June 6: Offensive article

Offensive article

Sir, – Your article “IDF fears rise in settler violence ahead of evacuation of Ulpana outpost” (June 4) was offensive! I am shocked to see such provocation and slander by The Jerusalem Post.

First of all, your headline assumes that Jews will be evacuated, which I pray won’t happen.

Second, if someone comes and throws you out and destroys the home you built legally as far as you knew, who’s being violent against whom? I haven’t heard any evacuation proposals for residents of the controversial Holyland towers in Jerusalem or any other buildings in which corruption was hidden from the buyers. Nor have I seen any of the tens of thousands of Beduin who knowingly build homes illegally all across the Negev evacuated.

The thought that Israel (meaning Defense Minister Ehud Barak) could desire to throw Jews out into the streets again is totally immoral, and for you to present it otherwise is unconscionable!

LEAH WOLF
Meitar

The saga goes on

Sir, – I take issue with your editorial “The Ulpana saga” (June 4) and don’t find any of the points raised to be valid or reasonable.

The talmudic adage, “If you grab too much, you risk losing it all,” is inappropriate since the land in question was not grabbed by Israel but was gained in a defensive war.

As for the comment that a compromise could have been reached had the Arab seller of the land not been afraid, for fear of retribution, to admit he had sold land to Jews, surely it is caving in to Arab terrorism to evict Jews from their homes because of Arab threats.

Most irrelevant of all is the concern that the passing of the legislation would invite international condemnation. It’s obvious that our concessions, such as the withdrawal from Sinai and the unilateral retreat from Gaza, bring at best only short-term approval, with the world losing interest once the sacrifice has been made.

RHONA YEMINI
Givatayim

Sir, – The writer of your editorial is apparently ill-informed or indifferent to certain facts.

First, Judea and Samaria should never have to be annexed as that land was given to the Jews by none other than God Himself. It never belonged to anyone else. The 1967 government erred at the time in not “annexing'” it right then and there, which would have prevented the world from saying that we are occupiers.

Second, the editorial says that “Israel will be subjected to international condemnation” and a “renewed effort will be launched to delegitimize the entire settlement project.” Apparently, the writer is oblivious to the fact that the world condemns us and delegitimizes us no matter what we do or don’t do.

No nation in the world except Israel is subject to the world’s “permission” to settle in any part of its boundaries.

URI HIRSCH
Netanya

Sir, – Your editorial tells the story beautifully. For the first time I know what the issue is all about.

Until such time as there is some kind of agreement over the West Bank there will be nothing but trouble and bloodshed.

At the moment, we’re caught in a terrible situation that seemingly has no answer. Yet there has to be an answer! We cannot go on this way, with half our citizens facing off against the other half.

LEONARD ZURAKOV
Netanya

Sir, – Your editorial was mistaken.

There is no certified Arab landowner. Peace Now appealed to the High Court of Justice in order to avoid the lower courts – where questions of land-ownership are decided. The Arab claimant is presumed. Also, no attempt was made to offer the alleged owner compensation, either monetarily or with land in another area, as has been done in other cases.

The state prosecutor misrepresented the facts in the case (ownership of the land had not been determined) and did not defend the interests of the state.

The state attorney concurred.

Ulpana was not represented, nor was any counter argument presented.

Without looking into the evidence – relying only on what the state prosecutor and state attorney presented – the High Court decided that Ulpana must be destroyed. This is typical of how our judicial system, the essence of our country, is compromised.

MOSHE DANN
Jerusalem

Sir, – The Knesset can pass laws to legalize the apartments.

The land owners, if they can prove ownership, will receive compensation. Their own people will also allow them to live. So the laws would be a lifesaver.

MURRAY S. GREENFIELD
Tel Aviv

Matter of fact

Sir, – Surely one of the most preposterous claims ever printed in The Jerusalem Post is that, unlike the West, the “Arab and Islamic worlds put the emphasis in a debate on the issue of facts” (“Perception and reality still at conflict in Arab world,” Yalla Peace, May 31.) These are the people whose leaders and media at various times have denied that history records any Jewish connection to Jerusalem, accused Israeli soldiers of drinking their victims’ blood in the streets, and, of course, identified the al-Quds mosque of the Koran, which Muhammad visited on a flying wonder horse, with a mosque in Jerusalem, which at the time was mosqueless.

Other examples abound showing that while facts may be considered nice, the Arab tradition doesn’t necessarily mind contradicting them for rhetorical impact.

MARK L. LEVINSON
Herzliya

Three plays in one

Sir, – The appearance of the Habimah Theater at the “Globe to Globe” festival in London (“Protests fail to disrupt Habimah’s London performance,” May 29) was a play within a play within a play that I was not willing to miss. So I flew to London for a day to be there.

In my view, the most salient message was missed by reports of the event in the press.

The first play was Shakespeare’s challenging work, which included, among other themes, a depiction of anti-Semitism in Europe in that period.

The second play was entailed in Habimah’s bold choice to bring this particular play to the festival, to the home of Shakespeare – in Hebrew and with the specific interpretation of director Ilan Ronen and actor Yaakov Cohen as Shylock. In countless artistic decisions throughout the play, this interpretation emphasized the brutal treatment of Shylock by the Christian characters and the humanity of Shylock himself.

The actors in the third play were those who wanted to prevent Habimah’s appearance in England, who repeatedly tried to interrupt the play. (I say “tried to interrupt” because Habima’s actors didn’t let them, instead remaining professional throughout and presenting the play from beginning to end.) More than 30 countries appeared at this festival, including China, Sudan, Pakistan, Russia and the Palestinian Authority, and not a single voice was raised against the participation of any country, except that of the Jewish state. The counterpoint between the efforts of demonstrators to block Habimah, on the one hand, and the merciless and unjust treatment of Shylock in Shakespeare’s play, on the other, provided the most salient message of the evening.

Of all the emotions I experienced as an observer of these three plays, the strongest was toward Habimah, the national theater of Israel. The emotion was pride.

WENDY SANDLER
Haifa

CORRECTION The headline at the top of Page 12 in the June 5 Sports section should have been, “Champion Li falls to 142nd-ranked Shvedova,” and not as stated.