Sir, - The article by Michael Cohen submitted as a "Letter from America" with the title "Why a Palestinian state is essential" suffers from an obvious major flaw. While it very well may be an accurate expression of why America views a Palestinian state to be essential, it completely fails to appreciate the genuine existential concerns of the people of Israel, while at the same time reveals a gross lack of understanding about the realities of the PA-Israel conflict.
Since Michael Cohen lists himself as a Rabbi and a college teacher of conflict resolution, I unfortunately feel compelled to criticize the thesis of his article in relation to these two professional areas. One of the primary duties of a rabbi has always been to identify with the plight of the Jewish people, seek their welfare, and fight on their behalf. Rabbi Cohen expresses no empathy at all with Israel's fragile security situation, but with unmitigated chutzpah dares to suggest that his understanding of Israel's defense requirements is superior to that of Israel's democratically elected prime minister.
As a rabbi and conflict resolver, Cohen must understand that Israel is surrounded by implacable enemies and unrestrained fanatical hatred. The PA has never ceased its promotion of terrorism in words as well as in deeds. It heroizes the most vile acts of terrorism and constantly uses every vehicle at the UN and elsewhere to demonize Israel by invoking old blood libels, and obscenely accuses Israel of Nazi atrocities. It actively promotes terrorism in its schools and mosques. It joins itself with Hamas, whose charter calls for the annihilation of Israel, who has 'tsunamied' Israel with thousands of deadly rockets, and who has taken the lives of tens of our most precious sons.
Must not everyone of sound mind and principle decidedly appreciate—despite Cohen's derision—Israel's insistence on maintaining its 'present very narrow and rigid security definition' for its very survival?
Sir, - In his article "An open letter to Mahmoud Abbas," Yoram Dori expresses his disillusionment with the PA President as a result of the pernicious speech Abbas gave at the UN General Assembly. In a venomously mendacious anti-Israel tirade, Abbas accused Israel of "genocide" and "war crimes," and Yoram Dori attempts to disabuse him of the delusive use of these terms as applied to Israel.
While it certainly is a positive development that Dori, who served as a senior advisor to Shimon Peres since 1990, belatedly appears to express some disenchantment with the PA leader, his criticisms suffer from acute anemia.
It must be clearly understood that Abbas's vicious attack at the UN was not the result of his not being fully cognizant of the meaning of the terminology that he employed. On the contrary, Abbas, with full awareness of what he was saying, deliberately chose to besmirch Israel at that international forum. This is quite consistent with his heroization of terrorists and shaping of the PA's hate-filled educational curriculum that is unabashedly raising generations of anti-Israel fanatics, and his continued incitement and encouragement of the daily rock and molotov cocktail throwing against innocent Israeli civilians and police.
Unfortunately Abbas, who began his career as a holocaust denier and deputy to Arafat, continues to be an active pro-terrorist and must be recognized and denounced as such, with the full realization that he can never be a genuine partner for peace with Israel.
Sir, - I am rather surprised that the Jerusalem Post would permit an article with such pronounced bias and hopelessly frail logic to be presented to its readers. Author Peter A. Joseph joins Martin Indyk and John Kerry in warning Israel that it is headed toward a "tragedy of historic proportions" unless it conclude an agreement with the Palestinians based on the program of two states for two peoples.
Joseph tries to assure us that his team is scrupulously fair in attributing blame for the breakdown in the negotiations to both sides, and then with perverted logic concludes that nevertheless, it is Israel who is really to blame because it continues with settlement activity that is anathema to the PA.
In order to achieve an honest evaluation of what led to the breakdown it is important raise some questions and establish certain truths. The negotiations were born in sin and clearly biased against Israel from the start when Joseph's friends insisted that the PA deserved a reward just for agreeing to negotiate. Why? Joseph's allies insisted on the morally reprehensible demand that Israel free hundreds of abominable terrorist murderers! Israel then made it clear to Kerry, Indyk, Obama, and Abbas that settlement activity would continue during the negotiations, and that this comes as a surprise to any of those honorable gentlemen either casts serious doubts on their honorability or on their mental fitness.
