Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Headlines You Will Never See
Headlines You Will Never See
By Sherwin Pomerantz
ITEM: July 4 2012, Pawhuska, Oklahoma – The Osage Indian tribe held a massive demonstration today in the parking area of their tribal museum marking the “disaster” that befell the native American Indians in 1776 when the US declared its independence. The protestors raised black banners and tribal flags to mark the event which they traditionally see as an illegal takeover of their tribal lands as a result of the American Revolution. Indian tribal leaders were quoted as saying that they have suffered as a result for the last 236 years. Nevertheless, they still retain the deeds to the lands that were taken from them and hope, one day, to return to those areas from which they were illegally expelled.
ITEM: Jan 1 2013, Amhem Land, Australia – The governing council of native Australians (i.e. Aborigines) called a nationwide general strike to mark the date in 1788 when the first fleet of Englishmen landed in Botany Bay. To the Aborigine community this event was a “disaster” that presaged the end of their political hegemony in Australia and the march to second class citizenship. Many of the demonstrators held earthen vessels carrying what they said was earth from the lands that were taken from them by the invading British.
ITEM: June 1 2012, Table Bay, South Africa – Representatives of the Council of Native South Africans held a massive demonstration today to mark the anniversary of the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck of the Dutch East India Company on South African soil in 1652. The demonstration was called to mark the “disaster” that led to the eventual domination over the native South African population by the descendants of that original group. Even though this rule was finally overthrown in the period 1992-1994, the local population feels it is important to find an outlet for the pent up anger created by almost 350 years of subservience to an alien government.
These are, of course, dreamt up stories about populations world-wide who have witnessed political change and needed to find a way to deal with it. In all of these examples, while there may well be a segment of the population that pines for the “good old days” for the most part there has been an acceptance of fact coupled with a realization that looking backwards is simply not productive.
Of course, not so in our little corner of the world. Today, May 15th, the 64 anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel (according to the Gregorian calendar), is designated “Nakba Day” (the Day of Catastrophe) by the Palestinian leadership. The day, so far, has been marked by rioters throwing stones, firebombs being thrown at Israeli civilians and soldiers, with at least 20 Palestinian injuries at the Kalandiya checkpoint. A number of neighboring Arab countries are also planning to commemorate this event. The Palestinian Authority has also closed schools and work places in order to maximize the number of people who will be able to participate in the observance.
Is this productive? Is there any benefit to be gained from spending a day every year lamenting a historic event that, had it been embraced by the Palestinians, could have generated an economic miracle no less beneficial to them than it has been to us? Wouldn’t it have been better not to have lost the lives of so many young and promising people, on both sides, in six wars in 64 years? Does the Palestinian leadership really believe that the keys to homes in Jaffa and Jerusalem, abandoned by the Arab population in 1948 and 1967 but which are still held by local residents, will ever again unlock the doors of those homes? Do they even exist? And if by some chance they do, does anyone really believe that the locks will still be the same? Is anything the same?
Yes, what is the same is the continued sad unwillingness of the Palestinian Arab leadership to accept the fact that Israel is a success, that it is here to stay, and that we are here to stay. What is the same is that fact that had the Palestinian Arab leadership chosen to lead their people to cooperation with Israel instead of war, that both of us would have been better for it. Why is this not obvious?
No country in the world except democratic Israel would allow its residents to effectively demonstrate publicly against the continued existence of the country and lament its founding in such a destructive manner. No country in the world except democratic Israel would permit members of its elected legislature to participate in such events. Should the pain of 22% of our countrymen be recognized in a respectful manner? Certainly. But that can only come about when the respect is mutual and the injury and death stops being part of the commemoration.
Dr Jonas Salk, known for his discovery of a vaccine against Polio, is quoted as having said “Our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors.” I wish that our political leadership, regardless of what side of the line they stand, would understand this. All of us would be better for it.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Two Netanyahus – Both Political
Two Netanyahus – Both Political
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Two very newsworthy events hit the press this week. The first was the passing of the Prime Minister’s father, Ben Zion Netanyahu, on Monday morning at the ripe old age of 102. A historian of note, a confident of Ze’ev Jabotinsky who advocated no compromise in dealing with the Palestinians, resided in the same home in Jerusalem for decades. That home’s backyard and our backyard abut each other but I’ll have more to say about that later.
