Should Israel Strike Iran Pre-emptively?
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu left for the US last night to both address the AIPAC conference scheduled for Washington next week (with a record 13,000 participants expected) and for a pre-arranged meeting with US President Obama at the White House.
The newspapers here this morning have underscored the fact that Netanyahu’s aim on this trip is to convince the US to play the military option card more seriously, to play it with sufficient resolve so that the Iranians understand it, and, if all else fails, to actually launch an attack. Personally, I don’t think that the Prime Minister will be able to convince the President to move in this direction, the pro-military action remarks of the Republican presidential hopefuls and the Israel-friendly US Congress notwithstanding.
Obama has, for the three years of this presidential term, been all about reducing the US’ military activities abroad, not engaging in new military operations and, to a large extent as well, doing whatever he can to pacify the Muslim world. That, as we saw last week, even to the extent of apologizing profusely for inadvertent US actions that demanded no apology at all (witness the accidental destruction of volumes of the Koran as the US prepared to leave a military base in Afghanistan).
My sense is that the best Netanyahu will get out of the President is a repeat of the statement that the security cooperation between our two countries has never been more intense and that the US will standby Israel given our role as an important ally in the region. But I don’t anticipate that the President will be ready to put US lives at risk in an attack on Iran nor do I believe he wants to put the US as a whole at risk of higher oil prices and/or retaliatory attacks on US installations abroad. Certainly not in an election year where he is holding most of the cards in the face of a Republican opposition that does not seen to be able to present a candidate who could give him a reasonable run for his money.
So where does that leave Israel? Should we make good on our claim that we cannot stand by and allow Iran to develop an operational nuclear bomb? Or should we wait and see what happens with an Iranian leadership that, at every possible opportunity, raises the specter of its desire to see Israel disappear from the face of the earth?
My response today, as it has been for the past year, is not to attack Iran. Polls published this week show that just 19% of the Israeli population favors a unilateral attack on Iran by Israel, 34% said they were against any attack on Iran while 42% favored an attack but only with US backing. (see http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/03/01/3091922/majority-of-israelis-oppose-iran-strike-poll-finds)
For many of us living here, it is obvious that a pre-emptory attack on Iran will not be like our bombing of the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981 or the bombing of the Syrian nuclear facility in 2007. First of all, Iran is neither Syria nor Iraq. Everyone seems to agree that Iran’s nuclear development cannot be stopped by an Israeli attack, only delayed at best. Secondly, Iran has the capability to retaliate “big time” and, in order to save face at home, will need to do so, according to most analysts. A retaliatory attack by Iran on Israel will cause significant death, injury and devastation to this country clearly beyond anything we have seen in the 64 years of the state’s existence. So it is no wonder that most Israelis vote “no” because none of us want to sign our own death warrants.
Those who agree that we should attack in any event because we cannot abide the risks inherent in an Iran with a nuclear attack capability argue that point in a cogent manner. Certainly none of us here have any guarantees that the Iranians won’t use that capability against us if they could. On the other hand, the Iranian leaders too, know that we have significant retaliatory capabilities, that if we are attacked we still have some friends left in the world who would support us, and that the resultant devastation to Iran and its population would make earlier wars in which we were involved look like kid’s play.
I don’t hold any hope that the US or any other country will immediately come to our defense. That has only occurred when, if we lost a war another country felt that as a result their interests would be harmed as well, as happened with the 1973 war when the US came to our aid. We would most likely stand alone. But Israel has a formidable military arsenal at its disposal and, if attacked, we would not be afraid to use it to its fullest. I believe that the Iranians understand this as well and that even their leaders acting in the name of religion would be loath to unleash what would end up as a bloody regional war.
None of us have a crystal ball. But while it is frightening to contemplate a nuclear Iran it is equally frightening to contemplate an Israel after a retaliatory attack. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, Ellen Tauscher, has stated: “Pre-emption is the right of any nation in order to preserve its National Security; however, pre-emptive war is a tactic, not a strategy. When used as a strategy pre-emption dilutes diplomacy, creates an atmosphere of distrust, and promotes regional instability.” That approach leads one to believe that we need to keep the military option on the table as a tactic but think 1000 times before we let it become a strategy.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Gutless Leadership
By Sherwin Pomerantz
For two days this week I have been in Washington DC to attend the Global Business Conference sponsored by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Representatives of 120 countries who do business with the US were invited as were an equivalent number of US business people and government officials to speak about how best to accomplish the President’s stated goal of doubling US exports over the next few years.