By the way, did anyone ever consider warning the PA about the "tragedy of historic proportions" that it would face if it failed to negotiate in good faith?
Also worth considering is what constitutes a more serious impediment to negotiations: Israel's building in undisputed areas, or glorification and heroization of terrorist in the schools and mosques of the PA? What about hooking up with a terrorist organization that calls by word and deed for the annihilation of the Jewish state? The sad truth is that Joseph himself admits to the fact that the settlement issue is not the substantive one that divides us, but in his own words it has provided the Palestinian leaders with "an excuse" to avoid making compromises or preparing their public for peace.
Sir, - Readers of the Jerusalem Post were confronted with two disturbing headlines on Sunday May 18 and in fact both reflect a venomous posture towards the state of Israel and its people. The first headline relates to the unauthorized meeting that took place in Londonbetween Tzipi Livni and the PA's Mahmoud Abbas; the second cites a repulsive and toxic statement from a rabbi of the Mir Yeshiva who declared that"government officials should in theory be killed."
It appears to me that Naftali Bennet's comments about Livni that describe her as a "satellite lost in orbit, with no connection to the planet earth" can unhesitatingly be applied to the Yeshiva scholar Rabbi Nissan Kaplan as well. The physical disconnect that Bennet describes is, however, unfortunately inadequate to fully portray the depth of their folly. They both seem to lack a basic appreciation or understanding of the 'heavenly miracle' that is the State of Israel or the real concerns of its people and their core values.
Tzipi Livni, in her desperate pursuit of an Israel-Palestinian peace treaty, is evidently willing to ignore the real danger that is inherent in meeting with a unified Hamas-PLO entity, wherein Hamas insists on its intention to annihilate the Zionist state. Their continuing rocket attacks against Israel and attempts to kidnap soldiers clearly demonstrate an implacable intent to unite their words of enmity with murderous deeds. She needs to understand that her primary obligation is to the security of the people of Israel with absolutely no room for compromise or weakness.
The words describing the Israeli government as 'Amelekites' and therefore worthy of being killed borders on pathology no matter if it emerges from Rabbi Kaplan or any so called 'Gedolim,' be they Ashkenazi or Sfardi. His pathetic remarks and inane games played with his children are both symptoms of the terrible growing divide that separates the Haredi world from the rest of Israel, and worse is the Haredi world's ingratitude for the fact that currently there is more Torah being learned in the state of Israel with the support of the 'Amelikites' and the security provided by the IDF than any other period of Jewish history. It is time that these facts were honestly recognized by the Yeshiva world, and that they gather the courage to thank the Almighty for His daily miracles even when they come dressed in non-velvet kippot.
Sir, - In the midst of the warm afterglow of Independence Day celebrations I found it most disturbing to be confronted once again with a front page report on the insidious activities of our country's president. Shimon Peres is deservedly acknowledged to be one of the world's leading statesmen and one who has brought much honor to the state of Israel. He has many important achievements to his credit, and a long list of testimonials to his strength of heart and mind, as well as to the qualities of character that befit a person of such lofty position. Alas,humility does not occupy a prominent space on that list. This character flaw can on occasion blind him to the damage he causes to the government and people of Israel, precisely because of the high regard in which he is held.
Each and everyone of us must ask the simple question: What did Peres hope to accomplish at this stage by his 'revelation' that "PM nixed deal with PA in final stages 3 years ago"? After the peace talks guided by Sec. Kerry have completely broken down due to the intransigence of the PA and their unity talks with Hamas, does Peres feel that his program will now be adopted by the Israeli government? Is Peres in favor of having Hamas, who consistently in word and deed call for the destruction of Israel, now become legitimate members of the PA negotiating team?
Regrettably, we must ask an another question of the Peres report: Is it an accurate description of what actually took place three years ago, or is it part of Peres' long history of wishful thinking and his attempts to reconstruct the chronicle of events beginning with the Oslo process up until his present evaluation of Abbas as a man of "character," a "fighter against terrorism," and a man who is courageous and talks of peace?
