|
By Shoshana Bryen
 WASHINGTON, D.C.—A recent JINSA Report suggested consumers be told of corporate involvement in Iran to allow them to make decisions about doing business with those companies. We noted a Nokia-Siemens joint venture that sold the Iranian government the ability to monitor mobile phone calls and alter their SMS message contents. We asked, "Do Americans really want Nokia phones under the circumstances?"
According to Eli Lake in The Washington Times, the city of Los Angeles is asking itself the same question about Siemens, which has bid on a multi-million dollar contract to supply rail cars to the LA transit agency. Lake cited a member of the transit board, "At a time when the city and the board of supervisors are urging divestment from Iran, it would be hypocritical of our board to make a deal with Siemens or anyone else who is doing business in Iran." A spokesman for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the mayor would take into account the business Siemens does with Iran. "Particularly because he has been working to make sure that LA's investments steer clear of companies that do business with Iran."
Other JINSA reports (and this link as well) on Honduras received support from readers inside Honduras, but a local member thought the issue was outside our purview. "JINSA is supposed to support a strong United States because that is Israel's greatest weapon... Honduras has no direct or even indirect connection to Israel's security. JINSA is a great organization but it seems to be wandering away from its original goals."
JINSA's mandate is to educate the American Jewish community about the requirements of a strong U.S. defense capability and to inform the American defense and security community of the key role Israel can and does play as a security asset in the Middle East. JINSA is concerned with
Go to the top of right column
|
|
American security not just as it relates to threats to Israel, but also as it relates to our own security interests.
American government criticism of Honduras was stronger than our criticism of the Iranian government, which was full-blast cheating its people and beating them in the streets. Small countries - particularly democracies - must have confidence that the U.S. will, a) treat them with respect, and b) give them the presumption that their government is acting within the law. If Honduras can't presume that, how long will Israel - another small democracy - be able to presume that?
And finally, another report, concerning President Obama's meeting with the Jews, may have received more feedback than any other this year, including a challenge to broaden our thinking:
Let your think tank discuss this proposition. Your opinions are delightfully conservative and strongly emphasize the independence of Israel. However, let it consider a broader frame of reference. There is a small island in the Mediterranean split between Greeks and Turks. I read their respective newsletters as I do yours. Have your specialized readers check them out for the past year - simple assignment to take a day or so; thinking is more difficult and lengthy. Then introduce an expanded vision of the complexities of the Eastern Mediterranean. Take the pressure off the flushing of every political statement and red herring balloon of our leaders - local and national. Such discussion pro and con only exacerbates conflicting opinions. Soften this tension by a little comparative thinking. We want Israel to survive, indeed need it to survive for our own survival, otherwise there will be only remnants scattered throughout the world and we'll need another few millennia before we can have the opportunity to reunite as a people.
That is a sobering thought, but one we appreciate as we ponder the relationship between U.S. policy on Honduras (or Iran or North Korea or Indonesia or Ukraine) and our concern for a stable Middle East in which a secure Israel can flourish.
|
|