During Monday’s session US Trade Representative Ron Kirk spoke about some of the initiatives his office is proposing to make exporting to certain countries easier. One of the initiatives is to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment in order to remove a major obstacle to trade with Russia.
The Jackson–Vanik amendment is a 1974 provision in United States federal law, intended to affect U.S. trade relations with countries with non-market economies (originally, countries of the Communist bloc) that restrict freedom of emigration and other human rights. It was a response to the Soviet Union's "diploma taxes" levied on Jews attempting to emigrate, although the amendment doesn't specifically mention Jews and the tax did apply to all Soviet citizens, not only Jews. Nevertheless, shortly after its passage the gates of the Soviet Union did, indeed, open up and over a million Jews emigrated to the west.
The amendment was named after its major co-sponsors, Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington and Rep. Charles Vanik of Ohio. The amendment passed both houses of the Congress unanimously. President Gerald Ford signed the bill into law with the adopted amendment on January 3, 1975.
It hit me during Ron Kirk’s presentation on Monday that 40 years ago we had legislators in the US who understood the real power of economic diplomacy, that it was a sword that cut both ways, and that countries that blatantly violated the human rights of their citizens would not be granted equal opportunities to do business with America. Sen. Jackson and Rep. Vanik were legislators with the intestinal fortitude to state their position, convert it into proposed legislation and use their good offices to get the law passed.
Can anyone imagine that happening today? Do legislators today have the guts to link two diverse issues so that enacting US law can become a catalyst for the protection of human rights? I am not so sure.
For example, to date, over 5,000 Syrian citizens have been killed by their own governments’ forces. While a 2003 act by the US government does prohibit the export of certain goods to Syria, food, medicine and other items are exempt from the law. There has been no further update in light of the current murder of Syrian citizens by its own government.
Iran, which is moving ahead in rapid fashion with its nuclear program and continues to threaten Israel with annihilation, does have a series of specific restrictions on trade between the US and Iran which are relatively all encompassing. But why is there no decision by the congress to limit US visits by the President of Iran solely to the UN and to nowhere else? Why is he permitted to make speeches on US college campuses, hold wide ranging press conferences and travel at will when he does visit the US?
Sadly, I fear that the types of legislators which the US was blessed with 40 years ago are now no longer to be seen. Instead we see too many people concerned only about their narrow political interests and not committed, as Jackson and Vanik were, to using their political clout for the greater good of humanity.
Edmund Burke is credited with saying: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” The ghosts of Sen. Jackson and Rep. Vanik must be reeling from disappointment regarding the state of our current political leadership.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
For two days this week I have been in Washington DC to attend the Global Business Conference sponsored by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Representatives of 120 countries who do business with the US were invited as were an equivalent number of US business people and government officials to speak about how best to accomplish the President’s stated goal of doubling US exports over the next few years.
During Monday’s session US Trade Representative Ron Kirk spoke about some of the initiatives his office is proposing to make exporting to certain countries easier. One of the initiatives is to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment in order to remove a major obstacle to trade with Russia.
The Jackson–Vanik amendment is a 1974 provision in United States federal law, intended to affect U.S. trade relations with countries with non-market economies (originally, countries of the Communist bloc) that restrict freedom of emigration and other human rights. It was a response to the Soviet Union's "diploma taxes" levied on Jews attempting to emigrate, although the amendment doesn't specifically mention Jews and the tax did apply to all Soviet citizens, not only Jews. Nevertheless, shortly after its passage the gates of the Soviet Union did, indeed, open up and over a million Jews emigrated to the west.
The amendment was named after its major co-sponsors, Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington and Rep. Charles Vanik of Ohio. The amendment passed both houses of the Congress unanimously. President Gerald Ford signed the bill into law with the adopted amendment on January 3, 1975.
It hit me during Ron Kirk’s presentation on Monday that 40 years ago we had legislators in the US who understood the real power of economic diplomacy, that it was a sword that cut both ways, and that countries that blatantly violated the human rights of their citizens would not be granted equal opportunities to do business with America. Sen. Jackson and Rep. Vanik were legislators with the intestinal fortitude to state their position, convert it into proposed legislation and use their good offices to get the law passed.
Can anyone imagine that happening today? Do legislators today have the guts to link two diverse issues so that enacting US law can become a catalyst for the protection of human rights? I am not so sure.
For example, to date, over 5,000 Syrian citizens have been killed by their own governments’ forces. While a 2003 act by the US government does prohibit the export of certain goods to Syria, food, medicine and other items are exempt from the law. There has been no further update in light of the current murder of Syrian citizens by its own government.
