Author Archives: Rabbi

Numbers Game

Posted on July 28, 2010 | 1 comment

   The Torah teaches that “G-d did not desire us or choose us because we are more numerous than the other nations, for we are the fewest of all the peoples” (Devarim 7:7) But why would we think otherwise ? As the commentator Rashbam asks: did Moshe really believe that the Jewish people thought that G-d had chosen us because of our numerical superiority ? It is obviously not so. So what exactly is the point that Moshe was making?

     On a superficial level, people are always impressed by the most, of anything. The largest country in population (China), the largest country in size (Russia), the most, the greatest, the fastest, the smartest, even the most home runs (however they were hit). It makes for interesting conversation, but what is the difference really ? Numbers do not impress us. There are more than a billion Christians and more than a billion Moslems in the world, but we are “the fewest of nations,” infinitesimal on the world stage. Clearly, we are taught that G-d’s designation of the Jewish people was not dependent on numbers, and nor is our destiny.

      There is a deeper point as well. The Torah is teaching us that numbers not only do not determine worth, but they are never a significant factor in assessing the state of Jewish life. Notwithstanding that, we have such a numbers obsession in Jewish life that one would think, firstly, that the Torah posited such a viewpoint, and secondly, that our future existence is based completely on maintaining some arbitrary figure, some critical mass of Jews. We have such a numbers obsession that even hearing this iconoclasm, you must think that I am in need of a vacation.

    The fact is that numbers have never mattered for much in Jewish life. There are as many Jews today as there was before World War I, and 5,000,000 more than in 1882. There are perhaps 10% more Jews alive today than at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple. We never grow that much, the enduring legacy of both assimilation and persecution. But here is another way to look at it: the world has tripled in size since the start of World War I, and we have stayed the same; but have we fallen off the map ? Are Jews unknown in the world ? We have gone from being .006 of the world’s population, to being .002. Are we less influential ? Are we harder to find ? Do we find it harder to get our names in the newspapers ? They still know where to find us, even though we are “the fewest of nations.” There are almost three times as Daoists in the world as there as Jews, and ten times more Yoruba. Go figure.

     We have been conditioned to believe that numbers matter. We hear constantly that we need to boost our numbers, especially by making peace with intermarriage, and especially today by broadening our base by accepting converts who are not sincere about a Jewish commitment. If we write off the intermarried, the argument goes, our numbers shrink. If we do not embrace his non-Jewish wife and children, we will not achieve some numerical quota that we have apparently set for ourselves. It is the same reason that compels Jews to initiate a program of mass conversions, regardless of commitment, to boost Israel’s population, to ensure that we meet an artificial target that, if reached, will ensure Jewish survival. It has even led some to argue that the definition of Jewishness should be “any person that Hitler would have murdered” (i.e., a person with even one Jewish grandparent, sometimes one Jewish great-grandparent), leading to the macabre result that they have designated Hitler as the posek for the Jewish people, the decisor of Jewish law and identity. Talk about posthumous victories; that indeed would be an ultimate triumph. Fortunately, we are able to rely on the Torah to adjudicate these matters, and not a diabolical, pathological, mass murderer.

      We are the smallest of nations, and every nation needs people to survive. We do, too, but more than some arbitrary number of people, we need good Jews, Jews who make a difference, Jews who want to be Jews – not just Jews in name, who will just pay dues or have to chased down to pay their dues, or Jews whom our enemies flesh out. “For you are a holy people, and   G-d chose you to be His people” (Devarim 7:6), and therefore there are as many Jews at any one moment as G-d determines He needs for His purposes. There are never too few or too many; it is always just right. That “you are not more numerous” means that every Jew is precious, but that abstract numbers mean nothing at all. We are not trying to meet a particular quota.

      We need good Jews. Capricious figures plucked out of the air avoid dealing with the main issue: how do we produce good Jews, Jews who make a difference, who make their mark in the public domain in a way that reflects well on all of us. For example, an observant woman named Wendy Shalit became a counter-cultural phenomenon in the last decade, writing books encouraging a “Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue” and “Girls Gone Mild: Young Women Reclaim Self-Respect”, about modesty and self-respect for young women in the world at large, about how young women need not ape the immodest fashions or behavioral trends in order to win friends.      