The second piece of news was this morning’s announcement by the Prime Minister that he will move to have the Knesset dissolve itself next week. In our parliamentary system, that means that elections for a new Knesset must be held as soon as possible as, until that happens, there is no sitting legislature in Israel. Later in the day it was announced that elections will be held on Tuesday, September 4th, conveniently after the summer school vacation ends and before the fall holidays begin.
Why do I bring these two into the same blog? Because they both illustrate different sides of the political animal called Bibi.
Taking the election issue first, this will be an election that is absolutely unnecessary. This Knesset was elected in 2009 and is slated to stay in office for four years until 2013. Today in Israel we probably have the most stable government the country has ever seen. The coalition is strong and secure, the opposition can only be described as pitifully incompetent, and there is no ground swell of public opinion demanding new elections. As a matter of fact, current polls show that Netanyahu is a hands down winner to become prime minister once again.
In addition, there are a slew of current legislative initiatives that are critical to the economic and social well-being of the country that will now be shelved as once the Knesset dissolves nothing else happens until after the elections. And here we are not even talking about September because after the elections the majority party then has six weeks to hammer together a coalition. So, at best, the new government will probably not be seated until November 1st or so.
However, opportunist that he is, Bibi sees lots of advantages to going to elections now. First of all, the main opposition party, Kadima, has just elected a new leader, former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz, who beat out Tzipi Livni for that position in primaries just a few weeks ago. Moving elections forward would give Mofaz less time to prepare his campaign and puts him at an electoral disadvantage. In addition, there are a number of tacky issues facing the prime minister, including the elimination of the Tal Law which gave yeshiva students the right not to serve in the military as well as demolishing possible illegally built homes in the settlements in Yehuda and Shomron (i.e. the West Bank) to name just two. Now he does not have to deal with those until later in the year either.
So we will go to elections even though one of the Shas (i.e. Ultra-Orthodox) Knesset members was quoted in the paper this morning saying that “if a secret ballot were taken 118 of 120 members of the Knesset would vote against doing so.” This clearly demonstrates the major weakness of the parliamentary system in a societal framework such as ours.
But back to the prime minister’s father’s passing. In observance of Jewish Law, the prime minister is observing the 7 day mourning period, Shiva, at the home of his father. You can just imagine the level of security in our neighborhood as a result. There is a constant stream of high powered politicians, foreign dignitaries (both those stationed in Israel and those like US Senator Kerry who are just visiting the country this week) and corporate executives traipsing through the property on a regular basis to express their condolences. That is, of course, all very nice and very proper. We even have police snipers on the roof of our apartment building 24 hours a day watching the property behind us.
The political “party” of course begins every evening when it is time for the late afternoon and early evening prayer services during which the prime minister and his brother Iddo say the words of Kaddish, the sanctification of God’s name which is recited every day for 11 months after the death of a parent. But this is the prime minister of Israel so the service is held in the back yard in order to accommodate the crowds, with temporary lighting and a sound system as well. Because we live just 50 yards from that location we get to hear this every night.
Of course, not just anyone leads these services. So far the prayer leaders have been from the ranks of senior rabbis in the country and other respected religious figures who are deemed worthy enough to be invited to lead the assembled congregants.
Between the two services there is also a break of about 20-25 minutes while sundown descends. During this period it is traditional for a learned scholar to deliver words of inspiration or words of Torah in memory of the deceased. And here too, it is not just anyone who was asked to do this. The other night it was Reuven Rivlin, the speaker of the Knesset, who was given this honor. Each night it has been some similar political figure who is either a close political associate of the prime minister or someone to whom the prime minister owes a favor.
On the one hand, all of this is very respectful to the memory of the deceased and, from that vantage point, it is all very proper and appropriate. However, when you look at the players, you see the same political Bibi operating in this venue just as he does in government.
Aristotle had it right when he said “Politicians also have no leisure, because they are always aiming at something beyond political life itself, power and glory, or happiness.” Sad it is that this is what drives our leaders and would that it were otherwise. The world would be such a better place.
Friday, April 20, 2012
The Lt. Col Eisner Affair: What Did We Learn?
By Sherwin Pomerantz
Earlier this week Israel and the world was treated to filmed footage of a senior Israeli army commander pushing the butt of his rifle into the face of a Danish protestor who was part of a cycling group of pro-Palestinian activists trying to enter an area deemed inappropriate by the Israel Defense Forces.
