Wrong Podium

‘A speech,” Ronald Reagan’s wordsmith Peggy Noonan wrote, “is poetry: cadence, rhythm, imagery, sweep!”

If so, don’t Israelis deserve to get their history-making speeches from the Knesset’s podium? Should not parliament be where a prime minister announces major policy shifts and where opposition leaders argue that the premier’s approach is wrongheaded?

These questions come to mind as the Sixth Annual Herzliya Conference gets under way, sponsored by the Institute for Policy Strategy of the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya.

The conference has become Israel’s own version of high-powered “retreats” such as the Aspen Institute conclave, where America’s elites gather, and the World Economic Forum assemblage at Davos, which brings together top-ranking international movers and shakers.

And that it is a draw for distinguished domestic and international policy makers, top-tier business leaders, illustrious academics and superb journalists is plainly a good thing. In the course of three days at this seaside resort, bankers, Diaspora leaders, military strategists, Knesset members, settlement activists, former ambassadors, Nobel Prize winners and cabinet members will have shared their thoughts on “The Balance of Israel’s National Security.”

The Herzliya Conference is by no means the only prominent gathering of its kind. Various big-league meetings over the year address crucial issues ranging from poverty, social welfare and Negev development to minority rights and easing religious tensions.

It has become a reality of Israeli political life that no less attention is paid to speeches made at such conferences than to those from the Knesset podium. And so, knowing his remarks would carry added weight, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz used his appearance at Herzliya on Saturday night to warn Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “I suggest you take a look... and see what happened to others who tried to wipe out the Jewish people... they brought destruction to their own people.”

The Iranian-born Mofaz concluded: “I know the people of Iran and they should know that Ahmadinejad’s policies will bring disaster upon them.”

Yet – wouldn’t such a warning send an even sharper message delivered during a specially-called Knesset session?

Opposition leaders also use the Herzliya setting to make their case to the electorate, and the world. For instance, during his dinner speech last night, Likud Party Chairman Binyamin Netanyahu said the security fence should be moved deeper into the West Bank.

Labor Party Chairman Amir Peretz is expected to use his speech tonight to clarify his party’s position on Jerusalem.

But it’s Tuesday evening’s anticipated appearance by Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert – coming on the eve of Palestinian elections – that is expected to garner the most attention.
Olmert, reportedly, will not advocate additional unilateral West Bank withdrawals.

Instead he will demand that the Palestinian Authority comply with its road map obligations requiring it to disband armed militias and dismantle the infrastructure that facilitates terrorism. Such a crackdown, it is understood, would be Kadima’s demand before reopening negotiations with the newly-elected Palestinian leadership.

In an ideal world, a head of government should use parliament – and not an academic conference – to unveil his policies and reveal, for example, Israel’s stance on a post-election role for Hamas and under what circumstances unilateralism would again become a policy option.

It was at the December 2003 Herzliya Conference, though, that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon first announced: “If within a few months the Palestinians have not made reciprocal steps, we will take unilateral action.”

And it was at the Caesarea Conference in June 2005 that former finance minister Binyamin Netanyahu promised not to resign because of his opposition to disengagement.

Our problem is not that Israel’s top echelon flocks to Herzliya once a year. What we find disconcerting is the rarity with which the country’s leadership engages and attempts to persuade its citizens regarding the wisdom of its policies.

What’s needed is a change of mind-set. We would like to see Israel’s next prime minister – and opposition leader – making a point of using the Knesset (and regular, formal news conferences) to lay out their policies.

Effective leadership demands more than an annual Big Speech, no matter how effective the setting – or the cadence, rhythm, and imagery.

– Jerusalem Post Editorial, January 23, 2005

Atomic Mullahs

The more you reflect on the coming showdown with Iran, the more you wonder why anyone would want to be the next prime minister of Israel.

My advice to Ehud Olmert, Binyamin Netanyahu and Amir Peretz is: Beware of people who speak knowledgeably about Iran, particularly men with epaulets, big-time pundits and eminent academics. What they don’t know about Iran could fill an encyclopedia.

And please don’t tell me what the newspapers are saying based on the prognostications of intelligence experts. If the analysts were so wide off the mark on Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction,” who’s to say they have a better handle on the situation in Iran?

Oil-rich Iran denies having spent the past 18 years in clandestine efforts aimed at building an atomic bomb; it claims to need nuclear know-how in order to generate electricity. But the belligerent character of the Islamist regime makes it impossible to look the other way. Why, for instance, does Teheran need the Shihab-3 ballistic missile, capable of striking Europe?

