May 15, 2019: Poisoning minds

Readers of the Jerusalem Post have their say.

Letters (photo credit: REUTERS)
(photo credit: REUTERS)
Poisoning minds
Regarding “Breaking the Silence offers Eurovision visitors tour of Hebron” (May 12), it is hard to imagine an organization that does more to spread antisemitism more systematically than this group.
Not long ago, I participated in a delegation that visited members of the British Parliament, when we heard these British MKs rail against Israel, because these prominent UK parliamentarians had heard from Breaking the Silence that Jews from Hebron and Judea “poison the wells of the Arabs” as a matter of policy.
Upon my return to Israel, I asked Breaking the Silence and their parent group, The New Israel Fund if they would remove that accusation of poisoning and they said they would not do so.
If that is not antisemitism, what is?
Director, Israel Resource News Agency
Center for Near East Policy Research
Best of Abbas
In “Palestinians reject plan to teach Abbas ‘quotes’ in schools” (May 12), we learn that a booklet of quotes from PA President Mahmoud Abbas will be taught in their schools.
Perhaps Israeli schoolchildren should also study Abbas quotes to learn what a despicable, intolerant racist he is (not to mention detached from truth and reality). Here are a few suggestions to get the booklet started:
1) “Certain rabbis in Israel have said very clearly to their government that our water should be poisoned in order to have Palestinians killed.” (June 2016)
2) “The Al-Aqsa [Mosque] is ours, and they [Jews] have no right to defile it with their filthy feet.” (September 2015)
3) “Zionists believe in the purity of the Jewish race, as Hitler believed in the purity of the Aryan race.” (1984)
4) “The ‘Jewish State’…I will not accept it.” (2009, 2010)
5) The Holocaust was not caused by antisemitism, but rather by Jews’ “social behavior, [charging] interest and financial matters.” (2018)
6) European Jews during the Holocaust chose to undergo “murder and slaughter” rather than emigrate to British-held Palestine. (2018)
The list of outrageous quotes goes on, not to mention his incessant repetition of the “Big Lies” of “colonial occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, genocide,” etc., until they take root and begin to sound true.
It is time to more carefully examine the words of this corrupt “leader” now in the 13th year of his four-year term – and the words of others of his ilk in the PA and now in the US Congress.
Really, Rashida?
Regarding “Rashida Tlaib says Palestinians created ‘safe haven’ for Jews after Holocaust” (May 12), it is easy to rubbish Sen. Nancy Pelosi’s spurious defense of US Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s crude attempt to portray Arab Palestinians as people who helped Holocaust refugees find solace. The calendar doesn’t lie.
The Holocaust ended in 1945. The State of Israel was created in 1948. Only then was unrestricted entry allowed to Jews fleeing Europe after the Holocaust was over. Before then, the British rulers of the Palestine Mandate, pressured by the local Arabs, prevented Jews from freely emigrating to the land of their ancestors.
Before WW2, after touring the region, the late Robert Kennedy reported that a majority of Arab Palestinians were themselves relatively recent labor emigres from surrounding newly formed Arab countries. These Arab interlopers did all they could to murder as many Jews as the British would let them lay their hands on. The infamous 1936 Arab “Revolt” organized by Hitler ally Hajj Amin al Husseini was but one example of the major efforts to stop the trickle of pre-Holocaust Jewish refugees into the Mandate with terror tactics.
If European Jews had been freely allowed into the Mandate before WW2 began in 1939, millions would have been saved. Tlaib’s insinuation that “her” people helped Jews is a disgusting inversion of the truth. Pelosi and her supporters should hang their heads in shame.
Fat chance.
San Mateo, CA
A shot in the arm
In response to Prof. Anthony Luder’s letter urging compulsory vaccination (Letters to the Editor, April 24), I would like to explain our stance as parents who love their children and thus choose not to vaccinate them.
First, I have read extensively on this subject, which many of my vaccinating friends have not.
Second, I personally know three families whose children have been seriously injured by vaccines. A well-known example is Yossi Samuels, the drummer of the “Shalva” band, who became blind, deaf and neorologically impaired following an MMR vaccination at 11 months. The video of his mother telling his story is on YouTube.
Third, why would any vaccinated person be worried about contracting diseases from unvaccinated people, since s/he is vaccinated and thus protected? If the response is: there is a small percentage of the population who cannot be vaccinated (e.g. they are less than a year old or have weak immune systems due to chemotherapy), I would say: wouldn’t it be more logical for these individuals to stay home instead of expecting others to inject into their bodies foreign materials that contain preservatives and aluminum, etc?
