Why the rush?
Sir, – What was the rush for Maj.-Gen. Nitzan Alon to destroy a
large white tent if the head of the Samaria Regional Council, Gershon Mesika,
put it up for the shiva of Evyatar Borovsky, who was stabbed to death by a
Palestinian terrorist? First of all, Mesika had worked out an agreement with the
IDF to allow the tent and a small wooden structure to remain there until the end
of the mourning period. Couldn’t the OC Central Command at least have the
respect to wait until the end of the seven-day shiva period? And why come at 4
a.m. to destroy the tent? Was it so dangerous? Shame on him.
I hope and
pray that despite this destruction, a new community in Evyatar’s name will be
created to show that with every terrorist murder, we Jews will live on our own
land forever.LILA BRODSKY
Jerusalem Welcome here
Sir, – In “Dutch royals
to discuss, not change, event scheduled on Yom Kippur” (May 5), Holland’s chief
rabbi, Binyomin Jacobs, responds to the fact that the farewell party for Queen
Beatrix is scheduled to take place on Yom Kippur by stating: “Jews are again
faced with a reality in which they don’t belong, and that is
Boker tov (Good morning) to Rabbi Jacobs and the Jewish people
of Holland who are “vexed” by this decision. How about waking up and changing
the reality of your painful situation? You know, there is a place in which you
do belong! \
Jerusalem Non-Orthodox streams
Sir, – Donniel
Hartman (“Only multiple chief rabbis will guarantee religious freedom in
Israel,” iENGAGE, May 3) is right in saying that at the state’s founding “there
were predominantly two Jewish denominations in Israel – religious and
secular....” But it was a historical anomaly that the state made Orthodoxy the
“official Judaism of Israel, and gave it control over issues of marriage,
divorce and conversion” at the time.
If other religious Jewish groups
were now to organize themselves and petition for equivalent state recognition,
there could be little objection, provided they specified the rules under which
they would regulate matters of personal status. Of course, this most likely
would lead to some of their members not being recognized by the Orthodox, but
such a situation already exists in the US and other Diaspora
Why should the Reform or Conservative religions be dealt
with any differently from, for example, the Greek Orthodox or Coptic
communities, or Sunni or Shia Islam? Such an approach would be more consistent
with the principles of a liberal democracy than trying to force Orthodoxy to
accept, for example, the conversions of non-Orthodox streams, which have no
halachic validity in its eyes. Orthodoxy is just as entitled to freedom from
interference from the secular authorities as the non-Orthodox.
approach, however, would almost certainly not satisfy the heterodox, whose real
aim, I suspect, is to take over the religious establishment and thereby
undermine or even destroy Orthodoxy by forcing their religious positions on
it.MARTIN D. STERN
Sir, – Yaakov Katz
(“Debating the Zionist dream,” Observations, May 3) cannot understand why former
prime minister Ehud Olmert and law professor Alan Dershowitz were booed by the
audience at The Jerusalem Post’s New York conference.
I appreciate that
the Post presents opinions from all sides of the political spectrum. What I
don’t understand, though, is how leftist commentators haven’t learned that Oslo
was a failure. The Arabs do not want peace. The only Arabs who want peace with
us are the Arabs who are figments of leftist imaginations.
Post columnists like Caroline B. Glick, Sarah Honig and Martin Sherman simply
tell the truth based on facts. Leftwing columnists like Uri Savir, Gershon
Baskin and too many others live in some kind of dream world, blaming Israel for
the failure of Oslo.
The Post’s leftist columnists are not intellectually
honest about the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. We have
no peace partners. All we have are enemies from the top down, bent on our full
and complete destruction. For that reason there should be no more giveaways or
the establishment of another terror state on our doorstep.AVRAHAM
Sir, – If Caroline B. Glick were to spend as much time
explaining and defending her points of view as she does criticizing everyone she
disagrees with, we would be spared her regular tirades and possibly gain a
greater understanding of her insights and ideas.BEN MIRKIN
Sir, – Just a note of thanks for a very informative conference.
it. The panel represented the diversity of opinion about some crucial issues.
Maj.- Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin and former Mossad chief Meir Dagan’s presentations
were very clearheaded and relevant.HAMID HUSSAIN
Sir, – Your
second annual conference was outstanding! It was a thrill to hear some of
Israel’s military and intelligence people speak, as well as
Although they are retired, it’s clear Israel is in good
I saw former Mossad head Meir Dagan on 60 Minutes and it was a
pleasure to see him here in New York. The times are certainly challenging, but
there also appears to be a high confidence level, which is reassuring.
addition, I saw several friends and acquaintances, and thoroughly enjoyed the
day. I’m pleased to have attended.LINDA KORROW
New York Rethink our
Sir, – While the heartache engendered by the recent terrorist atrocity at
Tapuah Junction is still deeply felt, I would like to question some of the
axioms and assumptions that appear to form the basis of “Hospitals must treat
terrorists, too” by Dr. Avraham Rivkind and Marcie Natan (Comment &
Features, May 1).
“The courageous specialists” at the hospital in Boston
“kept a suspected terrorist alive because it was the right thing to do,” Rivkind
and Natan assure us.
They indeed state that this doctrine is imbedded in
the very oath taken by aspiring physicians, and that “they do so without any
qualification of their future patients’ nationality, ethnicity, religion,
financial status – or even terrorist background.”
The authors are
unhesitant. “All human beings deserve medical attention,” they say.
to the very core of this matter that I would like to invite perhaps the
rethinking and consideration of caring and sensitive people.
long and ugly history of man’s ill-treatment of his fellow man, the Nazis and
modern terrorists introduced a new and unique relationship between a murderer
and his victim. This really could be defined as a total
Modern terror is built on the total innocence of the
victim and the absence of any motive related to his individuality.
murderer does not act out of passion against the victim, nor does he seek
revenge or hope to gain from his death. His sole mission, goal and purpose is
the very destruction of life itself.
The question I feel must be raised
is as follows: When do the extreme heinous actions of a person declare him no
longer able to justify his right to bear the title “human being?” Does not this
title require a minimal essence of ethical and moral behavior? When do the
actions of a person require that he be expelled from this club? When do his
actions declare that he has abdicated his membership? When faced with a culture
of death doing battle with the forces of life, what is to be our reaction? ZEV