The reliability of the Peres report is brought into serious doubt in an interview granted by recent national security adviser Gen. Yaakov Amidror, someone who has been intimately involved with the peace negotiations of the past several years. The interview took place the same day the report appeared, wherein he declared unequivocally that if those negotiations took place Netanyahu had absolutely no knowledge of them.
Sir - The news that Jonathan Pollard's health has now so deterioratedthat he requireshospitalization comes as no surprise when considering his 29 year imprisonment, several years of which were spent in solitary confinement. At this critical juncture, it seems absolutely vital not only for Jonathan, but also for the many fair-minded and decent people all over the world who have tried unsuccessfully to penetrate the iron wall of mystery that surrounds his incarceration, to be provided with some rational accounting and understanding for thislengthy, cruel, and unusual imprisonment. Up to the present, no such explanation has been forthcoming and we are all left feeling utter frustration and helplessness in regard to this enormously tragic affair. Pollard is still languishing in prison, while the mystery remains a mystery.
The absence of an intelligible understanding as to why Pollard has been singled out for this exceptional treatment naturally invites a wide spectrum of theories and accusations, including those of overt discrimination and thinly veiled antisemitism. This latter charge has recently been made by no less a personage than former CIA director James Woolsey, who noted that others convicted of spying for allies of the U.S. have received sentences of no longer than eight years.
President Obama's unequivocal rejection of Prime Minister Netanyahu's request for Pollard's release made at the start of recent peace negotiations -- despite its obvious legitimacy at the time when America was pressuring Israel to release hundreds of convicted terrorist murderers to the Palestinian Authority -- leaves us all completely perplexed. The mystery continues!
The extraordinarily harsh life sentence imposed on Pollard leaves the indelible impression of having been born in sin. A plea bargain agreed to by the government for a maximum sentence of 10 years was completely disregarded when the then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger submitted a secret document purportedly containing charges of such severity that warranted this maximum sentence. This rather outlandish sequence emerges as even more bizarre due to the fact that neither Pollard nor his attorney were ever given access to this document or were able to learn of its contents. This type of behavior in a court of law not only does violence to the most basic principles of justice but is normally found only in the most totalitarian of societies.
Pollard's imprisonment played a prominent role in the 1998 Wye River negotiations when Bill Clinton, in order to obtain Netanyahu's agreement, made a commitment to release Pollard. This in fact was the deal-maker that won over a reluctant Netanyahu, who agreed to the deal despite distrusting Arafat for his long history of agreement violations. After the signing, however, Clinton did not honor his promise because he claimed there was opposition from public officials. This concern was notably non-apparent at the end of Clinton's adminstration, when with seeming alacrity he granted pardons to well-known criminals, some of whom until the pardon were barred from entry into the United States.
The list of prominent personalities that now declare their support for the release of Jonathan Pollard include statesmen, Noble Laureates, clergymen, intellectuals, scientists, senators, congressmen, and members of the Intelligence community, some of whom originally opposed his release. The register begins with two former Secretaries of State (Kissinger and Schultz) followed by former Vice President Don Quayle, Senator John McCaine, Dennis Ross, former Director of the CIA James Woolsey; Director of the FBI at the time of Pollard's arrest William Webster; former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb; former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time of Pollard's arrest Senator David Durenberger; former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum; and former Deputy Attorney General Philip Heyman -- the last three of which reviewed the classified intelligence reports on Pollard's case and nevertheless chose to add their names to those who call for Pollard's release.
PM Binyamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres have made personal appeals for Pollard's release. They were joined by Israel's two Chief Rabbis and by an overwhelming majority of Israel's Parliament. And if Israeli Jewry isn't enough, the American Jewish umbrella group representing 50 national Jewish organizations under the title The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has added the voice of American Jewry to those who seek Pollard's freedom.
