February 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