Iran, which is moving ahead in rapid fashion with its nuclear program and continues to threaten Israel with annihilation, does have a series of specific restrictions on trade between the US and Iran which are relatively all encompassing. But why is there no decision by the congress to limit US visits by the President of Iran solely to the UN and to nowhere else? Why is he permitted to make speeches on US college campuses, hold wide ranging press conferences and travel at will when he does visit the US?
Sadly, I fear that the types of legislators which the US was blessed with 40 years ago are now no longer to be seen. Instead we see too many people concerned only about their narrow political interests and not committed, as Jackson and Vanik were, to using their political clout for the greater good of humanity.
Edmund Burke is credited with saying: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” The ghosts of Sen. Jackson and Rep. Vanik must be reeling from disappointment regarding the state of our current political leadership.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
May the Best (Wo)Man Win
By Sherwin Pomerantz
The Republican party’s primaries in Iowa earlier this week provided the world, once more, with an example of the strength of the democratic system in the United States. There were, of course, far too many candidates although this early in the presidential race that is generally the norm. Given the results, with the winner claiming victory by just 8 votes, no one can logically say that the decision of the electorate there pointed to a clear leader. Rather the message was that the voters really were undecided and couldn’t identify solidly with any one candidate over another.
But the strength of the system manifests itself in the fact that the election was fair, the results are not being contested and no one is suggesting that they be retroactively cancelled.
Not so in Israel. Take the case of the process for selecting judges for Israel’s supreme court. The panel of legal eagles composing the group that makes recommendations for the supreme court has traditionally included two representatives of the Israel Bar Association. Those representatives are voted upon by the bar’s membership at large at the same time that they vote for a new president of the association. The last time this occurred was in 2011 at which time the membership chose their two representatives to this important panel.
Now along comes the Minister of Justice, Yaakov Ne’eman, a Netanyahu appointee who is not a member of the Knesset of Israel, and decides that the two people selected by the bar association are not to his liking, not from his party and do not espouse his political views. To address this problem he proposes legislation to make it mandatory that the two representatives from the bar be one from the party in power and one from opposition which, if enacted, would then give his party the majority on the current selection committee. In principle, of course, this is an obvious example of gross political meddling in the judicial selection process.
But the proposed law went even further. Unhappy with waiting until the next time the bar has its elections, the Minister of Justice added conditions to the proposed law that, if enacted, would nullify the earlier elections of the bar and force them to be rescheduled in order to meet his particular political agenda.
As one might expect there was a major uproar in the land about this obviously biased and unfair piece of legislation which, until yesterday, was supported as well by the prime minister. But, surprisingly, there were a significant number of senior people in the prime minister’s own party who recognized this as a potential act in violation of the democratic principles on which Israel was founded. Even the attorney general opined that when the law would be challenged in court, as it surely would have been, he would not be able to defend it. Under that kind of pressure the prime minister had no recourse but to withdraw his support for the bill, even though it had already passed its first reading, virtually eliminating is potential for passage.
But no one here is applauding the prime minister for this action. He could have received well-deserved accolades had he refrained from supporting the bill in the first place purely on moral grounds. To withdraw his support in the face of public and party pressure, while laudable for its result, rather than at the point when the legislation was introduced, speaks to the moral bankruptcy of the government in power.
In an earlier blog I mentioned that from this writer’s perspective the country is on a slippery slope away from democracy. While many people agreed with me there were some who criticized me for being overly influenced by the left of center press here. But I do not accept that criticism. Slowly but surely the very flimsy separation of powers here, which is not nearly as well defined as it is in the US, are becoming less and less sharp. The danger of such slippage is a move away from democracy and the situation described here is just one example.
Edmund Burke was correct when he said “whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.” Those who seek to separate the two imperil the future of the nation.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
The Republican party’s primaries in Iowa earlier this week provided the world, once more, with an example of the strength of the democratic system in the United States. There were, of course, far too many candidates although this early in the presidential race that is generally the norm. Given the results, with the winner claiming victory by just 8 votes, no one can logically say that the decision of the electorate there pointed to a clear leader. Rather the message was that the voters really were undecided and couldn’t identify solidly with any one candidate over another.
But the strength of the system manifests itself in the fact that the election was fair, the results are not being contested and no one is suggesting that they be retroactively cancelled.