       Even in our world we struggle with this aspect of human dignity. There are religious girls who are forced to wear modest clothing to school – RULES – whose parents don’t mind them dressing down (or skimpier) on the weekends. They send a terrible (and awfully) mixed message. But this issue has only slowly entered the secular discourse, and to achieve that – to have a religious Jewish woman in the forefront of a moral issue (instead of evangelicals or Moslems) – is a sanctification of G-d’s name.  One Wendy Shalit is more meaningful that any 50 Jews in Hollywood who debase the culture. But you wouldn’t know it because of our numbers obsession.      

     The day will come, the prophet Zecharia said, when “ten non-Jews will grab the coat of a Jew and say ‘let us go with you, because we have heard that G-d is with you.’” The nations will ultimately turn to us and say “teach us.”

     But are we ready for that moment ? Do we have what to teach ? Are we secure in our values, and are we still shaped by the common culture and its frequent tawdriness ?

     So why did G-d give us the Torah ? The Ramban here quotes the Talmud (Beitza 25b) that we were given the Torah because we are a tough people – a people that can withstand all the blandishments, allures and threats of the world, and endure all trials and tribulations tossed our way. We need strong Jews, not Jews who desire special accommodations because they cannot resist temptation, nor Jews who are easily broken by misfortune or prone to despair. We are the people who are eternally comforted, and therefore never lose faith in G-d or in His Torah.

     The prophet Isaiah (40:3) declared that our task is always to clear the path for G-d, to build a straight road for His seekers – not one with detours, excursions, amusing twists and turns – to keep it straight and simple. Then we will merit the days of understanding and faith, with all Jews present and accounted for, and enjoy the fruits of a glorious redemption, for us and all mankind.

1 Comment

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Jewish History, Machshava/Jewish Thought

Five Years Later

Posted on July 22, 2010 | Comments Off on Five Years Later

     The fine work “Start-Up Nation” (Saul Singer and Dan Senor), the most upbeat book written about Israel in years, describes in vivid detail the economic miracle, or at least, anomaly, that has seen Israel not only weather the global financial upheavals of the last few years but also become a world leader in technological innovation. Its economy bumped and rebounded during the recent recession, but did not crash. Israelis, literally, are brimming with ideas and the moxie to implement them. Undeterred by occasional failure – or, more tellingly, by the Arab terror that violently interrupts their lives from time to time – these entrepreneurs have re-made the Israeli economy and transformed modern living across the world.

      This creativity is certainly multi-faceted, but is largely attributed to the skill sets acquired by the average Israeli through his military service and especially the informality, originality, personal responsibility and free-thinking that are hallmarks of that service. They note, for example, that “the IDF has a chaotic, anti-hierarchical ethos – which can be found in every aspect of Israeli society. A private will tell a general in an exercise – You are doing this wrong, you should do it this way. (This is not to say that soldiers aren’t expected to obey orders.) But orders are given in the spirit of men who have a job to do and mean to do it. They are not defined by rank. This is because Israel’s society and history is based on questioning.” To leftist writer Amos Oz, Judaism itself has cultivated a “culture of doubt and argument.” These individuals are groomed to think out of the box.  It can be a mixed bag for a commander: “Assertiveness versus insolence; critical, independent thinking versus insubordination – the words you choose depend on your perspective, but collectively they describe the typical Israeli entrepreneur.” Today’s Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren noted that he served in units where they literally “threw out” the officers – a colonel , for one – simply voted them out, and the commanding officer was re-assigned because the enlisted men thought he was not up to the tasks at hand.

