I recently read an interview with Professor Alan Dershowitz that was published in the Jerusalem Post. Dershowitz has been a very vocal defender of Israel in his native USA, and has been particularly outspoken in his criticism of fellow juror, Judge Richard Goldstone, and the UN report into Operation Cast Lead that he authored. I could closely identify with most of the sentiments expressed by Dershowitz in the interview. One view that he expressed, however, gave me cause for a greater thought and reflection.
Dershowitz describes himself as "making the 80% case for Israel". By this, he means that he does not blindly support everything that Israel does, and the policies that the Israeli government pursues. In particular, he is opposed to the settlements. Although he is opposed to returning to the pre-'67 lines (especially relinquishing the Old City of Jerusalem and the Kotel), he makes no bones about his opposition to maintaining civilian settlements in the West Bank. The issue of the settlements has been on the forefront of all criticisms directed at Israel by the Palestinians and Israel's enemies over many years. It has been held up as the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East.
Over the years, I have regarded this criticism by the Palestinians in the same way as I have regarded other accusations levelled against Israel - an attempt to discredit Israel in the Palestinian pursuit to completely destroy the Jewish state. The settlement issue has been an additional and important bow in their quiver. When Dershowitz raised the issue of the settlements as something that he cannot support, it caused me to give the issue a second and deeper consideration.
Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank) were captured along with East Jerusalem, Sinai, Gaza and the Golan Heights during the 1967 Six Day War. The war was launched by Israel as a pre-emptive strike on the forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria when Israel was on the verge of being attacked by these countries in an attempt to destroy her. The land that was captured during the war was regarded as an essential expansion of Israel's modest territory, thereby creating more distance between Israel's hostile Arab neighbours and the most populous part of Israel. Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were formally annexed following the war, the remaining captured lands were not. Some attribute this decision to the demographic problem that annexation would have created for Israel, due to the large number of Arab inhabitants in the newly captured areas.
Following the 1967 war, successive Israeli governments have pursued a policy of establishing Jewish settlements in the West Bank in order to strengthen the security buffer between central Israel and the Arab enemies. This objective, and the building of settlements in pursuit of the objective, are entirely logical under the circumstances and can easily be defended. Only those who wish to see Israel destroyed, or those trying to destroy her would accept an argument that this additional land has not added to the security of Israel.
The policy of establishing settlements has also created its fair share of problems. It has been the root of many conflicts between the Arab residents of the West Bank and their Jewish neighbours, due to disagreements over the legal ownership over individual pieces of land. This, in turn, has been the source of many international diplomatic incidents. Jews have been accused of taking over land that is owned by private Arab individuals, or taking land which denies access to Arab-owned land. The army has been called out on more than one occasion when fights have broken out over olive groves, which provide vital income in an area which has otherwise little economic activity. There can be no doubt that the Arabs have used an uncertain situation to their advantage in creating diplomatic incidents and negative publicity for Israel. There is also no doubt that Jewish settlers have frequently overstepped their lines, and the government and the army has been forced to dismantle unauthorised settlements more than once.
The fact that Jewish settlers have behaved in a way that cannot be supported by their own government and army has certainly contributed to weakening the Israeli claim to its continued presence in the West Bank. This has allowed the Palestinians to exploit the situation to capture the hearts and minds of many governments and private individuals around the world. Most importantly, successive US governments have pressurised Israel to abandon its policy of settling the West Bank. Along with this view, it is also clear to me that unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank, similar to what was done in Gaza, will only relocate the border conflicts nearer to the heart of Israel. It will certainly not magically create a fix for the Middle East conflict. Although there may be some Palestinians who would be completely satisfied if Israel withdrew from the West Bank, most of them would only feel satisfied if this withdrawal was accompanied by a withdrawal from Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Netanya and the rest of Israel.
For now, maintaining an Israeli presence in the West Bank means that Israel is able to ensure that the border conflict is kept to the periphery of the country, and away from the main part of the country. This is vital for the safety of Israel. Leaving the West Bank will not bring any magical solution for peace, so there seems little reason to do so. In fact, it may create significantly more problems for Israel by putting its population at more risk. In the event that a comprehensive peace can be achieved, I would personally not oppose relinquishing the West Bank. This would only be in the context of a binding and comprehensive peace (if, in fact, such a thing exists). Having said that, I do understand the argument of those who oppose any land for peace arrangements. Their valid question is, what will happen if the peace is broken? Do we get the land back? For now, the Israeli government is taking the middle of the road approach which is not to relinquish any parts of the West Bank, but also not to actively create new settlements.
I can fully understand Dershowitz's 80% case that he is making for Israel. With such widespread opposition to Israel's continued presence in the West Bank, and with the ongoing attempts by Jewish settlers to act against the Israeli government and army, it is clearly difficult for him to defend this in the US. By defending the West Bank presence, he is in danger of discrediting and diluting the message of the other 80% which he wishes to promote. On balance, I think that his approach is probably the right one. At least he is able to convincingly promote an 80% message which Israel desperately needs. Israel needs more people like Alan Dershowitz in the USA to intelligently make the 80% case.
Sunday, 30 May 2010
Saturday, 22 May 2010
Israeli-Style Democracy for the UK
The long- awaited elections in the United Kingdom (UK) have taken place, and the electorate has spoken - or not. While politicians on both sides of the political divide have tried to convince us that the nation decided that it does not want any party to dominate the political scene for the next parliament, I find this explanation difficult to swallow. I am not sure how voters, when casting their votes, can have in mind that they do not wish one party or another to come out as a clear winner. Indeed, when I have cast my vote in the past, it has always been my hope that my chosen party will come out the clear winner, and I am sure that most other voters feel the same way. The more logical explanation to the outcome of the election is that none of the parties were able to convince sufficient numbers of voters to vote for them in order to gain the required majority. And so it is that the UK will have to live with the consequences of indecision for the life of the next parliament.
A coalition government is usually the territory of countries like Germany, Italy and Israel, and not the UK. In fact, it is quite seldom that a country with a first-past-the-post constituency electoral system has a coalition government. The countries who have become accustomed to operating with coalition governments on a regular basis are mostly those with proportional representation (PR) electoral systems. Living in a country whose elections over 60 years have never resulted in overall control being given to any party, I have found the confusion in the UK to be somewhat amusing. What is most amusing is that opinion polls have long predicted that an election would deliver no overall control, yet the public and the politicians seemed so unprepared for it when the result was delivered.