Not so in Israel. Take the case of the process for selecting judges for Israel’s supreme court. The panel of legal eagles composing the group that makes recommendations for the supreme court has traditionally included two representatives of the Israel Bar Association. Those representatives are voted upon by the bar’s membership at large at the same time that they vote for a new president of the association. The last time this occurred was in 2011 at which time the membership chose their two representatives to this important panel.
Now along comes the Minister of Justice, Yaakov Ne’eman, a Netanyahu appointee who is not a member of the Knesset of Israel, and decides that the two people selected by the bar association are not to his liking, not from his party and do not espouse his political views. To address this problem he proposes legislation to make it mandatory that the two representatives from the bar be one from the party in power and one from opposition which, if enacted, would then give his party the majority on the current selection committee. In principle, of course, this is an obvious example of gross political meddling in the judicial selection process.
But the proposed law went even further. Unhappy with waiting until the next time the bar has its elections, the Minister of Justice added conditions to the proposed law that, if enacted, would nullify the earlier elections of the bar and force them to be rescheduled in order to meet his particular political agenda.
As one might expect there was a major uproar in the land about this obviously biased and unfair piece of legislation which, until yesterday, was supported as well by the prime minister. But, surprisingly, there were a significant number of senior people in the prime minister’s own party who recognized this as a potential act in violation of the democratic principles on which Israel was founded. Even the attorney general opined that when the law would be challenged in court, as it surely would have been, he would not be able to defend it. Under that kind of pressure the prime minister had no recourse but to withdraw his support for the bill, even though it had already passed its first reading, virtually eliminating is potential for passage.
But no one here is applauding the prime minister for this action. He could have received well-deserved accolades had he refrained from supporting the bill in the first place purely on moral grounds. To withdraw his support in the face of public and party pressure, while laudable for its result, rather than at the point when the legislation was introduced, speaks to the moral bankruptcy of the government in power.
In an earlier blog I mentioned that from this writer’s perspective the country is on a slippery slope away from democracy. While many people agreed with me there were some who criticized me for being overly influenced by the left of center press here. But I do not accept that criticism. Slowly but surely the very flimsy separation of powers here, which is not nearly as well defined as it is in the US, are becoming less and less sharp. The danger of such slippage is a move away from democracy and the situation described here is just one example.
Edmund Burke was correct when he said “whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.” Those who seek to separate the two imperil the future of the nation.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Woe to Those who Remain Silent
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller who used this literary style to talk about the roundup of communists, trade unionists, and Jews in Nazi Germany, I submit the following vis-à-vis the slippery slope down which we seem to be sliding here in Israel.
• First they asked that their brightest young men be excused from military service because there are so few of them that it won’t make any difference, and I didn’t speak out because there were, indeed, so few of them.
• Then they refused to teach their children mathematics, English and other secular subjects, and I didn’t speak out because they have a right to live their lives the way they want.
• Then they decided it was better for their men to study than to work and they secured state support for their learning, and I didn’t speak out because there were, indeed so few of them.
• Then they demanded separate seating on buses, men in the front and women in the back, and I didn’t speak out because I don’t ride the busses.
• Then they put up a separation in their neighborhoods during holiday periods and asked the women to walk on one side and the men on the other, and I didn’t speak out because I never go to those neighborhoods.
• Then some Ashkenazi religious schools refused to admit Sephardi religious students because they were not religious enough, and I didn’t speak out because I don’t have children of school age.
• Then they demonstrated against having parking lots open on the Sabbath outside Old City of Jerusalem to handle the many tourists who come there, and I didn’t speak out because I don’t drive on the Sabbath anyway.
• Then they told Manny, after causing tens of thousands of dollars of damage to his Jerusalem store, that in his book store of religious volumes he has to take certain books off his shelves because they are “Zionist” books and he has to put up a sign advising women to dress modestly, because his English books attract immodest tourists, and I didn’t speak out because I never go there anyway.
• Then they spat on and insulted religious girls going to elementary school because the girls don’t wear stockings, and I didn’t speak out because I don’t live in that city.
• Next they will tell me how I must live my life and, there are now so many of them, that I will have no choice but to do so if I want to continue living here.
My friends will see this and tell me that I am exaggerating. They will tell me that all of this is the work of a small group of zealots in each location who don’t represent the mainstream religious community. And they will be correct in saying this. But if this is a correct analysis of the situation then where are the mainstream rabbis speaking out against such coercive behavior? Where are the political leaders insisting that the police arrest individuals who threaten and cause harm to others in the name of religion? Why are there no arrests when vandalism causes property damage and potential danger to life and limb?