     Furthermore, “at debriefings, emphasis is put not only on unrestrained candor but on self-criticism as a means of having everyone learn from every mistake. Explaining away a bad decision is unacceptable.” Nothing is swept under the rug, and this type of thinking and questioning leads these soldiers – once they leave the army – into businesses where re-organization, enhanced efficiency, and new ways of looking at old problems are prized and desirable characteristics. So products such as microchips, EZ Pass, sophisticated medical surgical equipment, instant messaging and many others boast an Israeli provenance.

     Oddly, there was time in recent years when these skills failed abjectly: the 2006 War in Lebanon. I quote:  “Indeed, the 2006 Lebanon War was a case study in deviation from the Israeli entrepreneurial model that had succeeded in previous wars. Giora Eiland, a senior military official and for years a national security advisor to a succession of prime ministers, stated:  ‘Open –minded thought, necessary to reduce the risk of sticking to preconceived ideas and relying on unquestioned assumptions, was far too rare.’ “One of the problems of the Second Lebanon War was the exaggerated adherence of senior officers to the chief of staff’s decisions. There is no question that the final word rests with the chief of staff, and once decisions have been made, all must demonstrate complete commitment to their implementation. However, it is the senior officers’ job to argue with the chief of staff when they feel he is wrong, and this should be done assertively on the basis of professional truth as they see it.”     

     The 2006 war was a costly wake-up call for the IDF.” During the Second Lebanon War, “Israel suffered from a lack of organization and a lack of improvisation.”

     What is even more bitterly ironic, and arguably causative, is that the obsequiousness to authority and the glorification of “following orders” without question actually began almost a year earlier, with the expulsion of Jews from Gush Katif and Northern Shomron and the destruction of their thriving communities. This blot on Israeli society and Jewish history, now five years past, evoked a wave of hysteria about the sacred obligation to “obey orders,” how the failure to follow orders blindly would result in the collapse of the IDF and the imminent destruction of the State of Israel itself, and how the “mitzva” to obey orders supersedes any other mitzva in the Torah – especially that of settling the land of Israel. Those who embraced Oz’ “culture of doubt and argument” were branded as both immoral and seditious. The IDF Chief of Staff, Boogie Ya’alon, who challenged his civilian superiors and rejected the very premise of the Expulsion, was simply silence and replaced.

     Is there anyone left who does not believe that had the Expulsion Plan been subjected to greater scrutiny and analysis that Israel would have spared itself both the stain of having maltreated its own citizens as well as the daily cascade of rockets that began immediately thereafter and terrorized Sderot and nearby towns ? To the anguished litany of catastrophes that have befallen our people on the Ninth of Av, we ourselves were bystanders to the addition of the following notation: “9 Av, 2005: the last day of legal Jewish settlement in Gush Katif and Northern Shomron.” That calamity took its place with the sin of the biblical spies, the destruction of the two Temples and the fall of Betar, the 1492 Expulsion of the Jews from Spain and other such cataclysms.

     The wound of Gush Katif still has not healed. Most of the refugees, intrepid souls that they are, have successfully begun the process of rebuilding their lives – personal and professional – after much hardship, and with the assistance of a variety of private organizations (Jobkatif.org leaps to mind). They persevered despite the brutal betrayal of the Israeli government – before, during and after the expulsion. For many (even non-refugees), their trust in government, both in terms of policies and morality, will be forever shattered, and rightfully so. And Ariel Sharon, architect of the Expulsion, remains an exile himself, suspended between this world and the next one – perhaps awaiting the resettlement of the last of the refugees whose lives he shattered before he can find his own eternal rest.