For a country which last had a situation of no overall control in 1974, and its last coalition government in 1945, the UK is into new political territory. As soon as the coalition discussions were initiated, we started to see the shuk-style negotiations that are only too familiar to Israelis. Nick Clegg and his Liberal-Democrats realised that they hold more power than their 62 seats or 22% of the national vote justify. He had no problem negotiating simultaneously with both the Tories and Labour to see where he could do better. Ultimately, it was the Tory leader David Cameron who seems to have come up with the goods for the Lib-Dems. So it is the leader of the party with 62 seats out of a total of 650 who is the UK's new Deputy Prime Minister. More than this, he has succeeded in ensuring that a number of policy issues, which are far from the Tory priorities, will be included in those matters to be addressed during the upcoming parliament. It feels so much like the minority religious parties in Israel who succeed in commanding way more than their support justifies, and have no qualms about going into a coalition with anybody who is prepared to pay a higher price.
It is perhaps ironic that the current electoral system will be one of the issues that will be up for discussion at the behest of the Lib-Dems. Had a PR electoral system been in place for the 2010 election, the Liberal Democrats would have gained closer to 145 seats rather than their current haul of 62. It is clear why they wish to reform the electoral system and implement PR as a matter of the highest priority. The implementation of this electoral system is, however, likely to create less stability rather than greater stability in future governments, as the prospect of no overall control under a PR system is far greater than under a constituency system.
For now, it appears to be "happy families" between the Tories and Lib-Dems. Smiling faces and presentation of agreements on coalition and government policies are the order of the day. I feel sure that this will all change when the first real test arises, and members of government are called upon to vote against their instinct and underlying beliefs in the interests of supporting the coalition agreement. I have a feeling that the issue of budget cuts will be the first one to rear the ugly head of the bad side of coalition agreements. Time will tell.
Despite the current positive appearance of the coalition government, it is my view that this coalition will go the way of many others before it. By this, I mean that it will not see out the full term of the parliament, or even near to the full term of the parliament. I predict that UK voters will be called to another general election before the end of 2011. If the Lib-Dems succeed in pushing through the adoption of a PR electoral system without special checks and balances by then, this will spell disaster for the stability of the UK electoral system.
The lesson is clear for the UK that can be passed on by other countries which have had years of coalition governments due to no overall control being achieved by one party or another. Be cautious not to allow small, niche-interest parties to extract more than their fair share in exchange for propping up a coalition government. These compromises have cost Israel dear in political and economic terms. The same is true of other countries, and there is the threat that the UK could also pay a heavy price if the government is forced to give in to its own niche-interest groups.
The UK is already reeling from the outfall of the expenses scandal which revealed the extent to which parliamentarians were abusing the expenses system. Perhaps a short parliament is what the UK needs right now to limit the damage that the coalition can cause. In this way, a new election can be called which will deliver the overall control needed to get back into the traditional style of Westminster governments.
A coalition government is usually the territory of countries like Germany, Italy and Israel, and not the UK. In fact, it is quite seldom that a country with a first-past-the-post constituency electoral system has a coalition government. The countries who have become accustomed to operating with coalition governments on a regular basis are mostly those with proportional representation (PR) electoral systems. Living in a country whose elections over 60 years have never resulted in overall control being given to any party, I have found the confusion in the UK to be somewhat amusing. What is most amusing is that opinion polls have long predicted that an election would deliver no overall control, yet the public and the politicians seemed so unprepared for it when the result was delivered.
For a country which last had a situation of no overall control in 1974, and its last coalition government in 1945, the UK is into new political territory. As soon as the coalition discussions were initiated, we started to see the shuk-style negotiations that are only too familiar to Israelis. Nick Clegg and his Liberal-Democrats realised that they hold more power than their 62 seats or 22% of the national vote justify. He had no problem negotiating simultaneously with both the Tories and Labour to see where he could do better. Ultimately, it was the Tory leader David Cameron who seems to have come up with the goods for the Lib-Dems. So it is the leader of the party with 62 seats out of a total of 650 who is the UK's new Deputy Prime Minister. More than this, he has succeeded in ensuring that a number of policy issues, which are far from the Tory priorities, will be included in those matters to be addressed during the upcoming parliament. It feels so much like the minority religious parties in Israel who succeed in commanding way more than their support justifies, and have no qualms about going into a coalition with anybody who is prepared to pay a higher price.
It is perhaps ironic that the current electoral system will be one of the issues that will be up for discussion at the behest of the Lib-Dems. Had a PR electoral system been in place for the 2010 election, the Liberal Democrats would have gained closer to 145 seats rather than their current haul of 62. It is clear why they wish to reform the electoral system and implement PR as a matter of the highest priority. The implementation of this electoral system is, however, likely to create less stability rather than greater stability in future governments, as the prospect of no overall control under a PR system is far greater than under a constituency system.
For now, it appears to be "happy families" between the Tories and Lib-Dems. Smiling faces and presentation of agreements on coalition and government policies are the order of the day. I feel sure that this will all change when the first real test arises, and members of government are called upon to vote against their instinct and underlying beliefs in the interests of supporting the coalition agreement. I have a feeling that the issue of budget cuts will be the first one to rear the ugly head of the bad side of coalition agreements. Time will tell.
Despite the current positive appearance of the coalition government, it is my view that this coalition will go the way of many others before it. By this, I mean that it will not see out the full term of the parliament, or even near to the full term of the parliament. I predict that UK voters will be called to another general election before the end of 2011. If the Lib-Dems succeed in pushing through the adoption of a PR electoral system without special checks and balances by then, this will spell disaster for the stability of the UK electoral system.
The lesson is clear for the UK that can be passed on by other countries which have had years of coalition governments due to no overall control being achieved by one party or another. Be cautious not to allow small, niche-interest parties to extract more than their fair share in exchange for propping up a coalition government. These compromises have cost Israel dear in political and economic terms. The same is true of other countries, and there is the threat that the UK could also pay a heavy price if the government is forced to give in to its own niche-interest groups.
