(photo credit: REUTERS)
Has it all wrong
Jessica Montell, director of the far-left SISO: Save Israel, Stop the Occupation, has it all wrong in “Continued rule over the Palestinians endangers Israel’s future” (Comment & Features, June 7). What endangers Israel most is not the occupation, but the jihadi terrorists on our doorstep.
She is certain that if Israel withdrew from the West Bank, as it did from the Gaza Strip, then peace, prosperity and democracy would reign. All she has to do is take a look at Gaza and see that nothing could be farther from the truth.
Ms. Montell seems to claim that if there were no military presence or settlements in Judea and Samaria, the conflict would end, there would be no deaths, permanent injuries and fear of terrorist attacks. Really?
She would be wise to peddle her “democratic principles” to the Arab residents of Gaza, Judea and Samaria only when they realize that Israel is here to stay, and the harsh measures she claims they suffer are due to the fact that sovereign nations like Israel need to protect their citizens.
Because of the strategic placement of the settlements as well as the army presence in Judea and Samaria, people like Jessica Montell can live peacefully in Tel Aviv.JUDY LEV
Not so simple
Alan Dershowitz, in “Will a third of Brits vote for a hard-left antisemite?” (Comment & Features, June 7), gives the impression that anyone who is not antisemitic shouldn’t vote for the Labour Party because of Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-Jewish bigotry. What he doesn’t take into consideration is the structure of the British electoral system.
Only the people in Corbyn’s constituency can vote for him; the rest vote for whoever is standing for election in their constituency. Mr. Dershowitz should realize that the Labour candidate in someone’s constituency might be an excellent choice, far better, perhaps, than the other candidates.
Should the voter not vote for his preferred candidate because Corbyn is the leader of the party? It’s not as simple as we are led to believe.HEATHER RECHTMAN
Tel AvivUN useless
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres recently said Israel’s 50 years of occupation has imposed a “heavy humanitarian and development burden on the Palestinian people” and “fueled recurring cycles of violence and retribution.”
He knows that had Israel lost to Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967, there would have been no “Israeli occupation.” The Jews would have been slaughtered and the victors would have divided the land. The Palestinian Arabs, never called “Palestinians” until the KGB and Egypt invented the PLO in 1964, would have continued to be part of the Arab world. There would have been no further talk of “Palestine.”
Genocide has been the declared goal of the Arabs from 1948 to this day – they are still fighting World War II. They were allied with Hitler, participated in the Holocaust and will not accept an infidel entity in their midst.
The term “Palestinian leadership” is a non sequitur. It doesn’t exist. The Palestinian Authority sees a three-state solution. Its president, Mahmoud Abbas, knows he cannot win against Hamas. He envisions Hamas controlling the Gaza Strip, the PA controlling a Jew-free West Bank, and an Israel that is a multi-ethnic society where anyone claiming a Palestinian linkage could immigrate to. Hamas sees one Islamic caliphate, free of infidels – including the PA.
Propaganda terminology such as “apartheid,” “occupation,” “Palestinian territories” and “oppression” notwithstanding, there is nothing Israel can offer to entice the Palestinian leadership to cooperate.
Only Saudi Arabia and the US have the power to influence an outcome to the conflict. Perhaps with newly-gained confidence that the US has their back vis-à-vis Iran, the Saudis could play a positive role. The UN is useless.LEN BENNETT