Charged with violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Teheran originally agreed to suspend nuclear activity during negotiations with Germany, France, and Britain (the EU-3). Now, however, it has announced plans to resume converting raw uranium into gas, a key step ahead of enrichment that could lead to a nuclear weapon. Last week Teheran upped the ante by breaking seals placed by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors at its Natanz facility.

So we know Iran is developing the capability to make nuclear weapons. We can only guess to what extent it intends to use such power.

Not only are Iran’s goals murky. No one really understands how critical decisions inside Teheran are made. The best guess is that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not calling the shots, that critical decisions are reached by consensus within the ruling clique headed by “Supreme Leader” Ali Khamenei.


WE ALSO don’t know who has the power to order a nuclear attack against Israel if Teheran gets The Bomb. We don’t even know the names, much less the relative influences, of the players in Khamenei’s decision-making circle. In other words, we know less about Iranian decision making than the US thought it knew about the Soviet Union’s politburo during the Cold War.

Another thing we don’t know is whether efforts by EU-3 to haul Iran to the UN Security Council will succeed. We do know getting to this point has taken them three long years. China, a permanent Security Council member, has already signaled that it’s not keen on UN involvement. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says responsibly: “Most important for us... [are] not our bilateral relations, our investments in the Iranian economy or our economic profit from cooperation with Iran. [Our] highest priority... is the prevention of the violation of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.”

This laudable stance notwithstanding, on the same day Mother Russia announced plans to sell $1 billion worth of short-range missiles to Iran.



A MEETING on what the world powers will do next is set for London this week. Let’s say the crisis comes to the UN Security Council. No one – including the EU-3, or even the US – is talking about imposing genuinely draconian sanctions on Iran, the kind that would keep its oil and gas out of world markets; only, initially, a statement of criticism from the council.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, tremble!

It’s easy to understand why the kind of trading ban that would get the attention of the mullahs is a long way off. Heavy-duty sanctions would likely have a devastating impact on the global economy, where a barrel of oil already costs more than $60.

But let’s, for argument’s sake, imagine that painful sanctions are imposed – toward what end? The Iranians, who are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, say they will stop cooperating voluntarily with the International Atomic Energy Agency if pushed into the corner. And if the sanctions’ goal is “regime change,” might not a global embargo actually bolster popular domestic support for the mullahs?



IN THIS array of the unknown, here’s what we do know: The US is tied down in Iraq. Large tracts of Afghanistan remain outside the central government in Kabul’s control. Both Ayman al-Zawahri (who some think is the real brains behind Osama bin Laden) and OBL himself remain at large. America’s military capabilities are stretched beyond capacity. The Bush administration is hardly in a position to rally American public opinion to confront the presumed Iranian threat.

In a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the White House on Friday, Bush – using Iraq-talk – said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose “a grave threat to the security of the world.” He specifically mentioned Iran’s threats against Israel. But a short while later White House press secretary Scott McClellan clarified that “Iraq and Iran are not the same situations.”

Over in London, asked if force against Iran was a possibility, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said: “No one is talking about invading Iran.”

He added: “Iran is not Iraq.”

The Iranians themselves are unhelpfully muddying the waters. Elaine Sciolino aptly summarized the state of play in The New York Times: “But along with the threat [to halt intrusive voluntary inspections] came explanations, offers to continue negotiating, expressions of defiance and even pleas for sympathy.”

Back to what we know: We know the Iranians aim to destroy Israel because they say so at every opportunity. We think we know that in about six months to a year they will have the know-how to make fissile material for a weapon. Once this point of “no return” is reached, the Iranians could have several atomic bombs as early 2009.

There’s no assurance – this we know – that a series of conventional Israel Air Force strikes against Iran’s multitude of nuclear facilities would deliver a knock-out blow to Teheran’s atomic ambitions. If we try and fail (or even if, incredibly, we succeed) a lethal conventional Iranian – or Iranian-proxy – response could nonetheless be forthcoming. Iran has said publicly that if it even suspects an imminent strike from the US or Israel, it will launch a preemptive attack against American forces in Iraq, and against Israel.

Still there’s no doubt that if the US and EU do what needs to be done, they will not face the logistical nightmare a similar campaign by the IAF would encounter.


WE DON’T know, assuming Iran obtains atomic bombs, whether the mullahs can be persuaded that the cost of using them (the destruction of Teheran, say) outweighs the “benefits” (wiping the Zionist entity off the face of the earth). Simply put, we don’t know whether the kind of mutual deterrence that kept the US and USSR from launching ballistic missiles against each another would work in our setting. Would rational self-interest trump Islamist apocalyptic thinking?
Could even rational mullahs, leading a country of 69 million people spread over 1.6 million square kilometers, resist a nuclear swing against their No. 1 enemy, whose tiny population is concentrated along a narrow coastal plan?

