Logic of E1
Sir, – Your December 3 editorial “The logic of E1” defended the
Israeli government’s decision to advance construction in this contentious area
by stating, among other points, that “the 2000 Clinton Parameters called for
Israel to be compensated for the partitioning of Jerusalem by annexing Ma’aleh
Adumim.”
The formal Clinton Parameters never endorsed such specific
territorial arrangements over others, and they explicitly insisted on contiguity
for both sides.
Although the Post is technically correct to point out
that building an access road for Palestinians could (somewhat) mitigate this
risk, it is patently obvious that settlement construction in E1 would still
seriously degrade the character of contiguity for a Palestinian state.
As
such, settlement growth in E1 undermines the two-state solution, no matter what
the excuse. That is why America, across both Democratic and Republican
administrations, has consistently opposed building there as a short-sighted
obstacle toward peace.
DAVID ANDREW WEINBERG
Washington
The writer serves
as a non-resident fellow with UCLA’s Center for Middle East Development
Sir, – I
am a citizen of both Israel and the US who loves both counties and has no doubt
in the justice of the Israeli positions in the ongoing conflict with the
Palestinians. This includes the recent military action in Gaza, the belief that
at present Israel has no Palestinian peace partner, and support for certain
construction in the so-called settlements.
However, with the timing of the
announcement on building plans for E1, the government once again has made me
ashamed to be an Israeli.
We should care more about supporting our few
friends in this hostile world, and less about punishing our enemies. It is clear
to me that Israel has learned well from the Palestinians – and now clearly
outdoes them – by “never missing an opportunity to miss an
opportunity.”
Although I shudder to think of the consequences, in my
judgment it would now be reasonable for the US to stop using its veto power in
the UN Security Council and merely abstain on one-sided, anti-Israel motions, at
least until the Israeli government chooses to be a partner for peace with
America.
MARTIN GERSTEL
Jerusalem
Sir, – While additional building in
Judea and Samaria is always welcome, a much more reasonable response to the PA
would be a formal abrogation of the ill-fated Oslo Accords.
The PLO, with
whom the accords were signed, undertook a number of obligations. Among other
things it agreed to rewrite its covenant, refrain from violence, stop teaching
Palestinian children to hate Jews and Israel, and negotiate a border directly
with Israel without preconditions.
None of these conditions were
fulfilled – not even attempted.
Therefore, there is no reason for us to
continue with this farce any further.
It is time to face reality and
force the rest of the world to face reality by stating the obvious: admit that
Oslo was a colossal failure from the start and formally assign it to the dust
heap of history.
STEPHEN COHEN
Ma’aleh Adumim
Siege or not
Sir, – Without
any consideration of the reality we live in, Ariel Harkham’s theoretical hogwash
(“Trapped under the Iron Dome: Israel’s siege mentality represents a fundamental
strategic failure,” Comment & Features, December 2) is beyond
understanding.
As evidenced by the recent nonsensical anti-Israel vote in
the UN General Assembly, listening to his reasoning would be be tantamount to an
ant wanting to destroy an elephant.
Little Israel, surrounded by millions
of hostile Muslims supported by a multitude of misinformed supporters worldwide
who only have their own self-interest at heart, has no desire to conquer.
Contrary to what Harkham says, Israel has a superiority of arms and the ability
to defeat its enemies, as has been proved in the past.
It is very
difficult indeed to fight an enemy that is happy to lay down the lives of its
people.
We have no desire to defeat or destroy them – all we want is
security and to live in peace as good neighbors.
The dissemination of
true facts must be greatly enhanced, and the blatant lies of our enemies must be
shot down in flames so that the world will know the truth. It may take time and
we no doubt will have further rounds of terrorist activity, but we must remain
committed and united.
MIKE AYL
Ashkelon
Sir, – I would like to endorse
Ariel Harkham’s article. It is time that Israel shed its galut (diaspora)
mentality.
There is so much Israel-bashing out there that it doesn’t
matter what we do. The international community will always condemn
us.
The UN is speedily becoming more and more of a
nonentity.
There is no point in pandering to it. We need to be bold,
perhaps taking a leaf out of Iran’s playbook by thumbing our nose at it. It is
only the Security Council that wields any power – and that, too, is rapidly
dissipating as the failure to solve the Syrian problem has shown.
Somehow
we will have to create a new body, one that will be able to serve our values
better than the present self-serving gaggle of jabbering automatons that
self-importantly strut on the UN’s stage.
JOE FRANKL
Savyon
Sir, – I
really object to Ariel Harkham’s conjecture that Iron Dome is a symptom of a
siege mentality.
From a strictly military point of view, it has proved
itself a highly successful weapon. It allows the IDF to structure its actions
without leaving the populace vulnerable.
The choice of the government to
limit its response in the recent action to aerial bombardment was political. I
think it is pretty clear to just about anyone outside the Gaza Strip that the
IDF could obliterate it and kill tens of thousands in a matter of
hours.
Sending in the ground forces might have done a better job, but the
only real solution would be to reoccupy the entire Gaza Strip at the cost of God
knows how many Israeli soldiers’ lives.
I am most definitely aggrieved by
Harkham’s insinuations that the Israeli public lacks “vigor” and has failed to
exercise its opinion to get the government to act. He appears to have missed the
conclusion that most Israelis have come to: Gaza is a long-term problem that
must be coped with, and so long as the Gazans think they can really hurt us with
their ragtag junk, we will have to bash their heads every so often.
To
impose a “final solution” would be only a painful chimera.
TREVOR DAVIS
Asseret
Picking bones
Sir, – I am deeply ashamed by the Dry Bones cartoon in the
November 30 Jerusalem Post. I am appalled and frightened by the text – by its
tone of arrogance and ridicule, and by the presumption of agreement on the part
of the reader.
This large, blaring cartoon demeans the Palestinian
people, as well as the Israelis the writer assumes he represents.
I am
alarmed that the Post printed this. I ask you to apologize to your readers for
publicizing such a mocking, insulting, racist, ignorant and dangerous text in
the guise of humor.
As the color of the cartoon reveals, this is truly
yellow journalism.
BRENDA YAGOD
Jerusalem
Sir, – Congratulations on Dry
Bones’s brilliant quiz! It should have been published on the front page, with
copies distributed at the United Nations and covered in all the social media on
the Internet. Well done!
LYNETTE LEVIUS
Netanya
|