     Strange, further, that the authors of this insightful book do not connect the dots, and do not see the linkage between the travesty of Gush Katif and the failures of the Lebanon War a year later. The suppression of dissent – worse, the criminalization of dissent – that characterized the Expulsion became institutionalized in the debacle of Lebanon. Obvious mistakes were swept under the rug, no real introspective analysis has taken place about the costs of the Expulsion (nor, for that matter, about the Oslo debacle), nor has there been any accountability on the part of the poor decision-makers of the past. Most of the perpetrators of Oslo have remained unscathed, even celebrated. The architect of the Lebanon flight of 2000 – Ehud Barak – still offers his strategic insights as the Minister of Defense.  The 10,000 refugees of 2005, caused by Israel’s own hand, mushroomed into the 350,000 refugees of 2006, the work of the heinous Hezbollah. “Following orders,” the catch phrase of 2005, became the macabre joke of 2006, when soldiers were ordered in and out of sectors within minutes, told both to move forward and then remain where they were in orders that changed every few hours, and occasionally, and sadly, marched to their deaths. Soldiers saw the futility of following commanders who were hampered by orders coming from distant superiors who did not understand the situation on the ground, and whose lives were therefore endangered and lost. Who can forget the ignominy of then PM Olmert’s directive at the end of the war for soldiers to capture a hill that he had already agreed would be returned the very next day when the cease fire was to begin?  Thirty-three soldiers – Jewish husbands and sons – were killed seizing that useless piece of real estate that, indeed, was abandoned the very next day. “Futility of futilities, Kohelet said, it is all futile.”

   Well, not all. “Start-Up Nation” certainly makes the case that Israel has learned from its mistakes, and the failed Lebanon War fueled a new wave of creative and iconoclastic thinking that hopefully will bode well for the future. The test will be when (if?) the next round of Israeli concessions requires more surrender of land and further expulsions of Jews. Will the reaction be as docile – and as ultimately destructive – as the one five years ago this week ? Let us pray we never have to find

Comments Off on Five Years Later

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel, Jewish History, Machshava/Jewish Thought

A BLIGHT UNTO THE NATIONS

Posted on July 16, 2010 | 1 comment

      Once again, Jewish identity is on the front-burner, and Jewish patriotism is under siege, with the news of two intermarriages involving public figures. Last weekend, Brooklyn Congressman (D, of course) Anthony Wiener married a non-Jew (a Muslim woman), with Bill Clinton himself presiding over the festivities. Wiener, a Charles Schumer acolyte with the same brashness and love for the camera as his mentor, has always been a “pro-Israel” congressman and aspires to be New York City’s next Mayor. Should his intermarriage play any role in determining his political future ?

      A cogent argument can be made that it should play no role, especially in a country that pursuant to the Constitution has no religious litmus test for electoral office. An official should be judged, the argument goes, based on his conduct in office, or his positions, integrity, values, intelligence, etc. Nevertheless, I disagree, because people vote for a public official because they identify with him/her, and feel that person can best represent their values and goals. Can a Jew who betrays his people by marrying out of the faith be trusted to look after the interests of the Jewish people ? I don’t see how. Notwithstanding that they could do it, I am not sure I would trust them to do it. And even though people vote for candidates who ostensibly will be the best representative of the polity and not of their particular ethnic group, the reality is people are inclined to vote for those who are considered role models, or at least reflective of the norms and ideals of their lives and the interests of their more parochial class. That is life among the diverse constituencies in New York City, where ethnic politics is a reality.

     More troubling is the recognition that a Brooklyn Congressman – Brooklyn, of all places, and a person who is unabashedly Jewish in his affect and speech patterns – would think that intermarriage today is so accepted and conventional that it should not be deemed controversial at all. That sad state of affairs should distress all of us, as it indicates the transformation of American Jewry in just 50 years – from rejection and abhorrence of intermarriage to the ho-hum, even unremarkable response of the Jewish (especially non-Orthodox) world today.

    That humdrum, desultory reaction informs the secular Jewish coverage of the impending nuptials of celebrity intermarried couple number two, Chelsea Clinton to Marc Mezvinsky, the Jewish (described as “Conservative”) son of two former (D, of course) Congresspersons. It is not the first such marriage of Jews into high-powered, influential non-Jewish families: leaping to mind are the marriages of Al Gore’s daughter to a Jew named Schiff (since ended in divorce) and Caroline Kennedy’s marriage to Edward Schlossberg, still going strong.

     Today’s Jerusalem Post carried an absolutely inane piece entitled “Jews Wring their Hands Over Chelsea Clinton’s Nuptials” (http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=181609), the hand-wringing over the question of “will Chelsea convert ?”