When considering the evident crescendo of support in favor of freedom for Jonathan Pollard, we are confronted by a report in the New York Times of September 2011 that leaves us completely dumbfounded. We are informed of a meeting between Vice President Joe Biden and a group of rabbis in south Florida. When the rabbis raised the question of possible clemency for Jonathan Pollard, the VP's vehement response was, infamously,"Over my dead body!"
Skip to December 2013. A fresh wind blew into the picture when Governor Bill Richardson, a former UN ambassador and a confidant of Pres. Obama, wrote to the president and recommended Pollard be freed immediately. Richardson stated, "In my view there is no longer a need for a discussion today. Virtually everyone who was in a high position of government and dealt with the ramifications of what Pollard did at the time - now supports his release."
Shortly before Richardson's letter, there was a very sobering panel discussion that took place at the Jerusalem Press Club. The participants consisted of Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky, Jerusalem Post editor Steven Linde, and two very well known Americans, Dr. Mahmet Oz and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. The discussion revolved around Sharansky's imprisonment in the Soviet Union and his ability to maintain hope during his long ordeal. During the question period, the inevitable query arose about the Americans' adamant refusal to release Pollard after 29 years. Not one of the four participants was able to offer a logical or convincing argument to help comprehend this refusal, and none were able to offer any suggestion as to how to help facilitate his release. On the contrary: Rabbi Boteach, who visited Pollard in prison and lobbied for his release, expressed his solemn belief that America wants Jonathan to die there!
The mystery of Jonathan Pollard, my friends, is not one of espionage -- it is one of murder!
Sir, - It is becoming increasingly evident that John Kerry has abdicated his role as an 'honest broker' in the negotiations between Israel and the PA. To the adjectives obsessive and messianic that Defense Minister Yaalon has already used to describe him, we must now unfortunately add treacherous in order to properly identify his diplomatic casuistry.
The shocking statement reported on the front page of the Jerusalem Post wherein Kerry is quoted as saying that "it is a mistake to demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state" is the equivalent of a dagger being thrust into the very heart of the negotiations. It is a repugnant betrayal of Prime Minister Netanyahu who has made this the very fulcrum and primary condition of his agreement to enter into the negotiations, and this was made absolutely clear to the Americans. In fact until a short while ago, it was leaked to the media that the Americans backed this very basic and most elementary demand. The goal of the negotiations could only be reached if each side of the negotiations announced the complete end of hostilities and recognize the national rights of the other. This is not only completely logical and legitimate, but it places the absence of its acceptance into the realm of the bizarre and absurd and serves to render the negotiations a total mockery.
Kerry's perfidy, however, does not stop with Netanyahu; it also does violence to the entire peace negotiations. Kerry not only labels the demand 'a mistake' but by doing so he automatically grants legitimacy to Abbas' adamant refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He then proceeds to offer justification for this refusal based on the very tenuous arguments that the US and Arafat have already done so. Surely the Sec. of State should be wise enough to ask the simple question: Why then is Abbas so determined in his
refusal to do so? Shouldn't Gaza be cut off from the PA because of Hamas' publicly declared statements, backed by lethal rockets, which call for the continuous armed struggle against the Zionist entity?
The ugly truth that emerges is the fact that Abbas' intransigence, now supported by Kerry, will result in a halt to the negotiations, but instead of placing the onus where it belongs both Kerry and Obama find it more comfortable to blame Israel. In light of this reality, will Kerry still insist that Israel release the last batch of terrorist butchers into the loving arms of Abbas?
Finally, if Netanyahu's demand is labeled as a mistake, how would Kerry characterize the repulsive pressure brought on Israel for the obscene release of unrepentant murderers as a Palestinian precondition to the start of talks?
Sir, - Isi Leibler once again presents us with a highly readable column, advancing straightforward facts and "A coherent settlement policy."
clear-cut arguments. He attempts to make a strong case for the necessity of Israel under the leadership of Netanyahu to establish what he calls
Leibler contends that the government's present ambiguous policy is the number one issue that is utilized by our detractors to vilify us. He cites several examples where Israel is facing increasing hostility on campuses, growing pressure for boycotts, as well as frequent anti-Israel U.N. resolutions, and claims that "the entire world is deluded into believing that settlements represent the principal obstacle to peace."
