Sir, – Your editorial of January 6 (“Kerry’s efforts”) is
disingenuous and misleading.
If a majority of Israelis are in favor of a
two-state solution – which cannot be proved by quoting one opinion poll – there
is certainly no majority in Israel in favor of a return to the pre-1967 lines,
the division of Jerusalem and the uprooting of tens or hundreds of thousands of
Jews from their homes.
If the choice is between maintaining the status
quo or making suicidal concessions to the Palestinians that will lead to the
creation of another Islamic terror state like Gaza – but this time threatening
the very heartland of our country and seeing Palestinian police on the walls of
the Old City of Jerusalem – I believe a vast majority of Israelis, including
some Israeli Arabs, would prefer the status quo.
Moreover, the editorial
writer uses demagoguery in his arguments that Israel must not rule over another
people in order to remain a Jewish and democratic state.
Israel does not
rule over the Palestinians. They enjoy complete autonomy except in matters of
If I personally have to choose between being unethical but
alive, and highly moral but dead, I think I would prefer to remain
Sir, – Israel’s neighbors are very
cunningly hiding behind the “Palestinian” cause in order to sow divisiveness and
faintheartedness within Israel. The single-minded objective of these states,
that of destroying the State of Israel, has not changed by one iota during their
hundred-year conflict with the Zionists.
None of the leaders of these
states, for fear of being overthrown or worse, has shown the faintest will or
desire to achieve a lasting peace with Israel via the ongoing “peace” process
between Israel and the Palestinians.
Both sides are merely shadow- boxing
in order to please the current occupant of the White House. In addition, the US
and Europe have their own reason for pursuing the current peace talks: They are
absolutely terrified of another boycott of the West by the Arab oil
Israel must therefore stand resolutely against the brewing
storm and not allow itself to be dismembered.
ROY RUNDS Tel Aviv It’s in
the Bible Sir, – I simply cannot fathom the logic of our government’s
We demand that our Arab neighbors recognize Israel
as a “Jewish State.”
The essence of our Jewish identity derives from our
close association with God’s promise to us, the Torah and its
Starting with Abraham, God commands: “Get out of your country, from
your family and from your father’s house, to a land that I will show
I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name
great; and you shall be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you, and
I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall
God’s promise of Jewish return and redemption in Zion is the
one consistent theme throughout the Bible.
This land is ours because God
gave it to us.
But we must be deserving: Jews must live according to
God’s laws of Torah, one of which is the command to return to Zion. As Jews, why
else are we here? How then, can our leaders negotiate away any part of this
promised land and still demand that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state?
Sir, – Has anyone noticed that as the US pushes its
hardest to get Israel to give up the West Bank and east Jerusalem – contrary to
what is written in the Bible, the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate –
it is suffering the worst freeze in a generation? Is this plague of Biblical
proportions a warning to those who want to tear apart the Land of Israel?
Sir, – It’s rather a shame that Benjamin W. Corn
(“Meaningful conversations are never futile,” Perspectives, January 6) did not
check out if there were any locations already bearing the name of Ariel Sharon.
He would have found that the massive Hiriya landfill dump adjacent to the
Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway – which cannot be missed by anybody who commutes
between the two cities – was rehabilitated to become the “lungs” of the Dan
Region. It was named Ariel Sharon Park.
Corn’s suggestion to name Route 1
after Sharon would be an insult to the people of Gush Katif, whom Sharon
forcibly evacuated from their homes, together with their dead, in the
unsuccessful disengagement of 2005.
Some eight years later, these Jewish
refugees are still not properly housed or fully compensated.
their children are still traumatized by the event.
As if this were
insufficient, the citizens of Sderot and its vicinity are subject to rocket
attacks from the Gaza area that were unilaterally evacuated by Sharon, who
claimed that this would result in a quiet border.
So much for
Hendon, UK The paramount issue
Sir, – Daniel Steiman
(“The settlements are illegal under international law,” Comment & Features,
December 30) points out that the only basis by which Israel could make a legal
claim to parts of the West Bank would be if they were required for purposes of
security, and he suggests that this is not at all what is being
If we think back to the end of the Six Day War, we might recall
that Israel could use the newly captured territory as a bargaining chip: make a
deal with the adversaries whereby the Arab states regain territory they had lost
in exchange for a permanent peace.
Under the “Alon Plan,” Israel would
return most of the West Bank but retain certain key areas required for security.
The Arab League responded with a complete rejection of any peace deal or, in
fact, any recognition of Israel at all.
After several years, Israel began
it’s own exploration of how such a plan could be implemented, with special
concern for security, and it began to gradually develop and implement a plan
roughly along the security lines laid out under the Alon Plan.
government has since guided settlement development along lines that roughly
conform to the plan’s requirements for security. In addition, Israel’s
negotiations with the Palestinian Authority are broadly following these same
Sir, – I would very much like to know how
you select articles for your op-ed pages. Is it on content, or does the author’s
pedigree count? Clearly, Daniel Steiman has a political agenda and is not a
legal expert of any serious importance, yet you publish his article as if it
were an incontrovertible legal assessment, not merely an opinion
To my thinking, such commentary should be relegated to the letters
section rather than be given the credit it clearly does not