We know that during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war both Persians and Arabs showed no compunction about targeting each other’s (Muslim) population centers, and that the number of soldiers and non-combatants killed reached 1.5 million.

So here we are – in the dark, and under threat of extinction. At the end of the day, after the men with epaulets, the big-time pundits and the academics have had their say, Israel’s next prime minister will have a finite interlude and a dearth of unassailable intelligence upon which to base this decision: What to do about Iran.

elliot_jager@yahoo.com

The Haj & the struggle for Islam's soul

It is sometimes difficult, especially in this part of the world,
to distinguish Islam ­ the religion and civilization ­ from the
threat posed by its militant adherents, the Islamists, who are at war with the West and our values of liberty, tolerance and individual freedom.

This confusion is as understandable as it is counterproductive,
and opponents of Muslim extremism have an interest in identifying, cultivating and promoting non-Islamist personalities inside the Muslim
world.

Such a strategy goes beyond ecumenical do-goodism and does not require our deluding ourselves about the extent to which the Islamists have penetrated the Muslim world.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims. Seeking a modus vivendi with them
is just plain common sense.

We also need a better understanding of Islam. For instance, how
many Westerners realize that Sunday was the first day of the haj,
a pilgrimage every able-bodied believer is expected to undertake at least
once in a lifetime? How many know that the other pillars of Islam are the profession of faith in Allah and the centrality of the Prophet Muhammad; praying five times a day, alms for the poor, and fasting during Ramadan.

Islam is a proselytizing religion spread originally by the
sword. But history shows that Muslim civilization has also embraced long periods of tolerance, during which bellicosity was replaced by civility and stability.

It isn't for us to identify what "real" Islam should be. But why
not listen to the several million Muslims from around the world now encircling the Ka'aba in Mecca? They are not obsessing about Jews, Christians or al-Qaida.

As Salah Nasrawi, an AP reporter on the scene found, they are
focused on personal salvation, repentance and prayer.
"Facing the Ka'aba, Zeinab Abdouazizi of Bangladesh raised her
voice... 'Oh Allah, give me health and strength so that I can raise my
children and make them... good Muslims and obedient,' she said."

How many Jews know that Muslims believe the Ka'aba mosque was
built by Abraham (and Ishmael)? When Muslims pray daily they face this shrine, which they hold to be the first place God created on earth and where Allah's holy presence is most felt.

For some pilgrims the sojourn to Mecca can be dangerous. Last
week a hotel collapsed, killing at least 76. In 1990 a terrible stampede
fatally trampled 1,426 worshipers.

What motivates individual believers to make the arduous journey
is their desire to be closer to God ­ -- a faithfulness hardly problematic
for Jews or Christians.

Let's remember that the West's war against terrorism is really
a war against Muslim extremism and not against Islam. With every
violent outrage ­from New York and London to Baghdad and Jerusalem ­ the Islamists are struggling not just to defeat Judeo-Christian civilization but to to determine which of Islam's multitude of beliefs emerges
paramount.

It is for Muslims themselves to determine whether their faith,
in this century, will be shaped by the likes of Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and al-Qaida's fanaticism, or whether moderate views gain a hearing.

For example, Khadidja Khali, president of the French and
European Muslim Women's Association, has denounced Ahmadinejad as a "fraud." And Tarik Oubrou, chairman of France's Imam Association, says that the best tactical answer to fanaticism, rather than making blanket denunciations, is teaching tolerance within the Muslim community.

Such voices may still be faint and their influence limited, but
we ignore their positive potential to our own detriment.

It is easy to be cynical, sure, when the final declaration read
out at last month's Organization of the Islamic Conference in Mecca ­ where Ahmadinejad ranted against the Jews ­ concluded with the thought that Islam needs to "fight" "deviant" ideas and is a religion of "moderation" that "rejects extremism and isolation."

Coming from Muslim leaders such as the Saudi king such a platform seemed embarrassingly disingenuous.

Nevertheless, we are witnessing a struggle for the soul of Islam where the "good guys" are not necessarily friends of the West, but nor are they outright enemies such as Iran.

Which is why I see this haj season as a good time to remind ourselves of the need to welcome voices of reason and encourage Muslim theologians
willing to engage Westerners in a spirit of mutual respect.

Does Kadima Have a Future?

As these words are being written, Ariel Sharon lies in a coma in the intensive care unit of Hadassah Hospital, Ein Kerem. The prognosis isn’t known, yet it’s obvious he won’t be returning to the Prime Minister’s Office. His career is finished. Still, the party he founded at the end of November remains not only politically viable but essential to Israel’s political well-being.

