Sir, – Regarding, inter alia, “What brit mila really means” (Comment
& Features, September 12), I read that Berlin’s senator for justice, Thomas
Heilmann, “would protect religious rights of circumcision – provided they
weren’t done by mohelim [ritual circumcisers]....”
I tried to drum up
some sympathy for the Jews of Berlin, Germany, Europe and so on, but
What the hell are they doing in the Diaspora anyway? Especially
Sir, – Kudos, kudos, kudos to Judy
Montagu for her upbeat, positive, look-on-the-bright-side column (“The power of
a smile,” In My Own Write, September 12).
What a wonderful formula for
It’s all relative
Sir, – With regard to “Those
who know horror” (September 11), in World War II there was no army more vicious
and no regime more evil than the Japanese.
In stark contrast with
Germany, the government and people in the Land of the Rising Sun have not even
begun to deal with their cruel war past.
Instead, they abuse the two
devastating atomic bomb attacks that brought them to their knees to whitewash
their aggressor past and portray themselves as pure victims of war.
always unethical to equate the Holocaust with anything else. The admittedly
horrific nuclear blow to civilians in Japan was to stop their wicked regime. It
is the worst chutzpah to compare this with the Nazi attempt to eradicate
systematically the whole of the Jewish people.
MOSHE-MORDECHAI VAN ZUIDEN
Quite a dilemma
Sir, – Though Martin Sherman is very articulate
regarding the unlikely viability of a two-state solution (“Preventing
‘Palestine’: Part II – The humanitarian paradigm,” Into the Fray, September 7),
I find it difficult to see, despite his logical arguments and examples, the
possibility of his alternative.
What has fundamentally changed today from
1947, when the original two-state solution was proposed and was violently
opposed by the Palestinians? (Oops! I am sorry. There was no distinct
Palestinian entity back then, was there? I meant to say, “...opposed by the
Arabs.”) In what way do current “Palestinian” objectives differ from the 1947
“Arab” objectives? It’s a dilemma! EPHRAIM I. ZIMAND
The list goes on
Sir, – I agree with Hirsh Goodman (“On responsibility,” PostScript, September 7)
that someone has to take responsibility for the ills of our society.
I’d like to know: Who is responsible for all the Israeli teenagers drunk on the
roads? Who is responsible for hit-andrun drivers who leave victims to die? Who
is responsible for the gang rapes, for the murders of women and children, the
teenagers knifed or raped on school grounds? And who is responsible for over
1,000 Jews murdered and maimed after Oslo, blown to bits, shot or stabbed by
Palestinian terrorists? The list can go on and on, a far longer list and a much
more violent list than the one Goodman presents.
By the way, the
youngsters living on hilltop settlements are mild by comparison to those in Tel
Aviv and other big cities, and even those on kibbutzim. Their anger and
retaliation is at those who are out to kill them; it’s not violence for fun or
from sheer boredom.
Granted, the end doesn’t justify the means or the
deeds, but before writing an article on who is responsible I would be much more
careful than Goodman is, with his irresponsible accusations.