    To which the response of normal Jews should be, “and if she does, so what ?” Does she have any intention of committing to the Jewish people, of living a Torah-centered life ? Will she observe the commandments in any substantive sense ? Does she feel any grief over the destruction of the two Temples that we will commemorate this coming Tuesday on the Ninth of Av ? Indeed, Chelsea may have more religious sensibilities than her beau, which begs the question: why doesn’t he convert ? If his Jewish identity is so tenuous and means so little to him, then why impose the charade on her ? Be a man, and charade yourself.

     And in the charade that much of modern Jewish life (outside the world of Torah) has become, note these priceless questions from the above-referenced article, that apparently concern at least one Jew (the writer): “Will there at least be a rabbi co-officiating? A huppa? A glass?”  Who in the real, live, thinking, breathing, Jewish world could possibly care about that ? Having a rabbi “co-officiate” at an intermarriage is like having Mahmoud Ahmadinejad swear in the next American President on Capitol Hill, January 20, 2013. It is a traitorous act that obviously demeans the (steadily meaningless) term “rabbi.” Does a “huppa,” the symbol of the Jewish home, have any relevance when the home will not be Jewish ? Does “breaking the glass,” a reminder of the churban (destruction of the Temples and Jerusalem), have any significance when the marriage itself is a churban­ ­ – and when the mother of the bride is determined to weaken the Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem today and G-d-forbid precipitate another churban ? What a macabre joke.

     But the approach itself is reflective of a growing attitude among non-Orthodox Jews – both publicly and privately – that intermarriage is a reality, and we must accept it, and participate, and attend in the hopes of “influencing them for the good,” so they remain “part of the Jewish people,” “giving money to Jewish causes” and perhaps having a Menorah next to their tree, fast half a day on Yom Kippur and eat matza at the Pesach seder – in other words, the all symbols and no substance that unfortunately characterizes too much of Jewish life, especially among the non-Orthodox. So, make the best of it !

    Reality check: for the sake of decorum, we shy away from the statistical reality of Jewish life. Forget the 50% intermarriage rate, give or take a few percentage points either way. It means nothing and says less. The real rate is more devastating: among non-Orthodox Jews, the intermarriage rate hovers close to 70% ! No wonder their rabbis and leaders say we must accept it, and reach out, and embrace sham conversions, and the like. No wonder they blame the “openness of American society;” that is far more comforting than to look themselves in the mirror at the devastation they have wrought in the Jewish world. No wonder non-Orthodox Rabbis are often hired or fired based on their comfort level with performing intermarriages. And no wonder Anthony Wiener assumes – perhaps even correctly – that his intermarriage will play no significant role in his political future.

     On a recent TV panel with two non-Orthodox rabbis, I realized that their perceptions of conversion itself are flawed almost beyond repair. They maintained that conversion requires immersion in a mikveh for men and women, and circumcision for men. My attempts to explain that those are the procedures of conversion, not the substance, fell flat. The substance of conversion is an acceptance of Mitzvot and a willingness to be part of the fate and destiny of the Jewish people. When that commitment is manifest and complete, then the procedures of conversion can be carried out. I might as well have been talking Swahili; there was certainly no realization on their part that their doctrines and teachings have inevitably and ineluctably led their flock to this national catastrophe.

    The irony is that this is no criticism at all of Chelsea Clinton or the new Mrs. Wiener, neither of whom have done anything wrong. It is the Jewish spouse in each case who is committing the crime against the Jewish people, a crime that cannot be washed away by the sprinkling of holy water or the mumbling of a few incantations, or their Jewish equivalent. For sure, there are always people who point out that the children of the Jewish mother is Jewish, and therefore ripe for outreach, and even the children of the non-Jewish mother can be “raised Jewish.” But this is a pipedream, and waste of resources. One can jump out of a plane without a parachute and still survive, but it is not something that is anticipated and planned for.