The UK is already reeling from the outfall of the expenses scandal which revealed the extent to which parliamentarians were abusing the expenses system. Perhaps a short parliament is what the UK needs right now to limit the damage that the coalition can cause. In this way, a new election can be called which will deliver the overall control needed to get back into the traditional style of Westminster governments.
Monday, 17 May 2010
The Start of a Nation
The Jewish festival of Shavuot (Weeks/Pentecost) that will be celebrated during this week marks the occasion when the Children of Israel received the Ten Commandments on their way from slavery in Egypt towards the promised land.
The festival has many themes that are associated with it, the dominant one being the significance of receiving the Ten Commandments and, as it is believed, the Torah. This is considered a covenant between G-d and the Jewish people, and is likened to a marriage between the two.
According to the descriptions of the event at Mount Sinai, the entire “nation” was gathered to ensure that each and every member of the congregation was present to personally witness G-d revealing himself, and the receipt of the Torah. This was something that could not be relayed second-hand – everybody had to see it for themselves.
This gathering of all the Children of Israel was a one-time event in history, and also marks the moment upon which the Children of Israel became a nation. So, contrary to popular opinion, the nation of Israel was not created in 1948 when the State of Israel was declared, the nation was created many years before this and even before the arrival in the promised land.
The Israeli nation has survived almost 5,000 years since its creation on that day in the shadows of Mount Sinai. It has survived periods during which we lived in the Jewish homeland, and periods in exile, periods of persecution and discrimination, and periods of relative peace and tranquillity. The one thing that has never been lost or forgotten is the connection to the Ten Commandments and to the Torah which was also established on that day. This is the glue that has stuck the nation together through thick and thin, and has ensured that the nation has remained intact over all those years.
After the Torah, the next most enduring symbol to the Jewish people over the generations has been the link to the Land of Israel. It is not coincidental that the Jews were en route to the Land of Israel when the nation was created and when the Torah was given. For forty years, the Children of Israel sojourned in the desert and did not rest until they finally reached the promised land. For those people, the route to the promised land was arduous and unforgiving. Despite this fact, they never gave up on their yearning to finally be able to set up a permanent establishment when they reached the Land of Israel.
For Jews of today, the route to the promised land is much easier. In most cases, a simple El Al flight is enough to get you there. Nobody will be forced to eat manna along the way, and there is certainly no need to wander in the desert for forty years. The irony is that more people seemed to want to make it when it required greater effort. Now that the effort is considerably less (aside from the cost of an air ticket), there seems to be less desire to fulfil this magical journey than before.
Despite this fact, Israel is a real miracle that has attracted many millions of Jews who have made the decision to live here. Like most other countries, it has its problems to confront. But overall, it is a country that has a real vibrancy about it, and which reflects its Jewish values and heart to all its inhabitants.
This Shavuot, when tucking into your cheesecake or hearing the reading of the Book of Ruth, spare a thought for the moment when a nation was created. This nation continues to live, and to thrive in the Land of Israel, the land that is central to all that Jews stand for. Even though we seek peace with our neighbours, and may even be prepared to accept a two-state solution in our attempt to create peace, it should be clear that the State of Israel will always be a Jewish state, and will be defended by Jews under all circumstances. We are not about to throw away 5,000 years worth of history.
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Celebrating Jerusalem
Wednesday this week sees the minor holiday of Yom Yerushalayim (Jerusalem Day). It is not a holiday that is widely celebrated, and there will be many Jewish communities around the world that may not even be aware of the holiday. In Israel, and particularly in the capital city, the day will be celebrated as one of the happiest days of the year. This is the day which, in 2010, marks 43 years since the holy city of Jerusalem was reunified and installed as the undivided capital of Israel and the Jewish people.
The pictures that are synonymous with the famous victory achieved by the Israeli forces in the Six Day War show celebrations and tears at the Western Wall when it was restored to Israeli control. The feeling of being so near to the holiest site in Judaism, and being prevented from approaching it during the years of Jordanian rule over East Jerusalem, proved to be very difficult for Jews. The ability to touch the wall after the victory in 1967, the same wall that formed part of the outer borders of Herod’s Temple, was unsurprisingly the focal point of the celebration. This place and this city has been the object of Jewish prayers and yearning for almost 2,000 years during the period of exile. Finally returning it to Jewish hands brought about scenes of jubilation and unbridled joy.
During the nearly 20 years of Arab rule over East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, no access to the holiest Jewish site was allowed to Jews. During the same period, there was no attempt to declare this the capital of any Palestinian State or the capital of any other country. The claims that Jerusalem be the capital of a country other than the Jewish State were only initiated well after East Jerusalem was returned to Jewish hands, and the united city of Jerusalem proclaimed as the eternal capital of Israel. When the opportunity was presented to proclaim Jerusalem as the capital of an Arab country, there was no interest in doing so. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that there is a great deal of scepticism around the claims by the Palestinians that Jerusalem be the capital of a Palestinian state.
When considering that Muslims have been allowed access to their holy sites in Jerusalem under Israeli rule and the Waqf council headed by the King of Jordan has jurisdiction over Muslim holy sites, there seems to be little reason for Palestinians to claim Jerusalem as their capital city. Despite this fact, the Palestinians have made the issue of Jerusalem one of the cornerstones of their claims against Israel. The now on-again proximity talks with US mediation will focus on 5 core issues, which include the claim by the Palestinians to have East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.
The extent to which the claim to Jerusalem is really so important is brought into question by the actions of Yasser Arafat at the Camp David summit with Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000, under the mediation of US President Bill Clinton. At that famous meeting, Arafat rejected the generous proposals made by Barak to him. These proposals, which would most likely have been rejected by the Israeli electorate had they had the chance to vote on them, were still not enough for Arafat. Is the claim to Jerusalem to be regarded as a genuine desire to have the holy city as a Palestinian capital, or is it simply part of the strategy to expel the Jews from Jerusalem and Israel? I am forced to believe the latter.
During the course of the current round of proximity talks, it is my hope that prime minister Netanyahu will not be fooled by the tactics employed by the Palestinians. Despite my scepticism regarding the true intentions of the Palestinians, I am a supporter of the two-state solution which allows for the establishment of a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people. This does not, however include gifting any part of Jerusalem to this Palestinian state. The prime minister does not have a remit from his electorate to give any part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians. Jerusalem was annexed soon after the 1967 war (as opposed to the West Bank which remains under military rule) in order to send a clear message that an undivided Jerusalem will always be the capital of the Jewish state. This message needs to be resent loudly and clearly. The Palestinian headquarters are currently established in Ramallah, and there seems to be no conceivable reason why this should not continue to serve as a capital of a Palestinian state in the future.