The video, of course, became instantaneously viral both inside and outside of Israel. There was an immediate denouncing of Lt. Col. Eisner by both President Peres and Prime Minister Netanyahu followed by his removal from his command position by the Army’s Chief of Staff, Major General Benny Gantz. Eisner was later chastised and told he would be demoted to 1st Lieutenant and prevented from having any command position for the next two years, at a minimum. Given the way armies operate everywhere in the world, the military career of this highly decorated officer is probably over.
Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the actions taken by the authorities here in removing Eisner from his position, the fast action by the Chief of Staff certainly was a successful exercise of damage control on his part and limited the international fallout that generally occurs in these situations. But the real question remains: What have we learned from this event? Or have we learned nothing?
On December 8, 1987 Israel saw the beginning of the first organized, concentrated and fully orchestrated civil disobedience by the Palestinian population in Gaza as well as in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank). This was 20 years and six months after the capture of these areas by Israel during the Six Day War of June 1967. One did not have to be a genius to predict that once Israel had a maturing generation of Palestinians raised under Israeli control of these areas, we would see an uprising.
At the time you had 18, 19 and 20 year olds who were raised in refugee camps and who had never known what life in these areas was like before June 1967. So while their parents and grandparents could, perhaps, internalize the fact that under Israeli control their overall lives were better than when the Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians were in charge, the youth did not have the experience that would allow them to make such an evaluation. In the eyes of those young men and women, Israel was an occupier, and not a benevolent one at that. They surmised that the only way they could end the “occupation” was to engage in civil disobedience, which, more often than not, turned violent and led to the death of people on both sides of the issue.
And, of course, after this was the second intifada which began on September 28-29 2000 ostensibly after the visit of then Israeli Opposition Leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, but which everyone knows was a plan by the Palestinian leadership just waiting for the right moment to be implemented. The Sharon visit was simply the match that lit the fire of combustibles that had been built up previously. And even after the violence began to die down, there were and continue to be regular terrorist attacks, albeit less now that we have built a separation between our peoples that simply makes it more difficult to attack.
But it was not only from the Palestinian side that we should have seen all of these situations simply waiting to happen. We should also have figured out that no people can rule indefinitely over another people in one land where each have historical claims to the land. Let’s not get into the argument now about whose claims have more legitimacy, about whether or not one side recognizes the claims of the other or the host of other arguments that are, in fact, real obstacles to peace (as opposed to the settlement enterprise which has been fabricated by the Palestinians and the world community as such an obstacle).
We should have figured out that if we continue to maintain the status quo for 45 years, as we have, and cannot find a practical solution as to how best to share this land, that it is simply not possible for our people to not be morally corrupted by the process that we call “protecting our security” while the other side terms it “occupation.” It has been obvious for years that eventually (and as time passes, more and more) members of Israeli society engaged in the security activities of the country will have their morality challenged and act in a manner that is both detrimental to themselves and to the country they represent….our country, Israel.
Lt. Col. Eisner is, most probably, a decent human being. I have never met him, have no way of judging, but generally in the Israel Defense Forces, people who rise to commander level have passed through enough tests, met sufficient challenges and impressed enough others both of higher and lower rank, that one can assume they are both moral and responsible. But the system places these people in a position where, from time to time, individuals will cross the mental equivalent of the physical blood/brain barrier and do something that is morally reprehensible. Our mistake is not acknowledging that this fact is a clear and present danger to the long term viability of our country and our society.
If nothing else, perhaps this will be a wake-up call to the entire country that the “elephant in the room” if left unchecked, has the potential to undermine the entire Zionist enterprise. Let’s hope for the sake of all of us that this does not happen.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
The Real Israel: Innovation Central
By Sherwin Pomerantz
A few weeks ago Cisco Systems agreed to buy NDS, a company which originated in Israel and still has a large R&D facility in Jerusalem, for $5b. That purchase then became the largest buyout of an Israel company since the 2006 purchase of 80% of Israel’s Iscar Ltd. by Warren Buffett for $4b. Could anyone have believed just 30 years ago that Israeli tech companies would rise to such lofty levels of market value? Not likely, but this is the Israel the headlines don’t cover.