I confess I am truly surprised by Isi Leibler. While he is obviously correct about the desirability of a cohesive settlement policy, it would undoubtedly have little effect on Israel's maligners. Does Leibler really believe that even a total retreat from a pro-settlement stance by Netanyahu would reduce Israel-bashing in the least bit? Does he really believe that Abbas would then permit the presence of soldiers in the Jordan Valley or would agree to an undivided Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel? Would the PA president then be willing to declare Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people?
I hope that Isi Leibler's response to the above questions would be in the negative, especially in view of the fact that he himself uses the term 'deluded' to describe those that believe the settlement issue to be the biggest obstacle to peace. It is important to understand that Israel is facing an implacable enemy and we therefore must remain forever vigilant in safeguarding and remaining true to our vital national interests, and not succumb to any perilous delusions.
Sir, - Boaz Ganor, founder and executive director of the Institute for Counter-Terrorism, makes a valiant effort to depict the various upheavals that many of Israel’s neighbors are experiencing and suggests that they present a window of opportunity for us to come to an agreement with the Palestinians (“The window of opportunity,” Comment & Features,” November 4). Sadly to say, I fear that although the learned author describes certain drastic changes in our region, the conclusions he draws are erroneous.
If this “window” were so promising for Israel, it should be viewed even more so as a golden opportunity for the Palestinian Authority, which is witnessing the possible collapse of several of its Muslim allies as well as the terrorist regime in Gaza. If this were so, the PA would desperately be begging for a peace agreement.
US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry should be able to see the reality of the situation and begin to bring pressure on the PA for it to make gestures of good will toward Israel.
At every juncture of his portrayal of the regional changes taking place, Ganor is careful enough to describe the fragility and real possibility that these changes could be undone. For Israel to make any concessions concerning its security or its borders based on these unstable circumstances would be of the utmost folly.
Sir, - Gershon Baskin's article is basically another one of Baskin's attempts to deceive and thereby influence the Israeli public towards accepting his perverse pro-Palestinian position.
The attempt at deception begins with the very title "Negotiating Jerusalem, negotiating peace" -- by which Baskin means that he would like to see Israel totally capitulate to the Palestinian position and accept their claims of entitlement to the Old City and East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. Presently Jerusalem is united under Israeli sovereignty, so the P.A. has nothing to offer at the so-called negotiations other than what exists in Baskin's delusional scenarios.
United Jerusalem as Israel's capital affords unprecedented equal rights and access to all its citizens, as well as full freedom of worship. Throughout the millennia it has never served as the political or religious capital of any sovereign entity other than that established by the ancient Davidic Kingdom or the modern state of Israel.
The hundreds of years of Muslim dominance in this region have always placed the capital cities in Damascus, Baghdad, or Istanbul -- but never in Jerusalem. Baskin has the effrontery to cite Jordan's annexation of East Jerusalem in 1949, when Jordan joined several other Arab countries in their attack to eliminate the new state of Israel. In the 19 years of Hashemite rule, Jerusalem was never considered its capital. It did, however, manage to divide the city by barbed wire fences and walls that cut off the Old City and the Jewish holy places from Israel and the Jewish world.
Baskin's unmitigated gall continues with his positive approval of the Palestinian position as including the entire Old City of Jerusalem including the Jewish Quarter and the Jewish holy places. He is, however, willing to accept a division of the Old City that would leave the Jewish Quarter under Israeli sovereignty while the other three quarters -- Armenian, Christian, and Muslim -- would come under Palestinian sovereignty. Under what flight of fancy should the Armenian or Christian quarters be turned over to Muslim rule, when faced with indisputable evidence of deliberate Muslim deprivation of the Christian community of Bethlehem and active anti-Christian behavior throughout the Muslim world???