This week on Yom Yerushalayim, not only will we be celebrating events of the past, we will also be considering what the future holds for the holy city. One thing is for sure, the right of Jews to visit the holiest site in Judaism can never be compromised. This is a minimum. The truth is that giving any part of Jerusalem will not be acceptable. My prayer is that we can reach an agreement with the Palestinians to allow them to establish a state without having to cede any part of Jerusalem to this state. I also pray that this state will agree to live alongside Israel in peace and mutual respect. Is this too much to expect?
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Goldstone and the Barmitzvah
The furore surrounding the barmitzvah of Judge Richard Goldstone's grandson, and whether or not his famous grandfather will attend, has again catapulted Goldstone into the news. I have previously written about the Goldstone Report into Israel's war in Gaza in the blog "The Goldstone Farce". I was outraged, angry and let down by Goldstone's agreement to head up the UN Fact Finding Commission on the Gaza Conflict by the Human Rights Commission. I was even more outraged by his investigation, and the resulting report which he produced. This feeling has not subsided over the months that have passed since his report was published. I feel that he has done the State of Israel irreparable damage in the pursuit of his own personal objectives.
When it was made public that the barmitzvah would take place at the Sandton Synagogue, I was most interested in the reaction by the South African Jewish community. My understanding is that the South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) spoke out against his attendance of the barmitzvah, and the judge decided with his family that he would not attend in order to spare embarrassment and inconvenience on all sides. After a few additional days of consultations and negotiations involving the SAZF, the synagogue, the Jewish Board of Deputies (the umbrella body representing South African Jews) and the Goldstone family, a compromise situation was reached in terms of which Goldstone would attend the event.
I feel in two minds about the whole situation. On the one hand, I was pleased to see the South African Jewish community finally take a public stand against a man who has behaved incredibly badly. In objective terms, he took on a brief that was openly anti-Israel, a brief that even non-Jews were not prepared to accept. He represented an organisation, the UNHRC, which has a history of adopting an anti-Israel position over many years and which has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than any other country. He has leant unjustified credibility to the organisation and to the brief by allowing outsiders to say that his report represents the point of view of a Jew. As a Jew, he has caused undeniable damage to Israel, and so to Jews around the world. As a respected South African jurist and member of the Jewish community, I believe that the members of the community have a right and a responsibility to speak out against him and his damaging actions, and to show their displeasure.
On the other hand, however, I feel that creating a situation where a grandfather is unable to attend the barmitzvah of his grandson is not the correct way to demonstrate displeasure. While it is true that a synagogue is a public place which is representative of the community and its wishes, it is also a place where personal and family events and rites of passage are celebrated. No Jew has the right to prevent another Jew from celebrating a right which is prescribed by the Torah, and is part of the relationship between man and G-d. The action by the community of acting in a way which prevents a family member from attending a family event in a public place represents a dangerous precedent. Does this mean that we should evaluate the history of every father or grandfather before allowing him to attend the barmitzvah, batmitzvah or wedding of his child or grandchild? Which transgressions are acceptable, and which cannot be tolerated? Do the claims have to be independently proved, or is here-say and gossip enough to prevent them from attending? All of a sudden, many issues come into play which should not form part of the considerations involved in allowing a somebody to attend a family rite of passage. The synagogue is a place of prayer, learning and a meeting house for all members of the community, all done in the sanctification of G-d's name. Where the relationship between G-d and man is concerned, there is no room for judgements to be passed by other men, many of whom have their own missteps to answer for. Judaism teaches us that each man will be called to account for his actions on his day of judgement. Until then, it is the responsibility of other members of the community to behave in a way that will allow them to answer for their actions when their own day of judgement arrives.
Even though I am happy that Goldstone was ultimately able to attend the barmitzvah and I feel that the sense prevailed within the community, he should not be allowed to get away entirely scot-free. If I was the SAZF, I would call a community meeting of protest to the Goldstone report. I would be fair to the judge and invite him to attend to present his position. I would also invite a speaker, perhaps a senior Israeli, to present the contrary view which makes clear the damage done by his report to Israel and the wider Jewish community. Hopefully, the judge would be able to hear first-hand how much damage he has caused by his actions. In short, the South African community should use the publicity and outrage generated by the barmitzvah story to encourage the community to speak out against Goldstone as much as possible.
It seems as if any personal aspirations that Judge Goldstone felt he might be able to promote by agreeing to head up the fact-finding commission have been dashed. We can at least take some comfort from that fact. Hopefully, the furore surrounding his report will also prevent him from taking on further similar positions which could cause additional damage in the future. The power that he has provided to anti-Israel groups and to anti-Semites around the world can sadly not be reversed. For this, he will always be responsible. In the meantime, I hope that the South African community continue to make their displeasure felt to Goldstone and those around him. I would also like to add my mazaltov to the barmitzvah boy.
When it was made public that the barmitzvah would take place at the Sandton Synagogue, I was most interested in the reaction by the South African Jewish community. My understanding is that the South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) spoke out against his attendance of the barmitzvah, and the judge decided with his family that he would not attend in order to spare embarrassment and inconvenience on all sides. After a few additional days of consultations and negotiations involving the SAZF, the synagogue, the Jewish Board of Deputies (the umbrella body representing South African Jews) and the Goldstone family, a compromise situation was reached in terms of which Goldstone would attend the event.
I feel in two minds about the whole situation. On the one hand, I was pleased to see the South African Jewish community finally take a public stand against a man who has behaved incredibly badly. In objective terms, he took on a brief that was openly anti-Israel, a brief that even non-Jews were not prepared to accept. He represented an organisation, the UNHRC, which has a history of adopting an anti-Israel position over many years and which has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than any other country. He has leant unjustified credibility to the organisation and to the brief by allowing outsiders to say that his report represents the point of view of a Jew. As a Jew, he has caused undeniable damage to Israel, and so to Jews around the world. As a respected South African jurist and member of the Jewish community, I believe that the members of the community have a right and a responsibility to speak out against him and his damaging actions, and to show their displeasure.