The dictionary tells us that a zealot is a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in the pursuit of their religious, political or other ideals. But history teaches us that generally zealots are inimical to the long term good and welfare of society.
Former US Senator Robert Byrd, who held the record as the longest serving senator in the history of the United States, said it best when he opined “It is the duty of each citizen to be vigilant, to protect liberty, to speak out, left and right, and disagree lest he be trampled underfoot by misguided zealotry and extreme partisanship.”
There is a lesson to be learned here and those of us who value the democratic principles to which we are committed, have an obligation to protest any encroachment on those rights by any member of the society in which we live. We can do no less nor do we have the right to remain silent. Woe to those who remain silent in the face of bigotry.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
With apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller who used this literary style to talk about the roundup of communists, trade unionists, and Jews in Nazi Germany, I submit the following vis-à-vis the slippery slope down which we seem to be sliding here in Israel.
• First they asked that their brightest young men be excused from military service because there are so few of them that it won’t make any difference, and I didn’t speak out because there were, indeed, so few of them.
• Then they refused to teach their children mathematics, English and other secular subjects, and I didn’t speak out because they have a right to live their lives the way they want.
• Then they decided it was better for their men to study than to work and they secured state support for their learning, and I didn’t speak out because there were, indeed so few of them.
• Then they demanded separate seating on buses, men in the front and women in the back, and I didn’t speak out because I don’t ride the busses.
• Then they put up a separation in their neighborhoods during holiday periods and asked the women to walk on one side and the men on the other, and I didn’t speak out because I never go to those neighborhoods.
• Then some Ashkenazi religious schools refused to admit Sephardi religious students because they were not religious enough, and I didn’t speak out because I don’t have children of school age.
• Then they demonstrated against having parking lots open on the Sabbath outside Old City of Jerusalem to handle the many tourists who come there, and I didn’t speak out because I don’t drive on the Sabbath anyway.
• Then they told Manny, after causing tens of thousands of dollars of damage to his Jerusalem store, that in his book store of religious volumes he has to take certain books off his shelves because they are “Zionist” books and he has to put up a sign advising women to dress modestly, because his English books attract immodest tourists, and I didn’t speak out because I never go there anyway.
• Then they spat on and insulted religious girls going to elementary school because the girls don’t wear stockings, and I didn’t speak out because I don’t live in that city.
• Next they will tell me how I must live my life and, there are now so many of them, that I will have no choice but to do so if I want to continue living here.
My friends will see this and tell me that I am exaggerating. They will tell me that all of this is the work of a small group of zealots in each location who don’t represent the mainstream religious community. And they will be correct in saying this. But if this is a correct analysis of the situation then where are the mainstream rabbis speaking out against such coercive behavior? Where are the political leaders insisting that the police arrest individuals who threaten and cause harm to others in the name of religion? Why are there no arrests when vandalism causes property damage and potential danger to life and limb?
The dictionary tells us that a zealot is a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in the pursuit of their religious, political or other ideals. But history teaches us that generally zealots are inimical to the long term good and welfare of society.
Former US Senator Robert Byrd, who held the record as the longest serving senator in the history of the United States, said it best when he opined “It is the duty of each citizen to be vigilant, to protect liberty, to speak out, left and right, and disagree lest he be trampled underfoot by misguided zealotry and extreme partisanship.”
There is a lesson to be learned here and those of us who value the democratic principles to which we are committed, have an obligation to protest any encroachment on those rights by any member of the society in which we live. We can do no less nor do we have the right to remain silent. Woe to those who remain silent in the face of bigotry.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Treasonable Conduct….or Not?
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Yesterday, Israel’s Attorney General, Yehuda Weinstein, advised the Prime Minister that for lack of prosecutorial evidence he was abandoning his investigation of the activities of MK Hanin Zuabi and her participation in the Mavi Marmara Flotilla of May 2010 which was intended to break the blockade of Gaza.
Can you believe that?
A member of the Parliament of Israel representing the Arab Balad party chooses to sail on a ship as part of a flotilla whose aim is to oppose what even the UN said is a legitimate action on the part of the Israeli government and the Israeli Attorney General basically finds nothing unlawful about it. Zuabi, of course, denies that she knew anything about the fact that the ship on which she was a passenger had a significant cache of weapons and was ready for a serious confrontation with the Israel Defense Forces. You can see evidence of her participation and knowledge by going to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX8-zEO1TNU
When questioned after the event she said “Those who send the army to stop the flotilla should be brought before international tribunals (for trial).” As if that was not sufficient to question her commitment to the law she pledged to uphold when she was sworn in to the Knesset, hear what she had to say in November when she spoke at the Russell Tribunal on Palestine in Capetown. There she referred to the country in whose parliament she serves as the “Racist political and legal regime in Israel.”