Baskin is most treacherous when trying to tackle the question of the Temple Mount. He makes himself completely oblivious to the harsh reality where the Muslim Waqf absolutely forbids Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount. A Jew is presently not permitted to move his lips without being stopped by Muslim officers. If this shamefully abusive denial of freedom of worship for Jews exists while under general Israeli sovereignty, can any honest and sane person other than Baskin truly believe it would change under Muslim sovereignty? I challenge Baskin to find any recognized Muslim religious authority that would back his claim that Muslim Sharia law permits the Jews to pray in the Temple Mount mosques.
He goes on, cynically finding support for his anti-Jewish bias in some rabbis from the orthodox world who oppose praying on the Temple Mount. Their objection is based on the state of sanctity of the Temple Mount and their zealous concern that this sanctity not be defiled. He obviously does not understand that their opposition would have to include Muslims as well.
Finally, Baskin -- who is unable to offer any coherent reasons for denying the status quo -- asks the Jews to accept his Palestinian program and wait for the Messiah to solve the difficulties inherent in his myopic views. I too suggest that we all await the coming of the Messiah, but until then a united Jerusalem should and must remain the capital of Israel.
Sir, - The unbearable pressure to make additional gestures to the P.A. that resulted in the decision to release terrorist murderers brought with it a great deal of humiliation and heartbreak to Israelis. Once that inexpedient decision has been made, however, the people of Israel have every right to expect their government to be exacting in their demands that the Palestinians scrupulously observe the reciprocity requirements built into the fabric of that resolution.
This is clearly not happening.
The decision was predicated on the basis that prisoners would be released "according to progress in the talks." The patent absurdity of the government's behavior was revealed on Sunday, when Netanyahu sent a letter to Kerry complaining about Palestinian incitement, and on Monday a ministerial committee prepared a list of the first batch of terrorists to be freed. If indeed there is continued incitement, it is then both senseless and revolting to release these savages before the incitement is brought to an end.
Coinciding with the above, we read about the appalling behavior of Justice Grunis as described in front page headlines , "Grunis leads walkout by justices on terror victims families." This not only reinforces the problematics inherent in the decision but further exacerbates the problem by revealing a most shocking insensitivity and impatience by leading members of our judiciary to the genuine cries of pain and anguish of the families of the terror victims.
Sir, - Living as I do in the reality of Israel's precariously fragile security situation, I must admit to being nonplussed when reading the statement "the move angered the U.S. government." What was the move that incurred the wrath of the United States? It was the fact that Mexico released a drug lord that was behind the 1985 killing of a DEA agent.
As a good citizen who tries to act with the guidance of a moral compass, I ordinarily would have felt a sense of outrage at this betrayal of justice. After all, this villain was responsible for the death of a US law enforcement official, and the fact that he has spent 28 years in prison should not and does not absolve him of the guilt for his heinous crime.
However, I am acutely aware and completely heartbroken by the pressure brought to bear on Israel by the United States for the release of 104 terrorist murderers of innocent civilian women and children, and therefore I remain completely unmovedby the discomfort concerning the Mexican druglord.
It is time that the U.S. government and the spineless Israeli leadership learned the infinite value of a single life... and the infinite evil of terrorism.
Sir, -- I was deeply shocked to read the utterly disgraceful front page headline informing us that "First group of P.A. prisoners to be released mid-August." This news clearly establishes Tzipi Livni, our prime negotiator with the P.A., as being completely untrustworthy.
On top of the heartbreak and humiliation that Israel suffers from being browbeaten into releasing terrorist murderers, we now learn that the first meeting of the two sides will be held in Israel in the second week of August, and the security prisoners, says Livni, will be "freed by that time."
It's important to note that a few lines further in the same article, we are provided with the background information about the cabinet's approval of the release of 104 long-serving prisoners "according to progress in the talks." It should be obvious to even the most venomous Israel-basher that no progress in the talks could have possibly been achieved before the talks have actually begun, and therefore nothing could justify the release of these prisoners prior to any real signs of progress in the talks.