On the other hand, however, I feel that creating a situation where a grandfather is unable to attend the barmitzvah of his grandson is not the correct way to demonstrate displeasure. While it is true that a synagogue is a public place which is representative of the community and its wishes, it is also a place where personal and family events and rites of passage are celebrated. No Jew has the right to prevent another Jew from celebrating a right which is prescribed by the Torah, and is part of the relationship between man and G-d. The action by the community of acting in a way which prevents a family member from attending a family event in a public place represents a dangerous precedent. Does this mean that we should evaluate the history of every father or grandfather before allowing him to attend the barmitzvah, batmitzvah or wedding of his child or grandchild? Which transgressions are acceptable, and which cannot be tolerated? Do the claims have to be independently proved, or is here-say and gossip enough to prevent them from attending? All of a sudden, many issues come into play which should not form part of the considerations involved in allowing a somebody to attend a family rite of passage. The synagogue is a place of prayer, learning and a meeting house for all members of the community, all done in the sanctification of G-d's name. Where the relationship between G-d and man is concerned, there is no room for judgements to be passed by other men, many of whom have their own missteps to answer for. Judaism teaches us that each man will be called to account for his actions on his day of judgement. Until then, it is the responsibility of other members of the community to behave in a way that will allow them to answer for their actions when their own day of judgement arrives.
Even though I am happy that Goldstone was ultimately able to attend the barmitzvah and I feel that the sense prevailed within the community, he should not be allowed to get away entirely scot-free. If I was the SAZF, I would call a community meeting of protest to the Goldstone report. I would be fair to the judge and invite him to attend to present his position. I would also invite a speaker, perhaps a senior Israeli, to present the contrary view which makes clear the damage done by his report to Israel and the wider Jewish community. Hopefully, the judge would be able to hear first-hand how much damage he has caused by his actions. In short, the South African community should use the publicity and outrage generated by the barmitzvah story to encourage the community to speak out against Goldstone as much as possible.
It seems as if any personal aspirations that Judge Goldstone felt he might be able to promote by agreeing to head up the fact-finding commission have been dashed. We can at least take some comfort from that fact. Hopefully, the furore surrounding his report will also prevent him from taking on further similar positions which could cause additional damage in the future. The power that he has provided to anti-Israel groups and to anti-Semites around the world can sadly not be reversed. For this, he will always be responsible. In the meantime, I hope that the South African community continue to make their displeasure felt to Goldstone and those around him. I would also like to add my mazaltov to the barmitzvah boy.
Friday, 30 April 2010
Proportionate Response
I am reading another of Daniel Gordis' books which I am finding fascinating. I am becoming something of a fan of his, as I find I can really identify with what he is writing, and thoroughly enjoy his style of expressing himself. In his most recent book, Saving Israel: How the Jewish People Can Win a War that May Never End (John Wiley & Sons, 2009), Gordis raises two particular issues which have struck me. They are points that I have thought a good deal about over a long time, and which don't really seem to get much airtime in the press.
The first point that he makes, is that the current war of terror that Israel continues to fight does not threaten Israel's existence. I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I abhor the fact that a sovereign nation and its citizens should be subject to constant barrages of missiles that are fired on a daily basis. I don't know any other country in the world which is forced to endure such bad behaviour in an attempt to frighten people, or that would tolerate it. There is no doubt that the intentions of the people who are firing the rockets are to destroy Israel. What they are doing, however, is sowing fear amongst innocent Israelis and causing risk to life and limb. On the occasion that they have succeeded in getting a rocket to hit a built-up area, significant damage has been caused and lives have been lost. This atrocious situation, whilst intolerable to any country, cannot be interpreted as threatening the future existence of the State of Israel. It absolutely does not.
The second point that he makes is that Israel cannot win the war of terror that is currently being waged. He draws a parallel with the war that the US is fighting in Afghanistan. This is not a regular war between sovereign nations and their armies. The war of terror is conducted by "civilians" who use residential neighbourhoods for the purpose of storing weapons, and for firing on the enemy forces. This achieves a number of objectives. Firstly, it ensures that public opinion stays with the "civilians", as public opinion these days always seems to favour the underdog. Secondly, it plays on the senses and conscience of civilised humans who do not wish to kill or hurt civilians, even in the heat of a battle against terrorists. All the while that the war is being fought in the midst of civilian neighbourhoods, they know that civilised nations will be reluctant to fire back.
On his statement that Israel cannot win this war, I am forced to disagree with Daniel Gordis. I think that it is absolutely possible for Israel to win the war of terror just the same as I believe that the US forces could easily eradicate the Taliban in Afghanistan. All that is required in Israel's case is for a few heavy-duty bombs to be dropped on Gaza. Thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, would be killed, but the war of terror would be over. Israel has the necessary fire power and the ability to do this. It is just that Israel chooses not to exercise this option at the current time. So why, when Israeli citizens are under constant rocket attack on a daily basis, do Israeli military and political leaders choose not to put a permanent stop to this? The answer is contained in the first point above, which is that Israel's existence is not threatened. It is all about ensuring that responses to attacks are proportionate, particularly where the lives of innocent civilians are at risk. There can be no doubt that if Israel suddenly came under an attack which threatened to wipe the whole country off the map, every possible military option would be exercised. Until this happens, we need to ensure that our reactions and responses are measured, well thought-through and proportionate to the threat that we confront. This will ensure that the "collateral damage" will be kept to a minimum.
There are many who do not agree with this approach. They believe that the Palestinians deserve the full wrath of the Israeli army in view of the constant indiscriminate attacks on civilians. It is true that, when these missiles are launched in the direction of Israel, the perpetrators do not know or care if they will hit civilian areas. They would prefer it if their missiles did strike civilians to inflict as much death, damage and suffering on the Israelis as they can. In addition, they seem to give no consideration to the threat that they place their own civilian population under by firing from residential neighbourhoods. So why is it necessary to show respect when so much disrespect is received in return? Why should our attacks be measured when they throw their full military capability at us? What is the value of our military strength if we do not exercise it when our citizens are in danger?
Despite the attitude shown by our enemies who are quite happy to endanger and kill innocent civilians (theirs and ours), I am pleased that our army and our people make efforts to avoid this. I recognise that, at times, this approach costs us and even puts lives in danger. It does, however, ensure that we maintain our humanity. It is important for me that the army that represents my interests retains humanity, and does not sink to the despicable levels shown by the Palestinian militant groups. In short, I like the fact that each Israeli soldier operates within a framework which expects him or her always to behave like a mensch.