Over the past two weeks we have had visits here by both New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. Both men were touted earlier this year as Republican challengers to US President Obama and both declined to pursue that opportunity for personal reasons. So even though they are not active participants in the Republican presidential nomination sweepstakes and, therefore, are not simply seeking to establish their Israel or Jewish credentials for their constituents, why did they come to Israel and why now? I should add, by the way, that neither of them came on “official” Israel government sponsored visits, both came on their own with parts of their families in tow.
The firm that I was privileged to found 20 years ago with three other partners, Atid EDI Ltd., and which I continue to serve as president, was involved in both visits. For Governor Christie we set up business appointments for some of the people traveling with him as well as ensured a representation of high level captains of industry at a reception he held in their honor just a week ago. For Governor Daniels, even though he is here during the Passover holiday when businesses are traditionally closed, we set up a business roundtable on Monday with half a dozen leaders of the high tech community in Israel, held at the Israel headquarters of Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly & Co.
Interestingly enough what both governors came to Israel to do was as much about learning the secret of Israel’s high tech success as it was about selling the benefits of their own states. As a matter of fact, during yesterday’s roundtable, while a former Indiana Secretary of Commerce was extolling the virtues of doing business in Indiana, the Governor interrupted the conversation in order to redirect it. In a word, he said that while he appreciated the willingness of the Israeli audience to hear about why it is good to do business in Indiana, he really wanted to know what Israel did to make itself the world’s most efficient center of innovation. And indeed what has made this so?
Israeli innovation traces its roots to 1918, 30 years before the founding of the state when Prof. Chaim Weizmann, who was later to become the country’s first president, participated in the inaugural ceremonies of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. At the time he said:
It seems at first sight paradoxical that in a land with so sparse a population, in a land where everything still remains to be done, in a land crying out for such simple things as plows, roads, and harbors, we should begin by creating a center of spiritual and intellectual development.
92 years later Israel’s creative energy was nicely summed up by Warren Buffett when he stated: "If you go to the Middle East looking for oil, you don't need to stop in Israel. But if you go looking for brains, energy and integrity, it is the only stop." Truly an encomium nothing short of amazing.
But why shouldn’t these two governors have zeroed in on Israel’s technological success? America is going through a crisis the likes of which it has not seen in 80 years. Manufacturing has gone offshore and, with it, much of the innovation as well as innovators tend to want to be close to where their ideas will be put into practice. So if America wants to re-learn what it takes to become an innovation greenhouse Israel is the natural place to look.
In 2011 Newsweek’s Daily Beast ranked Israel as the 4th most innovative country in the world. Bloomberg Business Week hastened to add that “Israel has one of the most dynamic high-tech industries in the world and is a hub for venture capital as well.” The greatest testimony to its success however, is the results: more patents filed per capita than any country in the world and the second highest number of start-ups anywhere.
This of a country of just 7.6 million people, only 64 years old, surrounded by enemies, in a constant state of war since its founding, and with few natural resources – yet produces more start-up companies than large, peaceful, and stable nations like Japan, China, India, Korea, Canada, and the UK. Israel has, per capita, attracted over twice as much venture capital investment as the US and thirty times more than Europe.
Gary Neill, the head of Johnson & Johnson’s Innovation Research Unit summed it up best on a recent visit to Israel when he said: “There’s an Israeli working on every insoluble problem.”
94 years after the founding of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the remarks of then Prof. Chaim Weizmann established the vision of a country for which innovation would be its singular most important characteristic when he uttered those famous words “we should begin by creating a center of spiritual and intellectual development.” The resulting intellectual development has manifested itself into a dynamic, spirited and challenging innovative environment, orders of magnitude beyond what anyone could have possibly dreamt of in 1918.
Harvey Firestone, the founder of the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co, once said: "Capital isn't so important in business. Experience isn't so important. You can get both these things. What is important is ideas. If you have ideas, you have the main asset you need, and there isn't any limit to what you can do with your business and your life."
Israel is a perfect example of Firestone’s theory. Small in size, lacking in natural resources, with a population fewer than 8 million, the wellspring of ideas has given the country the ability to be by far one of the world’s largest sources of innovative technologies and start-up companies. It is, in a word, the innovation platform writ large. And that is the real Israel.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
A few weeks ago Cisco Systems agreed to buy NDS, a company which originated in Israel and still has a large R&D facility in Jerusalem, for $5b. That purchase then became the largest buyout of an Israel company since the 2006 purchase of 80% of Israel’s Iscar Ltd. by Warren Buffett for $4b. Could anyone have believed just 30 years ago that Israeli tech companies would rise to such lofty levels of market value? Not likely, but this is the Israel the headlines don’t cover.