Sir, – In his columns, Isi Leibler can generally be counted on not only to speak candidly, but to provide his readers with thought-provoking and well balanced analyses on a variety of critical issues.
In “En route to becoming a banana republic,” (Candidly Speaking, July 11), he presents cogent and convincing arguments concerning the need for ministers to close ranks so that a unified and coherent voice emerges to represent and speak for the government of Israel. However, I feel that in one part of the column, Leibler is being less than candidand perhaps even somewhat disingenuous.
He writes that the “vast majority of Israelis support the implementation of a two-state solution – if Palestinian leaders emerge who are genuine peace partners, willing to ensure Israel’s security.”
Not only does this statement lack any evidentiary basis, it almost borders on deception.Basing the solution on this gargantuan "If" is precisely the crux of the problem and the focus of all the doubts and concerns to which Leibler seemingly objects.
The statement is comparable in its meaninglessness and insignificance to my stating that the vast majority of Israelis would lend their support for Iran’s achieving nuclear capability – if it would assure its non-use for any malevolent purpose.
Sir, - Letter writer Naftali Bertram does a genuine disservice to those who are concerned with Israel's well being and security. He does so in a letter to the Jerusalem Post wherein he sows the seeds of moral confusion by justifying the award to Jimmy Carter for conflict resolution by students of the Cardozo Law School of Yeshiva University. Bertram correctly cites Carter's achievement in helping to engineer the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in the late 1970's, but rather blithely dismisses Carter's subsequent record of gross antisemitism and his insistent malicious slander of Israel as being in the forefront of practitioners of apartheid in the world.
The dilemma concerning the value of citing a positive achievement of a person who is a moral degenerate is not new. Most decent people are willing to see the achievement as secondary if it means dignifying the persons moral dissonance. The state of Israel is often confronted with the problem of playing Wagner, whose musical genius is undeniable but when weighed against the competing undeniable fact that he was one of Hitler's main ideologues, the decision to forego the music rather than dignify the ideology is unquestionably correct. Would it make any moral sense to praise Hitler for the fact that he got German trains to run on time, or for his oratorical skills, when we are confronted by his unprecedented bestiality and mania that brought death to millions?
Jimmy Carter is received today in the world's capitols, where he unhesitatingly preaches his hate-filled, anti-Israel apartheid gospel and whose doctrine is the most quoted by the proponents of divestment. He travels the world generating enormous malice to Israel and further exposes Israel to those who threaten her security. Does Jimmy Carter really deserve an award?
Sir, - When Gershon Baskin declares "We know how to make peace" it becomes immediately apparent that he is attempting to use the royal "We" to serve as a cover for the load emanating from his pedestrian boastful "I." Without any hesitation he informs us that the imaginary agreements that he is comfortable with regarding borders, divided Jerusalem, refugees, security, prisoner exchange, etc. must be the ones that the State of Israel adopt in order that peace can come to our region.
I personally beg to differ with Gershon, and also unhesitatingly declare that most of Israel's citizens, as clearly established by the results of Israel's recent democratic elections, do not accept his quite obvious pro-Palestinian positions and the one-sided concessions that he is prepared to make.
I would like to challenge Baskin on two most important issues. Despite the ease with which he divides Jerusalem, I would like him to address the absurdity of the reality that prevails today on the Temple Mount. After a costly war to liberate Jerusalem and the declaration that "Har habayit b'yadenu," Israel with super magnanimity granted the Muslim Wakf supervision over that sacred area. This magnanimity has resulted with the arrest by the Muslim Wakf of any Jew who dares move his lips even in silent prayer on the Temple Mount. Has this travesty ever troubled Baskin,and how would he in his superior wisdom deal with it?