In addition to running the risk of losing our humanity, the experience that we have endured with the recent Goldstone Report also indicates how the army's behaviour is under the scrutiny of the international community. Unfortunately, even attempts to behave in the most correct manner possible seem to incur the wrath of the Israel-haters. Imagine what the reaction of the international community would be if the IDF went into Gaza in a more heavy-handed manner.
Even though the Goldstone Report has inflicted damage on Israel's public image in a most abhorrent manner, there is greater damage that could be caused to the Jewish state. The international reaction that I most fear is not in the form of Goldstone-type reports. More than this, I fear the impact that severe economic sanctions may cause. Israel has built itself into an economic miracle over 62 short years. This economic achievement could never have come about if it had to rely in its minuscule local market of 6 million people. Closing the international market to Israel's exports including technology, agricultural and other goods would decimate the Israeli economy. This, in turn, would weaken Israel's military strength and many other important aspects of the country that rely on its exports. The implementation of harsh economic sanctions will almost certainly spell the end of Israel as we know it.
If, in the eyes of the international world, Israel was to take the proverbial sledgehammer to kill the ant, this could spell the end for Israel. Even her allies may be coerced into a situation where they are forced to support severe economic sanctions. Israel would not be able to withstand such international pressure and would most probably collapse within a short period of time. In order to protect her future, and that of the Jewish people, Israel is forced not only to consider her moral stand, but also the level to which the international world is willing to continue to support her actions. Proportionate response is what it is all about, not only for the conscience of Israel and the Jewish people, but also to maintain the support of the key international players. To seem, it may seem as if "proportionate response" forces Israel into a situation of having to endure the never-ending attacks without being able to put a stop to them, until such time as something more severe happens which "justifies" a harsher response from Israel. This is precisely how the recent war in Gaza started.
It is tough for me to accept that members of the international community find the necessity to examine the level of response by Israel, and to measure whether it is proportionate or not. This all the time knowing that if their countries were being bombed on a daily basis and the lives of their citizens put at risk, the proportions would be much greater. But the rules in the Middle East are different, and the proportions are different. Like it or not, this is something that Israel needs to accept and live with. For me, what is more important than facing up to the international community is being able to face up to ourselves. In this respect, I feel we are doing a good job. One has to take into account that no national army under the same pressure as the IDF can be without its renegades or individual behaviours which run contrary to its commands. As such, no army's actions are perfect. When, however, all things are considered, I am extremely proud of the achievements of the IDF. The views of the international community can do little to change my views in this regard.
The first point that he makes, is that the current war of terror that Israel continues to fight does not threaten Israel's existence. I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I abhor the fact that a sovereign nation and its citizens should be subject to constant barrages of missiles that are fired on a daily basis. I don't know any other country in the world which is forced to endure such bad behaviour in an attempt to frighten people, or that would tolerate it. There is no doubt that the intentions of the people who are firing the rockets are to destroy Israel. What they are doing, however, is sowing fear amongst innocent Israelis and causing risk to life and limb. On the occasion that they have succeeded in getting a rocket to hit a built-up area, significant damage has been caused and lives have been lost. This atrocious situation, whilst intolerable to any country, cannot be interpreted as threatening the future existence of the State of Israel. It absolutely does not.
The second point that he makes is that Israel cannot win the war of terror that is currently being waged. He draws a parallel with the war that the US is fighting in Afghanistan. This is not a regular war between sovereign nations and their armies. The war of terror is conducted by "civilians" who use residential neighbourhoods for the purpose of storing weapons, and for firing on the enemy forces. This achieves a number of objectives. Firstly, it ensures that public opinion stays with the "civilians", as public opinion these days always seems to favour the underdog. Secondly, it plays on the senses and conscience of civilised humans who do not wish to kill or hurt civilians, even in the heat of a battle against terrorists. All the while that the war is being fought in the midst of civilian neighbourhoods, they know that civilised nations will be reluctant to fire back.
On his statement that Israel cannot win this war, I am forced to disagree with Daniel Gordis. I think that it is absolutely possible for Israel to win the war of terror just the same as I believe that the US forces could easily eradicate the Taliban in Afghanistan. All that is required in Israel's case is for a few heavy-duty bombs to be dropped on Gaza. Thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, would be killed, but the war of terror would be over. Israel has the necessary fire power and the ability to do this. It is just that Israel chooses not to exercise this option at the current time. So why, when Israeli citizens are under constant rocket attack on a daily basis, do Israeli military and political leaders choose not to put a permanent stop to this? The answer is contained in the first point above, which is that Israel's existence is not threatened. It is all about ensuring that responses to attacks are proportionate, particularly where the lives of innocent civilians are at risk. There can be no doubt that if Israel suddenly came under an attack which threatened to wipe the whole country off the map, every possible military option would be exercised. Until this happens, we need to ensure that our reactions and responses are measured, well thought-through and proportionate to the threat that we confront. This will ensure that the "collateral damage" will be kept to a minimum.
There are many who do not agree with this approach. They believe that the Palestinians deserve the full wrath of the Israeli army in view of the constant indiscriminate attacks on civilians. It is true that, when these missiles are launched in the direction of Israel, the perpetrators do not know or care if they will hit civilian areas. They would prefer it if their missiles did strike civilians to inflict as much death, damage and suffering on the Israelis as they can. In addition, they seem to give no consideration to the threat that they place their own civilian population under by firing from residential neighbourhoods. So why is it necessary to show respect when so much disrespect is received in return? Why should our attacks be measured when they throw their full military capability at us? What is the value of our military strength if we do not exercise it when our citizens are in danger?
Despite the attitude shown by our enemies who are quite happy to endanger and kill innocent civilians (theirs and ours), I am pleased that our army and our people make efforts to avoid this. I recognise that, at times, this approach costs us and even puts lives in danger. It does, however, ensure that we maintain our humanity. It is important for me that the army that represents my interests retains humanity, and does not sink to the despicable levels shown by the Palestinian militant groups. In short, I like the fact that each Israeli soldier operates within a framework which expects him or her always to behave like a mensch.