Over the past two weeks we have had visits here by both New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. Both men were touted earlier this year as Republican challengers to US President Obama and both declined to pursue that opportunity for personal reasons. So even though they are not active participants in the Republican presidential nomination sweepstakes and, therefore, are not simply seeking to establish their Israel or Jewish credentials for their constituents, why did they come to Israel and why now? I should add, by the way, that neither of them came on “official” Israel government sponsored visits, both came on their own with parts of their families in tow.
The firm that I was privileged to found 20 years ago with three other partners, Atid EDI Ltd., and which I continue to serve as president, was involved in both visits. For Governor Christie we set up business appointments for some of the people traveling with him as well as ensured a representation of high level captains of industry at a reception he held in their honor just a week ago. For Governor Daniels, even though he is here during the Passover holiday when businesses are traditionally closed, we set up a business roundtable on Monday with half a dozen leaders of the high tech community in Israel, held at the Israel headquarters of Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly & Co.
Interestingly enough what both governors came to Israel to do was as much about learning the secret of Israel’s high tech success as it was about selling the benefits of their own states. As a matter of fact, during yesterday’s roundtable, while a former Indiana Secretary of Commerce was extolling the virtues of doing business in Indiana, the Governor interrupted the conversation in order to redirect it. In a word, he said that while he appreciated the willingness of the Israeli audience to hear about why it is good to do business in Indiana, he really wanted to know what Israel did to make itself the world’s most efficient center of innovation. And indeed what has made this so?
Israeli innovation traces its roots to 1918, 30 years before the founding of the state when Prof. Chaim Weizmann, who was later to become the country’s first president, participated in the inaugural ceremonies of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. At the time he said:
It seems at first sight paradoxical that in a land with so sparse a population, in a land where everything still remains to be done, in a land crying out for such simple things as plows, roads, and harbors, we should begin by creating a center of spiritual and intellectual development.
92 years later Israel’s creative energy was nicely summed up by Warren Buffett when he stated: "If you go to the Middle East looking for oil, you don't need to stop in Israel. But if you go looking for brains, energy and integrity, it is the only stop." Truly an encomium nothing short of amazing.
But why shouldn’t these two governors have zeroed in on Israel’s technological success? America is going through a crisis the likes of which it has not seen in 80 years. Manufacturing has gone offshore and, with it, much of the innovation as well as innovators tend to want to be close to where their ideas will be put into practice. So if America wants to re-learn what it takes to become an innovation greenhouse Israel is the natural place to look.
In 2011 Newsweek’s Daily Beast ranked Israel as the 4th most innovative country in the world. Bloomberg Business Week hastened to add that “Israel has one of the most dynamic high-tech industries in the world and is a hub for venture capital as well.” The greatest testimony to its success however, is the results: more patents filed per capita than any country in the world and the second highest number of start-ups anywhere.
This of a country of just 7.6 million people, only 64 years old, surrounded by enemies, in a constant state of war since its founding, and with few natural resources – yet produces more start-up companies than large, peaceful, and stable nations like Japan, China, India, Korea, Canada, and the UK. Israel has, per capita, attracted over twice as much venture capital investment as the US and thirty times more than Europe.
Gary Neill, the head of Johnson & Johnson’s Innovation Research Unit summed it up best on a recent visit to Israel when he said: “There’s an Israeli working on every insoluble problem.”
94 years after the founding of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the remarks of then Prof. Chaim Weizmann established the vision of a country for which innovation would be its singular most important characteristic when he uttered those famous words “we should begin by creating a center of spiritual and intellectual development.” The resulting intellectual development has manifested itself into a dynamic, spirited and challenging innovative environment, orders of magnitude beyond what anyone could have possibly dreamt of in 1918.
Harvey Firestone, the founder of the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co, once said: "Capital isn't so important in business. Experience isn't so important. You can get both these things. What is important is ideas. If you have ideas, you have the main asset you need, and there isn't any limit to what you can do with your business and your life."
