A kowtowing ‘Post’
With your April 23 editorial “Camp David 2017?” you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the world’s propaganda regarding the status of the so-called West Bank (another misnomer for Judea, Samaria and any other areas regained in the Six Day War).
You state that both Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “must maneuver under the hanging threat of opposition by extremist constituencies that oppose a settlement based on the two-state solution the Muslim world rejected in 1947.”
In rejecting the 1947 plan, the Muslim world (note no mention of a “Palestinian” people or nation), after declaring war on Israel, left the proposed Arab state as an area in dispute, occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan.
The areas were not recognized by the world (with two exceptions) as belonging to the Arabs. In 1967, again in a defensive war, Israel gained control of these territories.
No other conflict in the world has been resolved in which the aggressor, who also lost the war, has had a valid claim to such territories.
Regarding the respective constituencies mentioned in the editorial, how can you equate “a Palestinian public that has been incited to pursue terrorism in order to defeat Zionism” with “a settlement movement that rejects a two-state solution altogether and demands full annexation of the West Bank”? The Arabs also reject a two-state solution, desiring the entire area from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.
Even if they accept a Jewish state alongside an Arab state, the Arab state will be judenrein.
Those Israelis desiring to keep the biblical homeland do not have to annex any land because the land in question was won in a defensive war.
Finally, those like me who feel that these areas are ours as a right are not “extremists.” We are not part of a “settlement movement.”
We deeply believe that these areas belong to the Jews as a God-given right, the same as the lands that extend to the Mediterranean and which have been in our hands since 1948.
We do not feel that we have to resort to terrorism and the murder of Arabs to keep these lands.
Those non-Jews who wish to abide by our laws are welcome to stay and live in peace with us.
Those who don’t are free to leave.
Perhaps The Jerusalem Post
editorial staff will at some time defend our rights as Jews to our land, and not kowtow to the political correctness, lies and propaganda of the world.
Greer Fay Cashman’s “52 years later, a transformation largely unknown is translated and celebrated” (April 21) suffers from the usual phenomenon of “the elephant and the Jewish problem.”
The common misconception, encouraged especially in circles involved in ecumenical work, is that Vatican II was all about absolving the Jews from the deicide charge. This is wildly inaccurate. In fact, out of more than 400 pages of the document, a mere 39 words are devoted to this topic. And these words do not absolve Jews.
Part of the text reads: “The Jewish Authorities and those who followed their lead urged the death of Christ.” This makes it clear that those Jews are to be blamed for his death.
But how many? Thirty percent? Seventy percent? After all, few Jews converted, so we must assume that the majority indeed “followed [the] lead” of their priests.
Furthermore, most Christians, whether religious or cultural, have not heard of Vatican II, but they have all read or at least learned what is written in the Gospels. In those documents, no doubt exists about responsibility. For this reason, the crucifixion theme makes a frequent appearance in anti-Israel propaganda, such as a cartoon in La Stampa – published long after Vatican II – showing a Palestinian child surrounded by Israeli tanks as he cries: “Father, they are coming to crucify me again!” I do not wish to belittle the effort made by Pope John XXIII, who was indeed a saintly figure. He struggled against opposition in order to achieve this first small step in undoing the murderous effect of nearly two millennia of the deicide charge, a charge that culminated in its contribution to the Holocaust.
It is naïve to believe that anti-Israel attitudes in many branches of the Church are merely caused by sympathy for the Palestinians. Much still needs to be done. And we should not fall into misguided self-satisfaction.LOUIS GARB
Jerusalem McDonald’s legacy
Thank you for publishing Yossi Melman’s excellent overview of the work of James McDonald (“What did America’s first envoy think of the Jewish state?” April 21), who is one of the most remarkable figures of Jewish history of the last – or any – century. This patrician Christian, bred in America’s Indiana heartland, chose to be an advocate for the millions of doomed Jews of Europe, fighting not just our enemies, but also our friends and often battling with the Jewish leadership itself.
Melman’s piece naturally focuses on his role as Washington’s envoy to Israel, which capped his career. But McDonald’s assumption of a thankless role to save European Jewry should be known to every Jew, and he should be recognized rightly as a hero, a righteous among the nations and as one of the founding fathers of the modern Jewish nation-state.
Whether struggling with the League of Nations, an Arabist British government, the antisemitic American State Department or the affluent Jewish leadership in Chicago or New York, he persevered. The long-delayed War Refugee Board created after almost all the 6 million had been slaughtered did save some Jewish lives, in part due to McDonald’s efforts.
Richard Brietman’s advice to the new US ambassador to read McDonald’s diaries is good counsel. Even better advice is that the legacy of this great man should be taught to everyone who loves Israel and seeks to pursue justice.MICHAEL TRAISON
Regarding “Police seek to quiz MK under caution” (News in Brief, April 20), let me see if I have this straight: Eight women accuse Bayit Yehudi MK Nissan Slomiansky of sexual assault. They’ve sat in front of a panel of religious-Zionist rabbis and shared their complaints.
They have ruined both his personal and professional life in front of his wife and children, his grandchildren, his community and his colleagues.
MK Slomiansky’s humiliation and degradation were not negotiated in a vacuum – he has been publicly stripped of absolutely everything in his life. In the meantime, these women have been protected in their vengeful and determined effort to bring him to his knees.
The only people who should be on bended knee are these women, sitting in safety and security, protected by the cloth of religion and their panel of religious-Zionist rabbis.
They should be asking forgiveness for their pathetic behavior and expectation that their actions are commendable and courageous.
Does no one see the wrong in this? These aren’t 12-yearold or 16-year-old girls. These are grown women acting as cowardly as one could possibly act. Shame on them – they have managed to tear down a life in public, yet not one has the courage to reveal her name.
This story isn’t about MK Slomiansky. This story isn’t about the shame these women have suffered. This story is about the shame these women are.
TAMARA K. DOLGIN