    Jews eschew intermarriage because marriage creates a home that will embody and transmit the unique values and ideals of the Jewish people as received from G-d. It is our role as G-d’s witnesses that have merited us His grace and protection since our national origins more than 3800 years ago, and that role cannot be embraced by one who does not share those premises, that commitment, and that sense of privilege or identity. Serious, committed converts are a blessing to the Jewish people, as well as a challenge to the genuineness of the born Jew. To the extent that Jews tolerate intermarriage is ultimately a reflection of their own commitments, and the seriousness with which they perceive the above-mentioned divinely-ordained role. When intermarriage becomes commonplace, and “Jewish” writers dismiss concerns as narrow-minded and mock the genuine grief that traditional Jews feel over the impending loss of any Jew, they have unfortunately revealed the shallowness of their own commitment, and the insecurities they feel about their own Jewish identity.

    Just two more reasons to mourn this coming Tish’a B’Av, and two more reasons to redouble our efforts to promulgate the ideals of Torah far and wide so that intermarriage remains anathema and becomes increasingly rare, and all Jews embrace the beauty of a divine system that demands that we be a “light  – not a blight, which is intermarriage – onto the nations.”

1 Comment

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Machshava/Jewish Thought, Philosophy

How (Not) to Negotiate

Posted on July 11, 2010 | Comments Off on How (Not) to Negotiate

          Prime Minister Netanyahu has left Washington, and the fact that there was no shouting match between him and President Obama is being touted as a sign of the restored friendship and alliance between Israel and the United States. Symbols matter to the simple, and undoubtedly the choreography was designed to obscure memories of the insults of the recent past. But only substance matters in the real world, and, once again, Israel’s style of negotiation is almost designed for – and destined for – failure. 

       For one reason, Israel is again negotiating with itself, offering concessions to the Arabs that, because they are delivered through the American intermediary, are not construed by the Arabs as concessions at all. And even if the PM shows a backbone and does not extend the freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria – he presently hints in that direction, but his coyness, considering the explicit promises made to his nation, is dishonorable – nevertheless, a dangerous precedent has already been set. And for what ? What exactly has been gained through this moratorium, a concession unacknowledged and unrequited by the Arabs ?

      And why wasn’t the matter of Jonathan Pollard raised seriously ? How is it that the Russians can extract their spies within a week of their arrests, and Israel’s government fears even raising the issue ? How about a good-will gesture from the United States, after the recent tensions ? Israel has held Russians (i.e., Israelis who spied for Russia) as spies, perhaps they still might have one or two. Why not a three-way deal ?

     And why does Israel accept with equanimity the continued incarceration of its soldier, Gilad Schalit, in gross violation of international law (soldiers are accorded certain rights), and continue to afford rights under international law to the terrorists in its custody (who deserve no rights, being combatants that do not wear uniforms and prey on civilians). Why even consider exchanging a soldier – a protected class – for terrorists – and unprotected class ? And how did Israel succumb to the mistreatment of its soldier, while acquiescing in the continued delivery of food and fuel to his captors – the residents of Gaza ? And, yes, Israel is at war with Gaza, not just the three members of Hamas who hold Schalit, but the residents of Gaza who elected Hamas to be their leaders. How about an embargo on food and fuel until Schalit is released ? That would be a serious act, and one that would be executed by every other country in the world. In its inchoate desire to be more “moral” than the nations, Israel is in fact less moral. Diplomatically, it is haplessly incompetent.

    Secondly, Netanyahu, as always, dazzled audiences with his eloquence and the cogency of his rhetoric. It is therefore mindboggling that his policies seldom adhere to the tone or substance of his rhetoric, which infuriates both friend and foe, and serves to anesthetize his erstwhile supporters.

     These events reinforce the sense of ineptness that has always marked Israel’s diplomacy, a point underscored by former diplomat and long-time Hebrew University Professor Moshe Sharon, who advised PM Begin in his time. The following, written several years ago and sent to me this past week, is a comforting reminder that not all Israelis have lost their common sense and their grounding in reality. One can only long for the day when these ideas will pervade the leadership and political class on Israel, and pray that that day comes before the point of no return is passed.