Israel is a perfect example of Firestone’s theory. Small in size, lacking in natural resources, with a population fewer than 8 million, the wellspring of ideas has given the country the ability to be by far one of the world’s largest sources of innovative technologies and start-up companies. It is, in a word, the innovation platform writ large. And that is the real Israel.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Hebron: Considering All of the Facts
By Sherwin Pomerantz
The news over the past week has been full of stories about the move by Israelis into a three story building in the center of Hebron, the Israeli government’s waffling on exactly what to do about this and finally, late this week, the eventual evacuation of the building by Israel Defense Forces troops.
How this was all reported depended on which end of the political spectrum the reporter and his/her paper represented. The right, as expected, defended the right of Israeli citizens to live anywhere in Israel and lambasted the government for supposedly taking a position against this right. The left was quick to criticize the actions of the Israeli citizens who took over the building as nothing more than yet another provocation. As for the center, well, I am not sure that “middle Israel” as journalist Amotz Asa-El likes to call us, really exists anymore.
But sadly, none of the media reported all of the facts and all of the suppositions surrounding this incident. What do they appear to be?
First of all, my fellow citizens who moved into the building claimed that they had bought the property in a legal manner. When the dust settles that may, indeed, prove to be a true statement of fact. However, no Palestinian who values his life would dare sell a three floor apartment building in downtown Hebron to Jews. After all, according to the laws of the Palestinian Authority doing so is punishable by death. My guess is that whoever owned the building sold it to someone who acted as an intermediary for the Israeli buyers. There is no way to tell who the intermediary was but it could have been someone living abroad, an independent real estate broker or some other unidentified party. As a result, most likely, the sellers had no idea they were selling the property to Jews.
Next the Israelis who “bought” the property decide to move in. Now we are talking about a piece of property in what can only be described as one of the most controversial locations in Israel. Hebron, the city in which graves of our ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and most of their wives are located, but in which the overwhelming majority of residents are Arab, is always a tinderbox waiting for the next explosion. So the buyers decided to move in knowing full well that in order to remain there they will need the protection of the Israeli Defense Forces, day and night, 24/7. But they didn’t first clear their intentions the authorities who need to protect them, but rather moved right in claiming that they bought the property fair and square and have a right to live there.
One could read this and say these people are crazy. But they are not! They knew from the get-go that moving into that building would cause three things to happen almost immediately: (1) Force the government to order the Israel Defense Forces to move troops in to protect them; (2) Cause the Palestinian leadership to immediately claim this was yet another “provocation” and; (3) Act as a catalyst to cause yet another crisis within the Israeli government between those who sit firmly on the right and others who yet see the possibility of rapprochement with the Palestinian leadership. And all three of these things were intentionally caused by those who “bought” the building so as to give further strength to their claim that we have a right to live anywhere in greater Israel.
Finally, the expected governmental crisis did occur. Prime Minister Netanyahu, not wanting to upset his right-leaning coalition played for time, suggested this be left for resolution until after the Passover holiday and otherwise sought means not to expel the residents of the building. Defense Minister Barak, on the other hand, true to his Labor Party roots and his Tel Aviv social circle, demanded a rapid expulsion of the residents in order to neutralize the provocation.
So, in retrospect, it is not simply a matter of people innocently buying a building and deciding when to move in. Rather, it was another example of how what would appear to be a simple act, when it happens in this part of the world, gets to be much more complicated and full of symbolism as well.
Tonight, as we begin the Passover holiday, we will spend the entire evening dealing with symbols. There are symbols of our oppression in Egypt, symbols of our exodus from slavery, and symbols of our 3,500 year old faith and how it has withstood the pressures of time and anti-Semitism. Ostensibly, the purpose of these symbols and the story we relate at the seder about that period in our history is meant to teach the young people around the table about our sojourn in Egypt and how we rose from slavery to freedom. So perhaps more than any other people, we understand the value of symbols and how they can be used to teach the lessons of history.
But we need to learn from those very same symbols that we are not free if we take advantage of others. We need to learn that freedom carries with it responsibility not only to ourselves and our loved ones but to the great community of which we a part as well. Actions when they are in our best interests but cause anguish or inconvenience to others is not how free people should behave. Those who moved into that three story building in Hebron last week, however righteous they may have felt personally vis-à-vis their right to live where they want, were selfish in conducting an exercise that caused anguish to their countrymen, their government and their neighbors. It was not the action of free people.
George Bernard Shaw is quoted as having said: “We are made wise not by the recollection of our past but by the responsibility for our future.” Tonight we remember our past but need to learn its lessons well in order to ensure our future. Let’s hope we internalize that while we still remain free.
