Friday, April 20, 2007

Learning from Intel’s Israelis—It’s Time to Elect a Prime Minister Willing to Argue the Case to Death


“… A camera zoomed in on engineers in lab coats in Haifa, Israel. The video revealed that the chip Intel is counting on to recover from a battering by Advanced Micro Devices Inc. wasn't invented in Silicon Valley. Instead, Intel is betting on a group of Israeli mavericks and a design bureau 7,400 miles (11,900 kilometers) away…

``We did it the Israeli way; we argued our case to death,'' [Shmuel] Eden recalls. ``You know what an exchange of opinions is in Israel? You come to the meeting with your opinion, and you leave with mine.''

---By Ian King, March 28, 2007 (Bloomberg) --

* * *

How did the Israelis convince Intel to use its chip? They argued their case to death.

How can Israel convince the world that viability requires it to be larger? It must argue the case to death.

How can Israel convince the world that the two-state solution within the confines of Israel and the territories is unworkable? It must argue the case to death.

But what do current Israeli leaders do? They concede the two-state solution and claim that only a lack of a peace partner foils its implementation.

It’s time for new elections in Israel. It’s time to elect someone who is willing to start arguing the case to death.

--David Naggar

Monday, April 02, 2007

Once Again, for Passover. A Guide To The Four Questions Of Israel


But first, a news note before I begin: The Arab Peace Initiative, Round Two.

The Arab Peace Initiative, inspired by the Saudis, suggests that if Israel returns to its onerous pre-1967 borders, and if the millions of descendants of Palestinian Arabs who left Israel when the Arab armies attacked it in 1948 were allowed to return to Israel, there could be peace. In essence, this plan calls for peace by ending the Jewish State. This non-proposal is not a morally inspired offer to end the conflict. It is a media ploy, complete with warnings of war should Israel not seize the “opportunity.”

Prime Minister Olmert’s response is a good one. No to taking refugees, but yes to a summit in Jerusalem. Now the ball is back in the Arab’s court. I hope the Prime Minister appreciates he’s in a media game, but sometimes I wonder.

Now, the four questions…

1) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State?

Some people do not accept that there is room in the world for a Jewish majority State because they believe in the Jeffersonian ideal that separates religion from civil governance.

Others claim not to accept Israel because they think a Jewish majority State is racist.

Presumably people in both of these camps would also be opposed to Christian majority or Muslim majority States, but their silence, notwithstanding the existence of many such States, stands in stark contrast to their thunderous and singular disapproval of Israel.

Whether it is high-minded or low minded, there is no point arguing the politics of Israel and its neighbors without first hearing a “Yes” to this question.

(For the record, I wish that all the people of the globe adopted the American mentality of live and let live, that we had a united planet, and that there was no need for borders of any kind. But utopia is far away.)

Here in the West, the vast majority of people have no problem with the existence of a Jewish majority State that wishes to self-govern. Most acknowledge the right to self-determination, and agree with the proposition that people who wish to self-govern should be free to do so.

So, with one “Yes” in tow, we can ask the second question:

2) Do you accept that as part of a global village, there is room for a Jewish majority State IN THE MIDDLE-EAST?

Today, most Arabs and Muslims of the Middle-East, would answer a resounding “NO!” They tolerate the reality of Israel, but believe it will ultimately fail. They will dance in the streets if it fails. They will celebrate any effort to hasten Israel’s demise. There is no love lost on Israel from these quarters.

Again, it is pointless discussing with those who do not believe a Jewish majority State should exist in the Middle-East, the morality of Israel’s actions in the face of her hostile neighbors (the usual antagonistic ones being settlements, checkpoints, and the so-called wall).

For those who don’t believe Israel should exist in the Middle-East, the inhumanity of Israel’s neighbors will be justified by the “inhumanity” of Israel’s existence. The nut of this self-righteous, yet morally dubious argument is something like this: “Israel stole the land in the first place, and so, they deserve everything that’s coming to them.”