In addition to running the risk of losing our humanity, the experience that we have endured with the recent Goldstone Report also indicates how the army's behaviour is under the scrutiny of the international community. Unfortunately, even attempts to behave in the most correct manner possible seem to incur the wrath of the Israel-haters. Imagine what the reaction of the international community would be if the IDF went into Gaza in a more heavy-handed manner.
Even though the Goldstone Report has inflicted damage on Israel's public image in a most abhorrent manner, there is greater damage that could be caused to the Jewish state. The international reaction that I most fear is not in the form of Goldstone-type reports. More than this, I fear the impact that severe economic sanctions may cause. Israel has built itself into an economic miracle over 62 short years. This economic achievement could never have come about if it had to rely in its minuscule local market of 6 million people. Closing the international market to Israel's exports including technology, agricultural and other goods would decimate the Israeli economy. This, in turn, would weaken Israel's military strength and many other important aspects of the country that rely on its exports. The implementation of harsh economic sanctions will almost certainly spell the end of Israel as we know it.
If, in the eyes of the international world, Israel was to take the proverbial sledgehammer to kill the ant, this could spell the end for Israel. Even her allies may be coerced into a situation where they are forced to support severe economic sanctions. Israel would not be able to withstand such international pressure and would most probably collapse within a short period of time. In order to protect her future, and that of the Jewish people, Israel is forced not only to consider her moral stand, but also the level to which the international world is willing to continue to support her actions. Proportionate response is what it is all about, not only for the conscience of Israel and the Jewish people, but also to maintain the support of the key international players. To seem, it may seem as if "proportionate response" forces Israel into a situation of having to endure the never-ending attacks without being able to put a stop to them, until such time as something more severe happens which "justifies" a harsher response from Israel. This is precisely how the recent war in Gaza started.
It is tough for me to accept that members of the international community find the necessity to examine the level of response by Israel, and to measure whether it is proportionate or not. This all the time knowing that if their countries were being bombed on a daily basis and the lives of their citizens put at risk, the proportions would be much greater. But the rules in the Middle East are different, and the proportions are different. Like it or not, this is something that Israel needs to accept and live with. For me, what is more important than facing up to the international community is being able to face up to ourselves. In this respect, I feel we are doing a good job. One has to take into account that no national army under the same pressure as the IDF can be without its renegades or individual behaviours which run contrary to its commands. As such, no army's actions are perfect. When, however, all things are considered, I am extremely proud of the achievements of the IDF. The views of the international community can do little to change my views in this regard.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
All or Nothing
During a recent heated debate with my nearly 16 year-old son, he explained to me his view of the current stand-off between the Israelis and the Palestinians. His understanding is that the Palestinians are so-called because they were the inhabitants of Palestine before the Jewish state was declared. In his view, Palestinian nationalism was created by virtue of the fact that Arab inhabitants of Palestine were forced to leave their homes at the time of Israel's creation, and they await their opportunity to return to their original homes. He believes that their claim is legitimate and that they have a right to be able to return to their homes.
During the course of the conversation, I tried to gather from him what he believes this situation may mean for Israel. He is convinced that the "Palestinians" have a right to return to the homes which they ran away from in 1948. Despite knowing that the Jews requested the Arabs to remain in their homes and not to run, his sense of fair play causes him to feel that they have the right to return to the homes that they abandoned. When I raised with him the fact that they wish to see Israel destroyed, his perspective on the situation is that they wish to see Israel destroyed because they want the whole of "Palestine" for themselves. In his view, they have nothing against the Jews as such, it is just that they wish to have the land for themselves.
In attempt to try to run with his argument, I asked why he felt that the Palestinians had not tried to at least build a state with the bits of land that they have managed to gain over the years. During the period between 1948 and 1967, there was no attempt to build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. In recent years when they have had control over much of this land and now also have huge sums of international aid which was donated to help them to build a state, still no progress has been made in this direction. How can this be reconciled to his view that all they wish to do is build a Palestinian state, and that it is nothing personal against the Jews? It was then that I was introduced to the concept of "all or nothing". I was told that the Palestinians do not wish to build a state on part of their land, because they hold the view that they can only build a state when they have all the land that they are demanding. For them, it is all or nothing.
I was quite surprised by the introduction of this concept to our discussion, and felt very unprepared for it. It was not something that I had heard before, and I am unsure what the source of this view is. Perhaps, by agreeing to accept some of the land, the Palestinians may feel that they are relinquishing their right to the rest of it. It seems, however, that there may be a generation of young Israelis growing up who believe that Israel stands in the way of the Palestinian demand for all or nothing.
I thought for a moment about the situation, then tried to link this view to the Jewish perspective. I explained that there are many Jews who believe in the "greater Land of Israel", A belief that Jews have the right to the land which was promised to the Jewish people by G-d in the Torah. If we take the boundaries which are set out in the book of Numbers (34:1 to 15), we would be demanding not only the West Bank, we would be expecting to have much of Jordan, Iraq and beyond. But when, in 1948, the Jews were given even the smallest sliver of land to build a Jewish state, we grabbed it and immediately set about building it. We never hung onto an "all or nothing" view. The reason is that we were not concerned at all about displacing the Arabs or fighting the Arabs for the land that they had been granted. Instead, we were only concerned about building our own homeland. I hold the view that if the Palestinians are truly interested in building themselves a homeland, they would set about doing so on whatever land they have under their control. But they do not do this. Their only concern is fighting the Jews for what we have. Their actions signal a clear intention to me, and this is not "all or nothing" for themselves. This about ensuring that the Jews have nothing.
The debate with my son ties into a recent debate on the same subject with my father. In this conversation, I found myself verbalising something that I may have thought for some time, but have never said before. I finally admitted out loud that I honestly cannot see a situation which would bring peace to the Middle East in my lifetime, and possibly not even in the lifetime of my children. Despite my high hopes for my peace when I arrived here nearly 12 years ago, and despite my views that the Palestinians had finally come to the realisation that the Jews cannot be removed from Israel, I am now of the opinion that this is not true at all. Instead, I see that the Palestinians and many other Arabs refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. This fundamental refusal is the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Until such time as Israel gets this recognition that she deserves, there can never be peace in this region. As much as this admission saddens me, I am relieved that it is out in the open for all to see.
