Jerusalem Post Letters to the Editor: Ibicencos’ views?

I cannot really expect Ibiza’s public to accept these statements.

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letters (photo credit: REUTERS)
Letters
(photo credit: REUTERS)
Ibicencos’ views?
For close to 43 years, I have studied the amazing history and tolerance of the people of Ibiza.
It was here, on the third largest of the Balearic Islands, that Jews went on living and practicing their religion in secret after 1492, protected by the islanders (Ibicencos).
One can find, even now, that 40 to 60 percent of the population has some Jewish origin, often alluding to their history and regularly visiting Israel – in all, keeping customs they are deeply proud of. Many, right up to modern times, married only among themselves.
Therefore, I find the pro-BDS sentiments mentioned in your August 11 lead article “‘Ibiza Municipality endorses boycott against Israel’” hard to believe.
I cannot really expect Ibiza’s public to accept these statements.
Without doubt, they should be investigated without delay.
GLORIA MOUND Netanya
ID the employers
Nowhere in “Palestinian couple lose jobs after aiding Jewish victims of terrorist attack” (August 11) does it state that they were fired by their Palestinian employers, as was established in other reports. Instead, the average reader who has been conditioned over the years to assume that Israel is automatically guilty is left with the impression that they were fired by Israelis.
This is yet another example of misleading reporting causing damage to Israel. Even more shocking is that the story came from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA). Who needs enemies when we have friends like these?
DAVID HENRY Kfar Bialik
Inside, outside
I support the views of columnist Isi Leibler (“Government to expel BDS activists. Bravo!” Candidly Speaking, August 11) and the sentiments of reader Peter Simpson (“Start with academics,” Letters, August 11).
When I was chairman of the British Zionist Federation (2006- 2010), we initiated an annual Science Day for Israel at the Science Museum London to highlight Israeli scientific achievements and the attraction of science for young people. Each Israeli university sent at least one top-level scientist.
The event was open to any school in the UK. It was packed with Jewish, Christian and Muslim kids, and was always a huge success. Outside the museum were the usual anti-Israel protesters – led by Jewish academics.
Their star attractions were academics from Tel Aviv University and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
I was advised that in the UK, academics’ contracts could be canceled on the basis of bringing their university into disrepute.
Would it be the same in Israel?
ANDREW BALCOMBE Jerusalem
Trump vs Clinton
Why must The Jerusalem Post subject readers to an onslaught of pro-Clinton articles almost daily, mostly in reprints from The New York Times? On Page 21 (Comment & Features) of your August 11 issue, it was three-for-three – “Hillary’s summer of love,” “Desperately avoiding Donald” and “Clinton’s fibs vs Trump’s huge lies” – all castigating the party that many Post subscribers support.
For brevity’s sake, I’ll mention just one. Nicholas Kristof, in “Clinton’s fibs vs Trump’s huge lies,” calls Donald Trump “the champ of prevarication” while Clinton is guilty only of “junior varsity mendacity.”
It so happens that Clinton’s mendacity has actually killed people, while Trump’s prevarication is typical of aspiring pols.
How about a more balanced variety of op-eds until the November election?
STEVE KRAMER Alfei Menashe
Reading Jeffrey Wohlberg’s “A presidential candidate who embodies our values and ideals” (Comment & Features, August 10), I took note of what frequently happens in political life: overlooking what is inconvenient. (For the sake of transparency, I say that I don’t write this as a fan of Donald Trump.) In his paean to Hillary Clinton, Wohlberg is guilty of overlooking many troublesome occurrences in her career. I would like to suggest that just as he did for Trump, he systematically list events from her public service: her frequent presence in the vicinity of smelly unethical situations (e.g., Whitewater), her lapses of memory about records (e.g., the Rose law firm), her greed (e.g., obscene fees for speeches), her very talented spin on truth (e.g., Benghazi), and so on and so on.
If judged overall by her record, her values and ideals have fallen short of what we should hope for in a president of the United States.
As a proud American-Israeli, all I can say is woe is me!
SHEBA F. SKIRBALL Jerusalem
Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are flawed candidates.
Clinton has questionable scruples, and she has made significant mistakes. As secretary of state, she set up an unsecured private server in her home for government email communications, and sent and received secret and top-secret information.
She had ultimate responsibility for the Benghazi debacle, where our ambassador and other Americans were killed by Islamic terrorists. Her foundation accepted contributions from foreign entities.
Trump is the most unqualified person to ever run for president.
He is a vile loudmouth with possible bigoted views who only cares about himself. He does not respect our Constitution and institutions. He could have dictatorial tendencies. He has no knowledge of government operations and has no understanding of our domestic and world economies.
His lack of knowledge in foreign affairs and military matters will hurt us in the world.
The choices are to vote for the one you dislike the least, vote for a third-party candidate or not vote at all. How sad.
DONALD MOSKOWITZ Londonderry, New Hampshire
Civics lesson
Your article “Need an absentee ballot? Applying shouldn’t take longer than a coffee break” (August 9) quotes David Schwartz, consul general at the US Embassy. He says: “It’s a common myth that absentee ballots are counted only in the case of a close election. In reality, every valid absentee ballot is counted in an election. Every vote counts.”
While it is true, literally, that every vote may be counted, ballots cast for president by people who are not residents of a specific state do not impact the election.
As any sixth-grade civics student can tell you, the president is elected by the Electoral College on a state-by-state basis.
The ballots of “stateless” American citizens have no impact whatsoever since their votes are not attributed to a state.
But what if there is no electoral majority? The 12th Amendment to the US Constitution requires that the House of Representatives decide elections when there is no electoral majority. This happened once, in 1824, when the House chose John Quincy Adams, who received 113,122 votes (30.9%), over Andrew Jackson, who received 151,271 (41.4%).
It is naïve to believe that the popular vote today would have any greater impact in the increasingly polarized House.
Vote if it will ease your conscience.
But if you are not a resident of a state, you are wasting your time.
RICH BROWNSTEIN Jerusalem
Costas’s courage
“First official IOC ceremony in memory of Munich victims” (Sports, August 4) fails to mention Bob Costas, the acclaimed American sports broadcaster who, during the 2012 Olympic Games, publicly took a stand against the International Olympic Committee’s decision not to memorialize the Israeli athletes brutally murdered by Black September at the Munich Games in 1972.
Costas held his own moment of silence, live, on the air, as the 39-person Israeli delegation entered the London arena. He had the courage and moral clarity to defy the IOC and show respect to the slain athletes, their families and Israel.
ELYSE HERSHKOVITZ