It is an historical stretch to claim that Jews stole their own historical homeland. It is also a stretch to say that Jews were advantaged unfairly over Arabs at the conclusion of World War I. But it is not a stretch to say that Palestinian Arabs, as a particular subset of Arabs, ended up with a raw deal that continues to be raw.

For those who have little sense of the area, a little background helps.

The Middle-East is the historical home of the Jewish people, and in the West, we connect Jews and the Holy Land. The fact that a) there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the land for thousands of years, that b) Roman, Arab and Crusader armies combined to drive most, but not all Jews out, and that c) there can be no morally binding statute of limitations against coming back to the land of your ancestors, seems to suffice most people that Israel belongs were it does.

Further, in modern times, before there was a Syria, a Lebanon, an Iraq, a Jordan or an Israel, the Ottoman Empire ruled the area. But the Ottoman Turks lost World War I, and the Empire was divided.

The Arabs got most of the land, the Jews got a little, and that little was reduced again and again.

There is room for everyone in the Middle-East, but without doubt, just as Jews were displaces in the last century from Muslim majority States stretching from Morocco to Iran, Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians were displaced from what is now Israel.

Of course, 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab, so comparing the cause, circumstances, or terms of partial displacement of Arabs to the near total displacement Jews is like comparing apples and oranges.

Historical truth aside, only if a person answers “Yes” to this question and the first question is there any reason to ask the third question.

3) Do you accept that as part of a global village that contains hostile elements, the sole Jewish majority State must do what it can to survive, defend its citizens, and ensure that its citizens have the opportunity to thrive?

One could ask a similar question of any State. Bit isn’t “survive, defend and ensure opportunity” Israel’s obligation as a State? Israel’s actions and motivations can be properly judged by how well it morally fulfills its obligation.

Compare this question to one asked most loudly by Israel’s detractors: “Why does Israel have to oppress innocent Palestinians?” This question is loaded. The reality is, Israel doesn’t HAVE to oppress anyone. I know of no Israeli leader who WANTS to oppress Palestinians.

No doubt those Palestinians who wish Israel no harm suffer alongside those who do wish Israel harm.

But if Israel must choose between life as a withering failed State that is constantly being terrorized, or fighting its enemies—even knowing that some who are not enemies will suffer, and some who are not enemies will be made into enemies—it has no alternative but to fight. How can anyone in good faith argue otherwise?

Israel must do what it must do because it is a State, and it has obligations to its citizens, not to mention a unique obligation to Jews throughout the world. As such, it is obligated and duty bound to reach its own “Yes” answer to this 3rd question. For over 50 years it has been fighting an antagonistic Arab/Muslim population that stretches from Morocco to Iran and beyond. It is at war. Sometimes it is a hot war, and sometimes it is a cold war. People on all sides of a war suffer. Hopefully innocent suffering is limited, but this is plainly not always so.

This brings us to the 4th question.

4) Do you accept that as part of a global village, IF the sole Jewish majority State’s viability is dependent on it becoming larger, it should become larger?

If your answers to the first three questions are “Yes” but your answer to this fourth question is “No,” you have probably concluded one of two things: 1) the Jewish majority State’s viability is not dependent on its size, or 2) you really don’t believe that there is room for a viable Israel in the Middle-East even though you say you accept that there is.

Saying a larger Israel “can’t happen” to avoid giving a “Yes” answer is no answer at all. Asking, “what about the Palestinians?” may show compassion, but also provides no answer to the question. (Incidentally, handled correctly, Palestinian Arabs will benefit from, not be victimized by, a viable, sustainable, unassailable Israel).

If you are a supporter of Israel who answers “No,” to this question, and you do so because of a feeling that that Israel is large enough, or that in an interdependent world, size doesn’t matter, don’t you owe it to yourself and to Israel to make sure your assumptions are right? Or will you be content with the prospect you are wrong, and a slowly decaying Israel?

Don’t give a lazy “No.” The stakes are too high.
Please read The Case For A Larger Israel. Maybe you’ll find your fourth “Yes.”

And then, who better to stand up than you?

Happy Passover.

--David Naggar