By Sherwin Pomerantz
The news over the past week has been full of stories about the move by Israelis into a three story building in the center of Hebron, the Israeli government’s waffling on exactly what to do about this and finally, late this week, the eventual evacuation of the building by Israel Defense Forces troops.
How this was all reported depended on which end of the political spectrum the reporter and his/her paper represented. The right, as expected, defended the right of Israeli citizens to live anywhere in Israel and lambasted the government for supposedly taking a position against this right. The left was quick to criticize the actions of the Israeli citizens who took over the building as nothing more than yet another provocation. As for the center, well, I am not sure that “middle Israel” as journalist Amotz Asa-El likes to call us, really exists anymore.
But sadly, none of the media reported all of the facts and all of the suppositions surrounding this incident. What do they appear to be?
First of all, my fellow citizens who moved into the building claimed that they had bought the property in a legal manner. When the dust settles that may, indeed, prove to be a true statement of fact. However, no Palestinian who values his life would dare sell a three floor apartment building in downtown Hebron to Jews. After all, according to the laws of the Palestinian Authority doing so is punishable by death. My guess is that whoever owned the building sold it to someone who acted as an intermediary for the Israeli buyers. There is no way to tell who the intermediary was but it could have been someone living abroad, an independent real estate broker or some other unidentified party. As a result, most likely, the sellers had no idea they were selling the property to Jews.
Next the Israelis who “bought” the property decide to move in. Now we are talking about a piece of property in what can only be described as one of the most controversial locations in Israel. Hebron, the city in which graves of our ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and most of their wives are located, but in which the overwhelming majority of residents are Arab, is always a tinderbox waiting for the next explosion. So the buyers decided to move in knowing full well that in order to remain there they will need the protection of the Israeli Defense Forces, day and night, 24/7. But they didn’t first clear their intentions the authorities who need to protect them, but rather moved right in claiming that they bought the property fair and square and have a right to live there.
One could read this and say these people are crazy. But they are not! They knew from the get-go that moving into that building would cause three things to happen almost immediately: (1) Force the government to order the Israel Defense Forces to move troops in to protect them; (2) Cause the Palestinian leadership to immediately claim this was yet another “provocation” and; (3) Act as a catalyst to cause yet another crisis within the Israeli government between those who sit firmly on the right and others who yet see the possibility of rapprochement with the Palestinian leadership. And all three of these things were intentionally caused by those who “bought” the building so as to give further strength to their claim that we have a right to live anywhere in greater Israel.
Finally, the expected governmental crisis did occur. Prime Minister Netanyahu, not wanting to upset his right-leaning coalition played for time, suggested this be left for resolution until after the Passover holiday and otherwise sought means not to expel the residents of the building. Defense Minister Barak, on the other hand, true to his Labor Party roots and his Tel Aviv social circle, demanded a rapid expulsion of the residents in order to neutralize the provocation.
So, in retrospect, it is not simply a matter of people innocently buying a building and deciding when to move in. Rather, it was another example of how what would appear to be a simple act, when it happens in this part of the world, gets to be much more complicated and full of symbolism as well.
Tonight, as we begin the Passover holiday, we will spend the entire evening dealing with symbols. There are symbols of our oppression in Egypt, symbols of our exodus from slavery, and symbols of our 3,500 year old faith and how it has withstood the pressures of time and anti-Semitism. Ostensibly, the purpose of these symbols and the story we relate at the seder about that period in our history is meant to teach the young people around the table about our sojourn in Egypt and how we rose from slavery to freedom. So perhaps more than any other people, we understand the value of symbols and how they can be used to teach the lessons of history.
But we need to learn from those very same symbols that we are not free if we take advantage of others. We need to learn that freedom carries with it responsibility not only to ourselves and our loved ones but to the great community of which we a part as well. Actions when they are in our best interests but cause anguish or inconvenience to others is not how free people should behave. Those who moved into that three story building in Hebron last week, however righteous they may have felt personally vis-à-vis their right to live where they want, were selfish in conducting an exercise that caused anguish to their countrymen, their government and their neighbors. It was not the action of free people.
George Bernard Shaw is quoted as having said: “We are made wise not by the recollection of our past but by the responsibility for our future.” Tonight we remember our past but need to learn its lessons well in order to ensure our future. Let’s hope we internalize that while we still remain free.
Friday, March 2, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