                                                                                     WORDS LAUNDRY:
                                                     A SHORT GUIDE TO THOSE OBSESSED WITH PEACE

                                                                          Professor Moshe Sharon

“Everybody says that his donkey is a horse.”

“There is no tax on words.”

(Two Arab proverbs)

On December 25, 1977, at the very beginning of the negotiations between Israel and Egypt in Ismailia, I had the opportunity to have a short discussion with Muhammad Anwar Sadat the president of Egypt.  “Tell your Prime Minister, he said, that this is a bazaar; the merchandize is expensive.”  I told my Prime Minister but he failed to abide by the rules of the bazaar similar to all the Israeli governments and the media.

In the bazaar of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the two sides are not discussing the same merchandise.  While the Israelis wish to acquire “peace”, the Arabs wish to annihilate the Jewish state and get rid of the Jews.

To achieve their goal, the Arabs took to the battlefield as well as to the bazaar diplomacy.  The wisdom of the bazaar is that if you are clever enough you can sell nothing at a price, however in the bazaar only a foolish buyer pays for something he has never seen.

In the present situation in the Middle East and in the foreseeable future “peace” is nothing more than an empty word.  Israel should stop speaking about “peace” and delete the word “peace” from its vocabulary together with such phrases as “the price of peace” or “territory for peace”.  For almost a century the Jews have been ready to pay the Arabs any price for peace.  They have received nothing, because the Arabs have no peace to sell.

Since this is the situation, Israel should openly declare that peace does not exist as an option in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that if the Arabs ask for peace; they must pay for it.  For unlike the Arabs, Israel has this merchandize for sale and therefore, Israel should be the side demanding payment for peace and fixing its price.

Therefore, if anyone asks Israel for plans, the answer should be: “No plans, in fact no negotiations at all.”  If the Arab side wants to negotiate, let it present its plans and its “ideas”.  To which the Israeli answer should always be: “Unacceptable! Come with better ones.”

Here are ten rules for bargaining in the Middle Eastern bazaar:

1. Never be the first to suggest anything to the other side .  Never show any eagerness “to conclude a deal”.

2. Always reject; disagree.  Use the phrase: “Not meeting the minimum demands,” and walk away, even a hundred times.

3. Don’t rush to come up with counter-offers.  Let the other side make amendments under the pressure of your total “disappointment”.

4. Have your own plan ready in full, as detailed as possible, with the red lines completely defined.  However, never show this or any other plan to a third party.

5. Never change your detailed plan to meet the other side “halfway”. Remember, there is no “halfway”.

6. Never leave things unclear.  Always avoid “creative phrasing”.  Remember playing with words is the Arab national sport.

7. Regard every detail as a vitally important issue.  Never postpone any problem “for a later occasion”.  If you do so you will lose; remember that your opponent is always looking for a reason to avoid honoring agreements.

8. Emotion belongs neither in the marketplace nor at the negotiating table.  Friendly words as well as outbursts of anger, holding hands and kissing, do not represent policy.

9. Beware of popular beliefs about the Arabs and the Middle East – “Arab honor” for example.  Remember, you have honor too, but this has nothing to do with the issues under negotiation.

10. Always remember that the goal of all negotiations is to make a profit.  You should aim at making the highest profit in real terms. Remember that every gain is an asset for the future.

To these ten rules another one should be added:

11. You should never agree to negotiate with more than one side.  The Arabs will try to bring as many participants to the negotiating table to put you in an inferior position.  Never agree to bring in even so called “friendly participants.  There is no such thing.

The Arabs have been practicing negotiation tactics for more than 2,000 years.  They are the masters of words, and a mine of endless patience.  In contrast, Israelis (and Westerners in general) want quick “results”.

In this part of the world there are no quick results, the hasty one always loses.

 So wrote Professor Moshe Sharon in 2007. He makes so much sense, it is no wonder he is no longer in government.

Comments Off on How (Not) to Negotiate