Or some of her other comments at the time which included:
“It is part of the ideology of Israel to be racist”
“It is the policy of Israel to seclude and deport us” (referring to Palestinians)
“But actually I am saying that Israel is worse than an apartheid state.”
Given all of this it is certainly strange that our attorney general says he can find no grounds for further action. Really? Is this not treason? The dictionary says that treason is “a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or one’s state.” Isn’t it obvious that participating in a flotilla designed to break the blockade of Gaza which is a policy of the government in which you serve treason? Doesn’t that constitute a violation of allegiance to one’s state? Can it be any clearer?
When questioned about all of this Zuabi regularly invokes her parliamentary immunity and states that in a democracy she has a right to state her opinions, even if they differ from those of the government.
Democracy is committed to the free expression of opinion even if that opinion is negative about the country in which one lives. But that is an entirely different situation than the breaking of the law by someone who is sworn to uphold it by dint of his or her participation in a country’s parliament. One cannot hide behind parliamentary immunity by invoking such immunity while being disloyal to the country in whose parliament he or she serves. That borders on treason and the attorney general should not have dropped the case regardless of the concern for the consequences in the Arab street. In the end, democracy and Israel will both pay the price of such legal negligence.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Yesterday, Israel’s Attorney General, Yehuda Weinstein, advised the Prime Minister that for lack of prosecutorial evidence he was abandoning his investigation of the activities of MK Hanin Zuabi and her participation in the Mavi Marmara Flotilla of May 2010 which was intended to break the blockade of Gaza.
Can you believe that?
A member of the Parliament of Israel representing the Arab Balad party chooses to sail on a ship as part of a flotilla whose aim is to oppose what even the UN said is a legitimate action on the part of the Israeli government and the Israeli Attorney General basically finds nothing unlawful about it. Zuabi, of course, denies that she knew anything about the fact that the ship on which she was a passenger had a significant cache of weapons and was ready for a serious confrontation with the Israel Defense Forces. You can see evidence of her participation and knowledge by going to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX8-zEO1TNU
When questioned after the event she said “Those who send the army to stop the flotilla should be brought before international tribunals (for trial).” As if that was not sufficient to question her commitment to the law she pledged to uphold when she was sworn in to the Knesset, hear what she had to say in November when she spoke at the Russell Tribunal on Palestine in Capetown. There she referred to the country in whose parliament she serves as the “Racist political and legal regime in Israel.”
Or some of her other comments at the time which included:
“It is part of the ideology of Israel to be racist”
“It is the policy of Israel to seclude and deport us” (referring to Palestinians)
“But actually I am saying that Israel is worse than an apartheid state.”
Given all of this it is certainly strange that our attorney general says he can find no grounds for further action. Really? Is this not treason? The dictionary says that treason is “a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or one’s state.” Isn’t it obvious that participating in a flotilla designed to break the blockade of Gaza which is a policy of the government in which you serve treason? Doesn’t that constitute a violation of allegiance to one’s state? Can it be any clearer?
When questioned about all of this Zuabi regularly invokes her parliamentary immunity and states that in a democracy she has a right to state her opinions, even if they differ from those of the government.
Democracy is committed to the free expression of opinion even if that opinion is negative about the country in which one lives. But that is an entirely different situation than the breaking of the law by someone who is sworn to uphold it by dint of his or her participation in a country’s parliament. One cannot hide behind parliamentary immunity by invoking such immunity while being disloyal to the country in whose parliament he or she serves. That borders on treason and the attorney general should not have dropped the case regardless of the concern for the consequences in the Arab street. In the end, democracy and Israel will both pay the price of such legal negligence.
Monday, December 19, 2011
As the Holidays Approach
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Friends, on Tuesday evening Jews worldwide will kindle the first candle on the Chanukah menorah to commemorate the victory of good over evil, of honesty over lies and of the belief that miracles do happen. Someone once said that a menorah is like the nightlight of our people. In times of darkness it shines on the whole world reminding us not to be afraid to be different but to be proud of whom we are.
For Christians worldwide Friday will wind down rapidly to Christmas eve and the promise of peace on earth, good will towards (wo)men that still eludes us. Charles Dickens described the eternal allure of Christmas when he wrote in 1836’s Pickwick Papers “Happy, happy Christmas, that can win us back to the delusions of our childish days; that can recall to the old man the pleasures of his youth; that can transport the sailor and the traveler, thousands of miles away, back to his own fire-side and his quiet home!”
