With regard to “Silvan Shalom denies sexual harassment allegations as police investigation continues” (March 25), the time has come for a law saying that when a woman has been sexually harassed or has complaints about other offenses, she should come forward immediately and not wait for years, at which time there is no evidence to prove her case.
When one’s home is broken into or one’s car is damaged or stolen, one immediately calls the police.
So why wait for years for something so personal? It is very interesting how these women come forth with such accusations (while hiding their own identity) only when the accused seeks to hold a position of honor.
Sir, – Regarding “Media Scandals” (Editorial, March 25), you might take a page from the statement issued by the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel, which you duly reported in your news story on Silvan Shalom: “Sadly, we see behavior that repeats itself every time a woman gathers the courage and complains about a man who sexually abused her, especially when it is a senior or famous person. Even in this case, immediately after the news broke, she [the complainant] is shown in a negative light, her name is vilified all while completely ignoring the attack she underwent.”
You should be ashamed of yourself for buying into the protocols and old libels regarding women.
This is the last Post editorial I will read!
Sir, – The entry ban on a Jewish reporter for your paper is outrageous (“Saudi Arabia denies visa to ‘Post’ correspondent covering Obama trip,” March 25).
It is not, however, surprising. What is surprising is the reaction.
If this had happened to a black American, Muslim, woman or LGBT reporter, the reaction of the White House, the press corps and media would have been one of far more anger and outrage.
At minimum, the president could refuse to hold a press conference in Saudi Arabia or recognize any Saudi Arabian reporters.
The American press corps could be unwilling to participate. But for a Jew it clearly is a different story.
The next time people wonder if there is discrimination against Jews in United States (whether these Jews have Israeli citizenship or not), the tepid reaction of the White House and its outrageous and unconscionable failure to do anything concrete to chide the Saudi Arabians in a meaningful way should be a reminder.
STEPHEN JEROME KOHN
His place is here
Sir,– No matter what one’s perspective, Oleksandr Feldman, president of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee and a member of Ukraine’s parliament (“Where to from here?” Comment & Features, March 25), is on the wrong side of history.
He acknowledges a troubled past of pogroms and massacres but asserts that now the Jews of Ukraine can “fight” on behalf of their country in the “international courts of public opinion.” He also encourages the Diaspora, particularly the State of Israel, to enthusiastically back them up in this effort.
I believe this would only entangle world Jewry and the State of Israel in a fruitless, dangerous endeavor. Let him not drag us back into the mud of Ukraine as he battles on the messy ground of “Ukraine’s sovereign rights in the Crimea” and the “brute force” of “the Russian charade of saber rattling and chest-thumping.” Israel has no place on this murky ground.
I ask that Mr. Feldman instead become, along with the vast majority of Ukrainian Jews he says share his interests, a “pivotal actor” not in the dramatic events in Ukraine, but in the present-day drama of his own people in their only land, the State of Israel.
Take up the battle, sir, your battle – for the survival of Judaism and the Jewish people. Pack up your bags and get out. Your nation is here with us in Israel.
JOANNE JACKSON YELENIK
Needy and frustrated
Sir, – I made the mistake of beginning to read the reprint of the New York Times op-ed “Ghosts of the displaced” (Comment & Features, March 25).
At first, I didn’t realize I was reading another sappy plaint about Israeli treatment of the “poor” Palestinians. But the author, Lipika Pelham, really showed her bias when she said: “In Bangladesh and West Bengal, I saw a different process of reconciliation.
There, the refugees and landowners swapped places and allegiance, and eventually, most seemed to have learned to live with one another’s narrative.”
Isn’t that the opposite of the situation of the Palestinian refugees? The same number of Jewish refugees (probably even more) were thrown out or fled from their homes in Arab countries, with no fanfare or help from the United Nations. Yet they picked themselves up and found new homes, mainly in Israel, where they soon became a major factor of their adopted state and ceased being refugees.
The descendants of the Palestinian refugees have chosen to live unhappy lives, always wanting to return to what has disappeared, not wanting to start afresh, not accepted by their Arab “cousins,” and “sacrificing” themselves until the longed-for usurpation of Israel.
They have been succored by the UN and many other NGOs more than any other people of similar status, even uniquely retaining their protected status through the generations. This practice practically guarantees that these “refugees” will remain the most needy and frustrated folk on earth.
Sir, – In “The referendum law’s problems” (Comment & Features, March 24), Edan Johna finds nothing democratic in a very democratic idea. It might be the epitome of democracy.
Obviously, the problem seems to be that the majority would vote against giving away land. That would prove beyond a doubt the falsehood of the oft-repeated mantra that the majority of Israelis are in favor of a two-state solution and the version of peace being forced upon us by the enlightened leaders of the Western world.
Whereas it is true that the democratically chosen representatives of the people should be able to make the proper decisions, they often change their stance once they are elected. Since they can then support positions that are diametrically opposed by the people who elected them, a referendum is a democratic necessity.
Sir, – May I suggest that our prime minister send a copy of Sara Honig’s most recent column (“Kerry’s cogent connections,” Another Tack, March 21) to the US secretary of state. Perhaps it will enlighten him and he will understand why Prime Minister Netanyahu insists that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a state for the Jewish people.
At the same time, Netanyahu might send the column to our minister of justice, as well as to the head of the Labor Party. They obviously do not appreciate what he is talking about.
Ego trips and junkets
Sir, – The OECD’s document “Society at a Glance 2014” serves as a damming reminder of this government’s lack of concern for and total indifference to our disgraceful poverty situation (“Israel has highest poverty rate among OECD countries,” March 19).
It’s all very well spending taxpayers’ money on the ego trips and endless self promoting junkets of Binyamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara. But a prime minister also has a duty to address and, where necessary, redress the economic welfare of every citizen – a duty he conspicuously ignores.