Malcolm Hoenlein

Our guest this week is Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations since 1986. A staunch supporter of Israel, Hoenlein has often voiced concern at the increasing tendency to de-legitimize the country.

As usual, readers are more then welcome to send questions to rosnersdomain@haaretz.co.il.

Hello Malcolm,

Six hours before the beginning of a new year let me try to challenge you: Can you predict what will be the key 3-4 factors which will shape the Israel-Jewish world in 2006?

Rosner

There is an old saying, sometimes attributed to the Chinese, that prophecy is very difficult especially about the future. What is certain in these turbulent times is that virtually nothing is certain. However, I can safely assert that the agenda for 2006 will be very full. Among the priorities will be:

1. Elections. The first is the election in the Palestinian Authority. If it takes place the outcome-especially the role Hamas and other terrorist groups will play in the new government-will have serious implications for the PA, for Israel and the future course of their relationship.

The second is the election in Israel in March, and, perhaps, more importantly, the outcome of coalition negotiations, which will set the future course for Israel. There are many questions such as the ability of the new Kadima party with its extremely diverse constituencies to establish itself as a permanent part of the Israeli political scene, or, as many others in the past, be a one time phenomenum. What appears clear is that Israel has begun to undergo a political remaking and, I believe the aftershocks will continue with more change likely in 2006.

The third are the U.S. congressional races. Not only is there, according to some analysts, a chance to change control of one House, but the message sent by the voters will impact the 2008 presidential election.

2. Iran. The issue of Iran's nuclear program and its capacity to develop a nuclear weapon will be major in 2006. We could well witness the "point of no return" in the first half of the year.

Early on we will see if the "Russian option" will be accepted - to buy time and alleviate international pressure- and, if it is, how long before Iran violates this agreement as it has all the others it entered into in the past. If not, will there be the will to refer Iran to the Security Council and will sanctions be imposed?

3. The war on terrorism. We are likely to see the intensification with the growth of infiltration, threats, incitement, and perhaps, attacks worldwide. Much more pressure for border security and counter measures.

4. The war in Iraq. Progress in pacification and Iraqi self governance will impact attitudes in the U.S. and elsewhere, free up resources that can be devoted to the war on terrorism, and will have a ripple effect in the region. If the situation detiorates the negative implications would be serious.

5. Anti-Semitism. Of special concern will be developments in Russia and the Ukraine where there have been troubling events of late, Europe, South America, etc. The increased and sophisticated use of the internet and satelite systems enabling immediate and wide international dissemination of hateful messages will require new responses in 2006.

6. The security and socio-economic issue in Israel. Issues from poverty to relations between segments of Israeli society,especially in an election year, will warrant attention as they as endangering to Israel as any outside threat. Clearly, Israel's security is always at the top of our agenda. We will be called on to strengthen the special U.S.-Israel relations and continue to build support especially among Hispanics, young Americans,etc. I think 2006 will also new efforts to expand ties with moderate Moslems who are victmized as much if not more by the extremist fundalmentalists.

These are only a few excerpts from the catalogue of challenges that lie ahead. But even more I believe 2006 can be a year of opportunity. If we are able to maintain our unity-recognizing that what we have in common far outweighs our differences- and continue to build new coalitions, educate and motivate our young, devote our resources to thereal prioirities, then it could be a great year.


Hello Malcolm

On the Palestinian front, some challenges seem more troubling than others. One of them might be the difficulties Israel has explaining the need for a security barrier, a fence (what some people insist on calling a wall) in the West Bank. Is this something that poses a serious threat to Israel's image around the world, and what can still be done as to make it more understandable? Is it a matter of mere communication, or will it require some modifications on the ground as well?

Best

Rosner

Dear Shmuel,

It is true that polls show many Americans do not understand the necessity for the security barrier, partly due to the success that the Palestinians had early on in portraying the "wall", in particular as an "apartheid" measure, I think that increasing numbers are coming to understand its significance and validity. In part, this is because many other countries, including the United States, are discussing putting up what truly are walls, themselves. The media has distorted the wall by constantly
presenting the part near Jerusalem, which is concrete wall and not the 96% which is a fence. The criticism by some Israelis often compounds the problems we have in interpreting this as well as other sensitive issues.

By reiterating the impact it had on decreasing the number of suicide bombers, the case for the fence becomes much clearer. Recently I was in Israel with Senator Hillary Clinton when she went to visit the security fence near Gilo. Colonel Danny Tirza, who has overseen the construction of the fence, gave a comprehensive and effective presentation including the adjustments that were and are being made to accommodate the needs of Arab communities or individuals. Senator Clinton was bombarded by the press trying to bait her to be critical of this undertaking, but she articulated the case in a convincing and definitive manner.

Therefore, I think it is a matter of how we present it. Israel did not choose to build a fence. It was a necessity imposed on Israel to fulfill the primary responsibility of every state, which is to defend its citizens. This is a non-violent, defensive measure, which may indeed impose an inconvenience or pose difficulties for some Arab and even some Israeli populations, but there is no comparison to the lives that have been saved.