Certainly for all of us it is a time of memory, a time for a bit of reflection and perhaps even some wistfulness for times gone by, albeit those times seem to appear better with the passing of the years. Syndicated columnist and humorist Dave Barry may have hit the nail on the head when he said: “In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it Christmas and went to church; the Jews called it Hanukkah and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say "Merry Christmas!" or "Happy Hanukkah!" or (to the atheists) "Look out for the wall!"
But it was probably Helen Keller who in her succinct way summed up the meaning of the season best when she said : “The only blind person at Christmastime is he who has not Christmas in his heart.”
In many respects the past year has been a disappointment what with financial crises worldwide, the continued absence of peace in so many parts of the world, an incredible number of natural disasters and rampant political upheavals that do not yet seem to hold out the promise of positive change. Yet we humans have this uncanny ability to remain optimistic, to hope for a better future and to envision the light at the end of the tunnel even if it is not exactly visible to us.
Let us hope that as we go through this holiday season full of light and joy, that the new year about to burst forth in 12 days will be one of fulfilled dreams, good health and a peaceful universe in which we can finally experience the prophesy contained in the second book of Isaiah: “And they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not life up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Friends, on Tuesday evening Jews worldwide will kindle the first candle on the Chanukah menorah to commemorate the victory of good over evil, of honesty over lies and of the belief that miracles do happen. Someone once said that a menorah is like the nightlight of our people. In times of darkness it shines on the whole world reminding us not to be afraid to be different but to be proud of whom we are.
For Christians worldwide Friday will wind down rapidly to Christmas eve and the promise of peace on earth, good will towards (wo)men that still eludes us. Charles Dickens described the eternal allure of Christmas when he wrote in 1836’s Pickwick Papers “Happy, happy Christmas, that can win us back to the delusions of our childish days; that can recall to the old man the pleasures of his youth; that can transport the sailor and the traveler, thousands of miles away, back to his own fire-side and his quiet home!”
Certainly for all of us it is a time of memory, a time for a bit of reflection and perhaps even some wistfulness for times gone by, albeit those times seem to appear better with the passing of the years. Syndicated columnist and humorist Dave Barry may have hit the nail on the head when he said: “In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it Christmas and went to church; the Jews called it Hanukkah and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say "Merry Christmas!" or "Happy Hanukkah!" or (to the atheists) "Look out for the wall!"
But it was probably Helen Keller who in her succinct way summed up the meaning of the season best when she said : “The only blind person at Christmastime is he who has not Christmas in his heart.”
In many respects the past year has been a disappointment what with financial crises worldwide, the continued absence of peace in so many parts of the world, an incredible number of natural disasters and rampant political upheavals that do not yet seem to hold out the promise of positive change. Yet we humans have this uncanny ability to remain optimistic, to hope for a better future and to envision the light at the end of the tunnel even if it is not exactly visible to us.
Let us hope that as we go through this holiday season full of light and joy, that the new year about to burst forth in 12 days will be one of fulfilled dreams, good health and a peaceful universe in which we can finally experience the prophesy contained in the second book of Isaiah: “And they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not life up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Misinformation, Disinformation and Lies
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Yesterday we entertained a couple of business guests from Amman, Jordan during their first ever visit to Israel. Oddly enough they came here with their dog that needed some special surgery which was not available in Jordan. Given that our staff had prior connections with the principals of the company one of our senior people offered to take them on a tour of Jerusalem and met them at Damascus Gate, one of the northern entrances to the Old City after which they took the traditional walking tour of the area.
This morning I was told that our guests were absolutely amazed that Arab residents of Jerusalem walk freely on the streets of the city without hindrance. Their impression, from the press in Jordan and other information sources, was that the Arab population of Israel is interned in quasi-concentration camps and their movement is severely limited by the local security forces. This brought home to all of us here in the office both the failure of our information efforts directed to the Arab world as well as the disinformation fed to the local populace there by the media.
As for misinformation, it’s worth looking at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/palestinian-hip-hop-group-comparing-israelis-to-nazis-performs-for-oregon-public-high-school-students/ which is a video of the Palestinian Hip-Hop Group DAM (which means “blood” in both Hebrew and Arabic) performing at Lincoln High School in Portland, Oregon on November 4th.
