(photo credit: )
Off-field hero needed, too
Sir, – Regarding “Israeli soccer icon Avi Cohen laid
to rest” (Sports, December 29), I was shocked by Cohen’s death. He was a role
model to many Israelis.
However, the betrayal of his wishes by his family
upon the advice of a rabbi distressed me.
Most Orthodox rabbis throughout
the world and in Israel support organ donation; it is written in the Talmud: He
who saves one life saves a world. The chief rabbi of the IDF holds a card from
ADI-Organization for Organ Transplants, as does Rabbi Riskin of
Saving a life takes precedence over any other religious
consideration regarding death.
Cohen’s family chose to ignore his wish to
donate his organs to save lives. He supported ADI; he held an ADI card; he
wanted to give to others, to be a positive example in death as he had been in
life, and his illadvised family denied him this right.JUDITH NUSBAUM
Sir, – I am very perturbed by the fact that although soccer legend
Avi Cohen had registered with ADI and therefore wished that upon his death his
organs would be donated, his family and rabbis decided not to honor his
Instead, Cohen was buried without having any organs
Surely this should not have been allowed. If someone makes a
request prior to death, shouldn’t it be honored? Can rabbis also decide that a
person’s last will and testament be changed after his death if it does not suit
them or the family? I think that there should be a law against this.RIKA
Netanya Credit where due
Sir, – I read with much interest the front
page article, “Authorities hail 2010’s strong aliya growth” (December 29), and
was left wondering if the private organization Nefesh B’Nefesh had closed.
Wasn’t it responsible for bringing 5,000 olim to Israel, more than 25 percent of
the total aliya? Shame on The Jerusalem Post for pandering to the Jewish Agency,
an organization that is doing all it can to justify its very
Jerusalem Pulling borders and chains
Sir, – Alan
Baker’s lengthy article decrying the references being made by the Arabs to the
pre-’67 frontiers (“The fallacy of the 1967 ‘borders,’” Comment & Features,
December 29) missed several essential points.
First, before the outbreak
of war in 1967, the border between Israel and Jordan was the 1949 armistice
When the Six Day War ended, it had been moved by the IDF to the
Jordan River following a failed attempt by the kingdom annihilate Israel. Weeks
later, the king renounced all claims to the West Bank.
A piece of land
that was not an independent state fell to Israel in a defensive war. Its prior
claimant renounced ownership. I don’t know why Israel should question the
current Arab stand. In the space between the 1949 armistice line and today’s
border on the Jordan, there never was a Palestinian state.
ministers are a laughing stock in agreeing to negotiate over land that is ours.
Who has been pulling their chain?
Sir, – Alan Baker is
to be commended for his excellent, very important and very valuable article on a
subject that has been a thorn in Israel’s diplomatic side for years. Yet there
is one word in the article that puzzles me greatly.
In reviewing the
history of the 1949 armistice lines, Baker cites Security Council Resolution 62
of November 16, 1948, which, he says, “called for the delineation of permanent
armistice demarcation lines.” The word “permanent” in this context contradicts
everything he writes in the article, which boils down to the fact – as Baker
keeps emphasizing – that the armistice lines were anything but permanent, both
by their own terms and as understood and often reiterated by the parties to the