The security fence is a temporary measure that can be adjusted and even removed. The deaths of more than 1,000 Israelis and the wounding of 7,000 in recent years are facts that cannot be reversed. There are those who will criticize Israel regardless as we saw during the International Court of Justice hearing. Among the worst critics were several nations that at the same time were building walls on disputed territories. And if one reads some of the arguments presented, they see they are wild exaggerations and distortions.

Israel should do what it must to fulfill the most sacred obligation, which is the protection of human life. At the same time we all have to do the most effective job we can to present the case for the security barrier. The question of modifications on the ground is really one for the security and IDF experts to determine.

Hi Malcolm

You have just returned from a trip to Japan. Did you get the sense that they share your concerns regarding Iran?

Shmuel


Dear Shmuel,

Iran figured significantly in my discussions with Prime Minister Koizumi and Foreign Minister Aso as well as other officials. I believe Japan has a special role for several reasons. It has considerable trade with Iran, a large part of which is oil exports. Japan has given strong moral leadership on the issue of nuclear non-proliferation.

The failure to stop Iran's rapid progress towards completion of the production cycle for nuclear weapons will undermine the IAEA's authority, perhaps fatally, and the entire non-proliferation effort. Japan would not want to see a nuclear arms race in the region with even broader implications.

One of these comes close to home and that is North Korea. North Korea was the role model (and, often, supplier) for Iran. Now Iran will be the model for North Korea. Through clandestine efforts and deception, North Korea was able to respond to protests from its neighbors and western countries that it was too late - they were in the nuclear club. The "fact" of the achievement enabled them to stare down the threats - so far, with impunity.

What an inspiration for Iran! Now North Korea will see the failure to reign in Iran's ambitious nuclear arms program and it will be open season. The implications of a nuclear North Korea-Iran axis, most recently evidenced by the shipment of eighteen ballistic missiles to Tehran with a 1500-mile range, poses a danger that Japan cannot ignore.

While some in Japan may not see this issue with the same sense of urgency as we do, I think they appreciate the seriousness and could be brought along on some of the proposed actions, like referral to the Security Council and even sanctions. I found officials very interested in the role Iran is playing in funding terrorism through its puppet state Syria and its terrorist agents including Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas. And, of course, their destructive and destabilizing role in Iraq.

The upcoming visit of Prime Minister Koizumi to Israel will allow for in depth discussion of the dangers posed by Iran. He is a thoughtful and decisive leader who will listen carefully to factual presentations. The Prime Minister is looking to play a constructive role and can be enlisted as an ally in the war against terror and the efforts to achieve peace.


Dear Malcolm

Since this is a short week, and I'd like to cover as much as possible, I compiled some quick questions related to Iran, which you can try to answer briefly.

When asked by a reader two years ago if Israel should attack Iran's nuclear project, you weren't enthusiastic. You also stated that, "Much depends on the European nations, who admit themselves that they have been deceived by the Iranians... Meaningful sanctions by the UN Security Council can still be effective if implemented quickly."

1. Are you satisfied with the Europeans now?
2. If it was "quickly," then how much time is left?
3. Would you change your answer on the possibility of a preemptive attack?
4. AIPAC communicated some disappointment with the Bush administration with regard to its Iran policy. Do you feel it was justified?

Best,
Rosner

Shmuel,
For more than a decade we have tried to focus international attention on the growing threat of Iran. In my assessment, the dangers posed by Iran are a priority among the concerns that face our community, Israel, and more broadly the Middle East and the world community.

Too often in the past a heavy price has been paid for ignoring the threats and challenges posed by tyrannical dictators, especially those with an extremist religious zeal and political agenda. Hitler made his intentions clear when he published Mein Kampf and the world didn't take it seriously and sat by in silence as he implemented those plans. Ahmadinejad and his predecessors have made clear their intentions and we must deny them the ability to execute them.

How could anyone be satisfied with the actions of the Europeans? Their approach is reminiscent of events almost seven decades ago when a similar policy of appeasement, accommodation and compromise were the hallmarks of the approach to the threat of the Nazis. (It is interesting to note that the negotiations with Iran over the past two years have taken place in the same room at Pugwash in Potsdam where the Allies essentially sold out much of Eastern Europe to Stalin and the Communists.)

Churchill once defined appeasement as feeding the crocodile in the hope that he will eat you last. Iran may threaten Israel and other of her neighbors, but it endangers the stability of the region and more. What rational explanation can there be for allowing more than two years of meetings to produce nothing except further progress by the Iranians as they come closer to their goal of completing the nuclear cycle?

Each day the danger increases as we read of new missile shipments from North Korea and the Ukraine and weapons technology and equipment illegally transferred from Germany through Russia, as well as from other countries. The estimated fifty billion dollar windfall that Iran received this year from the increase in oil prices has not been invested in improving the welfare of its citizens but in advancing its military capacity and extremist agenda.