The lyrics demonize Israeli Jews, calling them rapists and Nazis, justifying terrorism against them. (”You’re a Democracy? It’s more like the Nazis…Your raping of the Arab soul gave birth to your child: The suicide bomber.”) A sample of the group’s work: one DAM song called “Min Irhabi” or “Who’s a Terrorist?” is filled with anti-Israel propaganda and in-your-face lyrics. With these few lines, one gets the picture:
Who’s a terrorist? I’m a terrorist?
How am I a terrorist while I live in my country
Who’s a terrorist? You’re a terrorist!
You’re swallowing me while I live in my country
Killing me like you killed my ancestors […]
Democracy? I swear you’re Nazis
With all the times you raped the Arab spirit
It got pregnant and birthed a boy called the suicide bomber
And here you are calling us terrorists
Even though students and parents voiced their concerns about the band’s content to the school board, the board went ahead with the performance, “despite the physical and emotional fears of the students.”
For the record, the public school’s Arab Studies Program is funded by the Qatar Foundation International, which also sponsored the hip hop group’s visit to the high school. Last year, Israeli, Spanish and British newspapers reported that the Qatar Foundation had given money to extremist Muslim cleric Yusuf al Qaradawi who advocates “terrorism, wife beating and anti-Semitism” and that the foundation gives money to the terrorist group Hamas. All of this taking place in the public school system of a major US city.
So now we have it all, misinformation, disinformation and lies, some accidental some intentional but all damaging to Israel and its reputation in the world community.
Price winning journalist Carl Bernstein once said, “The lowest form of popular culture - lack of information, misinformation, disinformation, and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most people's lives - has overrun real journalism. Today, ordinary Americans are being stuffed with garbage.” And that garbage molds public opinion and is our greatest enemy.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Yesterday we entertained a couple of business guests from Amman, Jordan during their first ever visit to Israel. Oddly enough they came here with their dog that needed some special surgery which was not available in Jordan. Given that our staff had prior connections with the principals of the company one of our senior people offered to take them on a tour of Jerusalem and met them at Damascus Gate, one of the northern entrances to the Old City after which they took the traditional walking tour of the area.
This morning I was told that our guests were absolutely amazed that Arab residents of Jerusalem walk freely on the streets of the city without hindrance. Their impression, from the press in Jordan and other information sources, was that the Arab population of Israel is interned in quasi-concentration camps and their movement is severely limited by the local security forces. This brought home to all of us here in the office both the failure of our information efforts directed to the Arab world as well as the disinformation fed to the local populace there by the media.
As for misinformation, it’s worth looking at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/palestinian-hip-hop-group-comparing-israelis-to-nazis-performs-for-oregon-public-high-school-students/ which is a video of the Palestinian Hip-Hop Group DAM (which means “blood” in both Hebrew and Arabic) performing at Lincoln High School in Portland, Oregon on November 4th.
The lyrics demonize Israeli Jews, calling them rapists and Nazis, justifying terrorism against them. (”You’re a Democracy? It’s more like the Nazis…Your raping of the Arab soul gave birth to your child: The suicide bomber.”) A sample of the group’s work: one DAM song called “Min Irhabi” or “Who’s a Terrorist?” is filled with anti-Israel propaganda and in-your-face lyrics. With these few lines, one gets the picture:
Who’s a terrorist? I’m a terrorist?
How am I a terrorist while I live in my country
Who’s a terrorist? You’re a terrorist!
You’re swallowing me while I live in my country
Killing me like you killed my ancestors […]
Democracy? I swear you’re Nazis
With all the times you raped the Arab spirit
It got pregnant and birthed a boy called the suicide bomber
And here you are calling us terrorists
Even though students and parents voiced their concerns about the band’s content to the school board, the board went ahead with the performance, “despite the physical and emotional fears of the students.”
For the record, the public school’s Arab Studies Program is funded by the Qatar Foundation International, which also sponsored the hip hop group’s visit to the high school. Last year, Israeli, Spanish and British newspapers reported that the Qatar Foundation had given money to extremist Muslim cleric Yusuf al Qaradawi who advocates “terrorism, wife beating and anti-Semitism” and that the foundation gives money to the terrorist group Hamas. All of this taking place in the public school system of a major US city.
So now we have it all, misinformation, disinformation and lies, some accidental some intentional but all damaging to Israel and its reputation in the world community.
Price winning journalist Carl Bernstein once said, “The lowest form of popular culture - lack of information, misinformation, disinformation, and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most people's lives - has overrun real journalism. Today, ordinary Americans are being stuffed with garbage.” And that garbage molds public opinion and is our greatest enemy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