Kadima already has an iconic founder, a working party platform, an organizational director (Avigdor Yitzhaki), a plethora of talented politicians and, most importantly, an overarching mission that goes beyond Sharon the man. That mission is to give Israelis a choice between Amir Peretz and Binyamin Netanyahu.

Peretz and those to his left remain convinced that there is a Palestinian negotiating partner, and continue to embrace the ghost of Oslo. Netanyahu, and those to his right, oppose unilateralism and claim to want “a better deal” from the Palestinians. Some desire no deal at all. They are comfortable with the status quo.

That is why Kadima’s centrist alternative is no less imperative today than it was when Sharon first broke away from the Likud. Kadima’s pragmatism was articulated by Justice Minister Tzipi Livni on November 29, when she summarized the new party’s political platform:

“The Jewish people have a national and historic right to the Land of Israel; but to maintain a Jewish majority in a Jewish democratic state we have to concede parts of the Land of Israel....”
Thus while Kadima understands the inevitability of a Palestinian Arab state, it certainly does not relish the prospect. It accepts the internationally-brokered road map diplomatic plan – with the explicit proviso that the Palestinians first fulfill their obligations: dismantling the terrorist groups and ending violence and incitement. Kadima calls for maintaining the major settlement blocs, and supports an undivided Jerusalem (a fairly meaningless mantra, I admit).

I’m not suggesting that Kadima’s platform could not be improved. For instance, a truly centrist party would favor a civil marriage option as well as support for non-Orthodox conversions.


BUT I’M not deluding myself. Kadima could easily fizzle out, just like Yigal Yadin’s Democratic Movement for Change, Yitzhak Mordechai’s Center Party, and now Tommy Lapid’s Shinui.
For that not to happen, Ehud Olmert, Meir Sheetrit, Tzipi Livni and Avi Dichter, in consultation with other Kadima politicians, will have to make some tough decisions, quickly. Kadima needs not only to replace Sharon but also to display the esprit de corps and unity so abysmally lacking in Likud and Labor.

My own preference is for the 60-year-old Olmert. And I say this despite the fact that as mayor of Jerusalem he neither had my garbage collected as often as I would have liked nor used municipal taxes efficiently.

Olmert is the most seasoned and polished politician in Kadima’s ranks, having been mayor of Israel’s largest city (1993-2003), a Knesset member, a minister and, previously, a successful attorney. He has excellent English, already knows the key players in Washington, London, Brussels and Berlin, and has the added advantage of being Acting Prime Minister.

He was out front on the need for unilateral disengagement even before the idea captured the support of most Israelis. He was the first to join Kadmia after Sharon established it. And he’s cunning enough to follow in Sharon’s tactical footsteps. He has an excellent political and familial pedigree in the Jabotinsky movement. He was a member of Betar.

All this tells me he’s capable of striking the right balance between ideological principle and realpolitik.

Is Olmert a squeaky-clean politician? Let’s not kid ourselves. But, like many Israelis, I’d rather have a shrewd, slightly shady character at the helm of the state than a knave or charlatan.

PLATFORM OR no platform, the ethos of Kadima is clear to savvy Israelis. I refer you to the interview published on October 11, 2004 between Sharon’s consigliere Dov Weissglass and Haaretz’s Avi Shavit.

Here is the lawyer encapsulating the thinking of his foremost client: “Because of his trenchant realism, Arik never believed in permanent settlements: He didn’t believe in the one-fell-swoop approach. Sharon doesn’t think that after a conflict of 104 years it’s possible to come up with a piece of paper that will end the matter.

“...Very quickly we discovered that we were up against a [Palestinian] stone wall, that when you get to the decision-making center, nothing happens.”

So what unilateralism does, Weissglass explained, is to “make it possible for Israel to park conveniently in an interim situation that distances us as far as possible from political pressure. It legitimizes our contention that there is no negotiating with the Palestinians.”
And so it has been.

The months ahead will not be easy ones. There is the need to deal with the Iranian threat – while emphasizing that this is a problem for the West and not just for Israel. Construction of the security barrier must be accelerated. Ground must be broken on the E1 project to connect Jerusalem to Ma’aleh Adumin – an area where Sharon has dragged his heels.
The next premier must devote himself to defining and solidifying the Israeli consensus, not just on security issues but on a range of domestic priorities to make this society a more equitable and cohesive one.

Kadima can yet make history by reflecting a 21st-century political realignment of the Israeli body politic – one that gives expression to the country’s pragmatic mainstream. But it can only do so if its luminaries are able to summon up the altruism to postpone gratification and put the nation first.