When you couple the current ballistic missiles that Iran possesses - that are all capable of hitting virtually any target in the Middle East and soon much of Europe - with the international terrorist network of which Iran is the fulcrum, starting with, but not limited to the Hezbollah network in Lebanon and a dozen more countries, one cannot but realize the need for immediate concerted and assertive action.

The result of the negotiations to date has been the continuation of the eighteen years of deceit and manipulation that has allowed Iran to reach the advanced stage where its nuclear program is today. Every offer and concession only brought more recalcitrance and rejectionism.

Iran sees North Korea as its role model, since it was able to proclaim to those who sought to block its nuclear aspirations, that "it was too late." This put the North Koreans in a strong bargaining position. Now Iran will be the model for North Korea and other rogue states.

The estimates range from a few months to a year or more before the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon will be completed. It matters little. Every intelligence agency agrees on the Iranian's goal and the success of their efforts to implement it. The intimidation factor is already present and the dye has been cast. Among other consequences will be a potential nuclear race involving Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other countries facing a nuclear Iran.

In addition, the sharing of this technology with those who ally themselves with this terrorist regime poses the danger of the global terrorist network escalating their destructive capabilities. Failure with regard to Iran could well doom the IAEA and non-proliferation efforts. The goal of the destruction of Israel and its hatred of Jews, Christians and even Moslems who do not hold to their views, expressed also by Ahmadinejad and his predecessors as well others in his government, must be taken seriously. It is a poison that pervades the Middle East and is infecting other parts of the world. A country that produces cartoons for children extolling the virtue of suicide bombers cannot be said to have peaceful intentions.

President Bush's landmark speech about the "axis of evil" had a tremendous impact on Iran - it raised morale and hope. When then Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the U.S. does not get involved in family feuds, it sent a cold chill of despair through Iran. I believe that President Bush gets it in regard to Iran but the Administration has not acted assertively to implement his declarations. In recent meetings with European leaders, all acknowledged the grave danger, but in essence threw their hands up when pressed for their proposed course of action and most simply blamed others for the failure to act decisively. Clearly they look to the U.S. for leadership even as they have been given the charge.

Time is of the essence. Meaningful economic sanctions can still be effective. (e.g. Europe provides 40% of the gasoline for Iran which lacks the refining capacity). Referral to the Security Council should not be delayed. And groups promoting democratic change must be supported. There must be exposure of the outrageous human rights violations including the hundreds of public executions including women and teenagers.

Tens of thousands of students and others put their lives on the line by demonstrating publicly only to be ignored by the West. The media often distorts the facts and context in reporting on Iran. From failing to note that a substantial majority of Iranians boycotted the Presidential elections, to the use of the word "moderates" to describe some of those who were responsible for much of the repression and extremism.

The world community must collectively declare Ahmadinejad persona non-grata and no meetings should be held with him. These are a few of the constructive steps that can be taken. At the same time the option of the use of force should always be on the table. While I continue to have reservations about this approach, it is a decision for military and other experts. The Iranian regime must be made to realize that the international community, led by the U.S. with Europe in tow, is serious. Failure to do so will endanger ours and future generations.


Dear Malcolm

I would like to start this Hanukkah-Christmas week with a question on the controversy surrounding the so-called "War on Christmas." Last week we asked readers to respond to a poll question describing this "war" as A. A frightening new reality that should be fought against; B. A meaningless joke that should be ignored; C. An understandable move by religious Christians that should be accommodated. How would you answer this question, and why?

Best,
Rosner


Shmuel

This is not an issue which the Conference of Presidents addresses so my response reflects only my personal thoughts. I believe that separation of church and state has generally served America and the Jewish community well and should be protected, but I believe you endanger that principle when it is carried to extremes. The current controversy is a case in point. I believe there can and should be legitimate discussion over religion in the public square, but I am secure enough personally, and given the other priorities with which our community must deal, that most of the questions now being raised do not occupy me.

A greater concern for me is about restoring Jewish content to Jewish holidays and life cycle events. While I think there has to be greater sensitivity in certain circumstances, like children attending public schools and I am angered by those who seek to exploit this issue to promote extremist agendas, I think we all have to be careful in the public posturing and think of the consequences.

I know that I live - by choice or happenstance - in a country where the population overwhelmingly identifies as Christian and the vast majority celebrate Christmas. With that there are realities, which I recognize despite America being a largely tolerant and open society where the rights of minorities are protected. Overall, the most effective offense / defense is providing our children with the best possible Jewish education. I have tried to do so with my own by giving them a good Jewish (and secular) education and environment and none has been adversely affected by the overt displays of this holiday season. In fact, I remember one of my children at a young age excitedly pointing to the Santa Claus displays and urging us to "look at the rabbis."

We should assure the safe-guards, promote sensitivity and encourage mutual respect but with "sechel."

Hoenlein was a guest of Haaretz for a Q&A session with readers a couple of years ago, during which he commented on various issues concerning Israel and the Jewish community in North America. You can read it here.