The second issue is that of releasing Palestinian terrorist prisoners. I noticed that Gershon in the short biographical sketch beneath his article now includes "Initiator and negotiator of the behind-the-scenes that led to the release of Gilad Schalit." I would like to enlist Baskin's boasted negotiating skills so that Israel can release one Palestinian terrorist prisoner in exchange for 1,000 terrorists that they hand over to us, made up of 500 Hamas's Izz al-Din al-Qassam and the remainder from the PA's al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade, and only then may he rightfully gain our respect.
Sir, - Martin Sherman remains peerless. The intelligent reader who seeks a deeper understanding of rapidly unfolding events beyond their superficial reportage, depends a great deal on the likes of Martin Sherman for an insightful glimpse into the depth of serious meaning that often lies hidden in the simple description of events. His article "Obama in Israel: The sinister subtext?" is a prime example of Sherman's gift of articulating that which many Israelis suspected after being overwhelmed by Obama's charm offensive.
Sherman offers cogent arguments, supported by impeccable logic and an incredibly rich vocabulary to make his points, which he further strengthens by a fertile array of quotes from the subjects of his articles or literary sources. He begins his thesis with a most valid question concerning Obama's decision to bypass Israel's Knesset and deliver a message to a pre-selected group of students whom he urges to organize pressure for the promotion of peace, and if necessary even circumvent their democratically elected officials. What indeed is the nature of this aforementioned peace?
Is this the peace agreement that the government of Israel has been insisting must be negotiated by both sides without pre-conditions, and which the PA has for many months refused to accept but rather has chosen to stir up violent attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF personnel? Or is this rather Obama's subtext peace plan based upon indefensible 1967 borders and the release of hundreds ofterrorist prisoners, totally ignoring the growing hostility that surrounds Israel?
Martin Sherman has got it right!
ZEV CHAMUDOT
Petach Tikva [Image credit: Flickr user DonkeyHotey]
The above presents to many thousands of concerned, sensitive, and intelligent citizens of Israel, a most awful dilemma. We were recently informed by Pres. Shimon Peres that he has known Mahmoud Abbas for decades, and he unequivocally assured our people that Abbas is not only an honorable man, but he indeed is also a worthy peace partner.
If there is substance to Abbas's accusations, I would admit to being deeply ashamed of our country. However, if it be established that Israel in fact does not torture Palestinian prisoners, I would find myself in the position of being deeply ashamed of our president.
Sir, - It is quite often wrongly assumed that if you get someone with a Jewish sounding name like Jeffrey Goldberg to write an article, he can deliver the most inane Israel bashing tripe, in the hope that the unenlightened natives in Israel wont recognize it for what it really is. What it really proves, however, is that even possessing a Jewish name does not guarantee either intellectual integrity or more than a most superficial understanding of the Middle East and its conflicts.
The blaring headline that informs us that "Israel doesn't know what its best interests are" is grossly insulting while at the same time it seems to contain a number of veiled, and less than friendly, threats. The claim that the democratically elected government of Israel, representing a majority of its citizens, does not know how to assess its best interests is a patently malicious absurdity. Israel has unfortunately had to pay quite dearly in both blood and materiel in order to learn how to deal with the hostility of its surrounding environment, and how to best evaluate the true nature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The PA initiative of going to the UN in search of recognition was a blatant violation of the Oslo agreements. It was a conspicuous attempt to out-maneuver Israel and seek territorial and diplomatic gains, while continuing in its adamant refusal to sit and negotiate with Israel without prior conditions. The Oslo peace agreements met their just demise, when the PA was seemingly granted everything it wanted, without any concessions or compromise on its part. While the PA still persists in its onslaught of anti-Israel venom and hate through its schools and mosques, it is Israel that is constantly called on to make "gestures for peace." PA's president, Abbas, still persists in his attempts at unification with the Hamas terror organization, despite the latter's call for the destruction of Israel. The lack of any willingness on the part of the PA to restart negotiations, and in view of their continuing attempts to demonize Israel, it is eminently both just and sensible for Israel to take its own unilateral steps to halt the PA's nefarious behavior, and thus truly provide the people of Israel with the best safeguards for their security and future.
.jpg)
_-_USNWR.jpg)