The problem is that my son, and possibly other Israeli nearly 16 year-olds don't see this. These are the boys and girls who, in another 3 years from now, will be enlisting for their compulsory military service to fight for the freedom and safety of the State of Israel and the Jewish nation. I do feel good about my son's sense of fair play, and I would never want this part of his character and set of beliefs to change. Being a good human being is important to me, and I am proud to be the father of a boy who cares deeply about others, even those who may be trying to kill him. It is important, however, for him and his friends to recognise what the reality is. I do feel that these boys and girls, whilst holding a sympathetic view regarding the claim of the Palestinians, do recognise that two peoples cannot rule over the same piece of land at the same time. As such, they understand that we have to fight for it as much as we can before it is taken away from us. So, although we don't agree on what may be driving the Palestinians to claim the land, we do all agree that the land is ours to defend with all our strength.
It strikes me that if there are Israelis who hold a sympathetic view towards the Palestinian position, no matter whether this is only held by a minority of Israelis, it is unsurprising that many of those watching the ongoing Middle East conflict from the outside also hold this belief. As Israelis, we have an obligation to ensure that our children see the situation for what it is. It is also critical for the world-at-large to understand this. There will always be commentators who will criticise Israel, no matter what the situation is. There are, however, sufficient people in the world who don't necessarily hold preconceived ideas, and who are available to be convinced of the truth. It is Israel's responsibility to demonstrate what the truth is. In particular, the world, and the Arab world in particular, should understand that sympathies will never be enough to convince our younger generation to relinquish our right to our homeland.
During the course of the conversation, I tried to gather from him what he believes this situation may mean for Israel. He is convinced that the "Palestinians" have a right to return to the homes which they ran away from in 1948. Despite knowing that the Jews requested the Arabs to remain in their homes and not to run, his sense of fair play causes him to feel that they have the right to return to the homes that they abandoned. When I raised with him the fact that they wish to see Israel destroyed, his perspective on the situation is that they wish to see Israel destroyed because they want the whole of "Palestine" for themselves. In his view, they have nothing against the Jews as such, it is just that they wish to have the land for themselves.
In attempt to try to run with his argument, I asked why he felt that the Palestinians had not tried to at least build a state with the bits of land that they have managed to gain over the years. During the period between 1948 and 1967, there was no attempt to build a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. In recent years when they have had control over much of this land and now also have huge sums of international aid which was donated to help them to build a state, still no progress has been made in this direction. How can this be reconciled to his view that all they wish to do is build a Palestinian state, and that it is nothing personal against the Jews? It was then that I was introduced to the concept of "all or nothing". I was told that the Palestinians do not wish to build a state on part of their land, because they hold the view that they can only build a state when they have all the land that they are demanding. For them, it is all or nothing.
I was quite surprised by the introduction of this concept to our discussion, and felt very unprepared for it. It was not something that I had heard before, and I am unsure what the source of this view is. Perhaps, by agreeing to accept some of the land, the Palestinians may feel that they are relinquishing their right to the rest of it. It seems, however, that there may be a generation of young Israelis growing up who believe that Israel stands in the way of the Palestinian demand for all or nothing.
I thought for a moment about the situation, then tried to link this view to the Jewish perspective. I explained that there are many Jews who believe in the "greater Land of Israel", A belief that Jews have the right to the land which was promised to the Jewish people by G-d in the Torah. If we take the boundaries which are set out in the book of Numbers (34:1 to 15), we would be demanding not only the West Bank, we would be expecting to have much of Jordan, Iraq and beyond. But when, in 1948, the Jews were given even the smallest sliver of land to build a Jewish state, we grabbed it and immediately set about building it. We never hung onto an "all or nothing" view. The reason is that we were not concerned at all about displacing the Arabs or fighting the Arabs for the land that they had been granted. Instead, we were only concerned about building our own homeland. I hold the view that if the Palestinians are truly interested in building themselves a homeland, they would set about doing so on whatever land they have under their control. But they do not do this. Their only concern is fighting the Jews for what we have. Their actions signal a clear intention to me, and this is not "all or nothing" for themselves. This about ensuring that the Jews have nothing.
The debate with my son ties into a recent debate on the same subject with my father. In this conversation, I found myself verbalising something that I may have thought for some time, but have never said before. I finally admitted out loud that I honestly cannot see a situation which would bring peace to the Middle East in my lifetime, and possibly not even in the lifetime of my children. Despite my high hopes for my peace when I arrived here nearly 12 years ago, and despite my views that the Palestinians had finally come to the realisation that the Jews cannot be removed from Israel, I am now of the opinion that this is not true at all. Instead, I see that the Palestinians and many other Arabs refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. This fundamental refusal is the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Until such time as Israel gets this recognition that she deserves, there can never be peace in this region. As much as this admission saddens me, I am relieved that it is out in the open for all to see.
The problem is that my son, and possibly other Israeli nearly 16 year-olds don't see this. These are the boys and girls who, in another 3 years from now, will be enlisting for their compulsory military service to fight for the freedom and safety of the State of Israel and the Jewish nation. I do feel good about my son's sense of fair play, and I would never want this part of his character and set of beliefs to change. Being a good human being is important to me, and I am proud to be the father of a boy who cares deeply about others, even those who may be trying to kill him. It is important, however, for him and his friends to recognise what the reality is. I do feel that these boys and girls, whilst holding a sympathetic view regarding the claim of the Palestinians, do recognise that two peoples cannot rule over the same piece of land at the same time. As such, they understand that we have to fight for it as much as we can before it is taken away from us. So, although we don't agree on what may be driving the Palestinians to claim the land, we do all agree that the land is ours to defend with all our strength.
It strikes me that if there are Israelis who hold a sympathetic view towards the Palestinian position, no matter whether this is only held by a minority of Israelis, it is unsurprising that many of those watching the ongoing Middle East conflict from the outside also hold this belief. As Israelis, we have an obligation to ensure that our children see the situation for what it is. It is also critical for the world-at-large to understand this. There will always be commentators who will criticise Israel, no matter what the situation is. There are, however, sufficient people in the world who don't necessarily hold preconceived ideas, and who are available to be convinced of the truth. It is Israel's responsibility to demonstrate what the truth is. In particular, the world, and the Arab world in particular, should understand that sympathies will never be enough to convince our younger generation to relinquish our right to our homeland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
