Renewing the talks
Sir, – Under normal circumstances I would be very excited
about the resumption of talks between Israel and the Palestinians (“Kerry
succeeds in bringing Israel and Palestinians back to the table,” July
However, I have been living in this country since 1969 and have seen
this movie played over and over. The film is called “Great Expectations and No
Results.” It ends with the Israelis and the Palestinians killing each
Sir, – Then-prime minister Ariel Sharon
insisted that the sacrifice of Gush Katif was justified since in return the US
guaranteed that Israel could remain in Judea and Samaria. This promise has been
It is just one more broken promise, just like the promises
made in San Remo in 1920, when the League of Nations gave Britain the mandate to
create a Jewish homeland. Britain immediately modified the mandate and gave the
east bank to a Beduin tribe from the Arabian Peninsula.CHARLES OREN
Sir, – Word is that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has agreed to
release murderous Palestinian prisoners and start negotiations from the pre-’67
lines – something he said he wouldn’t do.
Here we go again. We voted for
Rabin and got Peres. We voted for Sharon and got Mitzna.
We voted for
Netanyahu and got Zehava Gal-on.
Can we be blamed for being jealous of
our Egyptian neighbors’ style of democracy? Vote for your choice, and if he
doesn’t do what he promised, throw him out.
Let’s have a little Jewish
Spring here.AVIGDOR BONCHEK
Sir, – Let me understand this –
Arabs who murder Jews will be released (once again). How about Jews who murder
Arabs? To not release Jews convicted of an identical crime is blatantly
anti-Semitic and anti-democratic.
How about Jews who murder Jews? Why
should their crime result in continued incarceration while an Arab who commits
the exact same offense goes free? How about Arabs who murder Arabs? Continued
imprisonment is overtly racist and discriminatory! And what about Arabs who rape
Jews? Is rape somehow a worse crime than murder? Rapists will now say, “If only
I had murdered that Jew....”STEVE BERGER
Sir, – Further to
”Bayit Yehudi opposition to ‘67 lines paid off, says Bennett” (July 21), I think
we should welcome the negotiations to be based on the situation as at the status
quo ante, the pre-1967 armistice lines, as long as it is between the parties to
this armistice (i.e., Israel, Jordan and Egypt).
Authority was not a party to the agreement, as it did not exist at the
As far as I recollect, the Jordanians and Egyptians later
repudiated their rights to the land they had occupied after 1949, leaving Israel
as the sole negotiator on one side, and a vacuum on the other. We are now having
to negotiate with this vacuum.
Should be a piece of cake.ARIEL
Sir, – In “PA holds military funeral for former Fatah
terrorist who murdered 14, injured 60” (July 18), Post reporter Khaled Abu
Toameh describes how Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas took the
opportunity to extol the virtues of Ahmed Abu al-Sukkar, who had devoted years
to the Palestinian cause.
Tempted as I was to react immediately to praise
for a cold-blooded monster who planted a bomb in the middle of Jerusalem’s busy
Zion Square in 1975, I held myself in check with the day’s news that US
Secretary of State John Kerry might have accomplished a breakthrough for
possible peace negotiations.
Unfortunately, a leopard’s spots don’t
really change, and it seems that a real desire for peace has once again flown
out Abbas’s window.NAOMI FEINSTEIN
Sir, – Just three months ago,
in a letter to the editor, I criticized Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for
not requiring the release of Jonathan Pollard before giving in to American
pressure to apologize to Turkey (“Magic words,” April 17). The last sentence in
that letter was: “Let’s hope we do not pass up another
Well, Mr. Prime Minister, you have missed again. Pollard’s
release again has not been made a condition for the planned release of what
International Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz called “heavyweight
Zichron Ya’acov Off-track excursion
Sir, – The
piece “To Ramallah and back” (Comment & Features, July 21), by US college
student Mollie Adatto, was like a breath of fresh air.
Written in the
context of an excursion to Ramallah organized by the dovish American Jewish
lobbying group J Street, this young woman easily saw through the disingenuous
agenda designed to arouse support and sympathy for Palestinians and displeasure
– to say the least – with Israel and its government.
She also recognized
the superficiality of her student traveling companions, who were taken in by the
diatribes against Israel while not noticing the absence of real, loyal Israeli
representation – something that made the trip a propaganda event.
from a review of the day’s events, the writer, whether intentionally or not,
also exposed the dishonesty so typical of groups – Jewish and otherwise – such
as J Street, and of the people they hire to address participants at their
events. It seems that everyone who spoke to the young people omitted certain
facts that were highly relevant.
They all engaged in
J Street and other groups like it need to be told they are
dishonest and dishonorable, and that in the long run they help no one – Jew or
Sir, – If there are people out there who
still think J Street is pro-Israel, they should read “To Ramallah and back.”
These US students were shown only the Palestinian and UN points of view and
With friends like J Street, we don't need
Jerusalem No Brotherhood they
Sir, – In his latest
column (“Square-tocracy,” Savir’s Corner, July 19), Uri Savir attempts to equate
certain elements of Israeli society with the Muslim Brotherhood in
He singles out Naftali Bennett and his “powerful settler friends”
(presumably meaning fellow members of his Bayit Yehudi party), accusing them of
sharing deposed Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi’s belief in being
“representatives of the Almighty’s will on earth” and that the rest of us –
referred to as “infidels” – are being forced to “follow their messianic belief
in a Greater Israel.”
I will believe this if Savir can come up with one
verifiable incident in which someone in Bayit Yehudi stated anything along the
lines of “We represent God and you must follow us.” The writer provides nothing
of the sort.
Another reason Bennett’s party is not a “Jewish
Brotherhood”: The Muslim Brotherhood seeks to turn Shari’a law into state law in
Egypt, thus forcing all Egyptians – Sunni, Shi’ite or non-Muslim – to abide by
it. Bayit Yehudi has never said it would seek to turn Halacha into the writer’s
precious “law of the land” in Israel.
Bayit Yehudi is not a fanatic,
long-knife-carrying, home-grown Muslim Brotherhood. It is, instead, living up to
the mission its name states: protecting and developing Israel as the eternal
home of the Jewish people.YONATAN ALEXANDER