It does not make sense to me that we need these pharmaceuticals injected into us to be healthy. How can vaccinating – tampering with one’s immune system – be taken lightly in view of the recent great rise in auto-immune diseases, autism and cancer, which some doctors see as possibly linked to this? Incidentally, the number of vaccines required for children is constantly on the rise, which raises additional questions as to whether more diseases are cropping up, or that the pharma companies have found a convenient way to boost profits. Billions of dollars are involved...
The brave renowned Israeli M.D. Dr. Gil Yosef Shachar, has published his opinion on this subject, despite the danger this poses to his career. He invites any doctor who would like to discuss this issue with him to contact him at
Overreacting to terror?
Regarding “Is Rep. Nadler’s obsession with Trump endangering his Jewish constituents?” (May 14), Shmuley Boteach is incensed at the behavior of Rep. Nadler and his office, who did not inform him of the deadline for application for government funding for security. Shmuely cries out, “Jews are being murdered in “shuls” in America. Is this hysteria really justified? Must all the synagogues and Jewish institutions in the USA now require armed guards around the clock 365 days a year?
It is similar in some ways to the mass hysteria generated by a single rocket attack from Gaza – tens of thousands of people run madly for the shelters or cower, lying face down on the streets. The reaction to these dangers creates far more harm, both emotional and material, than the occasional injury or even a very unlikely death. Tens of psychologists are called up to deal with traumatic stress. It fulfills all the wishes of the attackers. In my own home, a son-in-law fell and harmed himself running to our in-house bomb shelter. In the Iraqi war years ago, several older people died from asphyxiation due to misuse of their gas masks.
Unless real danger is imminent and immediate, life should go on unperturbed; otherwise, we’ve lost.
No Golden Rule for infidels
In “The Gaza paradigm” (May 13), proposals for ameliorating economic conditions in Gaza were discussed, including the construction of an artificial island off of Gaza’s coast to serve as a port, while also housing infrastructure such as a desalinization and power plant. It was posited that improving the quality of life would “force Hamas to think a bit more before instigating a new round of violence.”
Did Israelis learn nothing from the Gaza withdrawal? Recall all the talk about Gaza becoming another Singapore, coupled with the scornful dismissal of those who insisted that the withdrawal would bring more attacks. Jewish philanthropists invested in upgrading the greenhouses formerly run by uprooted settlers – which were promptly instead used as rocket-launching sites.
This island thing is another pathetic example of the Jewish Mirror Image Fallacy. Jews project their own values and experiences, imagining that the Palestinians are, like us, misunderstood victims of bigotry who will reciprocate kindness with kindness because they believe in the Golden Rule and want to live the good life. Clever Islamists understand this and play them like a fiddle.
But if economic conditions were a priority, Hamas wouldn’t instigate violence, which leads to destruction and economic blockades. The cultural priority here is the religious imperative of jihad – war for Islamic domination over the infidel state of Israel, and its eventual return to Muslim rule. To parody US president John F. Kennedy, jihadists will pay any price, bear any burden, to further the cause of Islamic domination around the world. There is no Golden Rule for infidels who stand in their way – Hamas’s charter makes that clear.
If that island is built, Hamas will find a way to weaponize it. Israel should make the price of jihad too expensive to afford.
Charleston, South Carolina
The Jerusalem Post editorial board has clearly shown that Israel cannot solve Gaza’s problems on its own. While Gazans would benefit from the construction of a port, power plant, desalination and sewage treatment plants, their rulers will be reluctant to lose the propaganda bonus they get from advertising the current dire situation of the people. Thus, the desperately needed new plants would likely meet the same fate as the greenhouses gifted to the Gazans in 2005, just as sites for future industrial parks would be targeted by missiles such as those that canceled similar plans following the unilateral withdrawal.
Plans for improving the situation in Gaza can succeed only if there is a sea change in the actions of the Arab countries in the Middle East. Those countries need to rescind their laws barring Palestine refugees from citizenship and find ways to ensure that funds donated for rebuilding Gaza’s infrastructure cannot be embezzled by corrupt rulers or diverted to efforts to harm Israel. Arab nations need to support US President Donald Trump’s efforts to prevent Iran from funding terrorism, just as they will need to convince Palestinian leaders to negotiate with Israel and take steps to guarantee that a future Palestinian state will be viable and willing to coexist, peacefully, with the nation-state of the Jews.
Atlanta, GA
Courting disaster
Regarding “Gantz: PM, enemies are ‘threat to our democracy” (May 14), one can perhaps trace the controversy over judicial review by Israel’s Supreme Court less to its judicial philosophy – highly activist, to be sure – but to how its justices are chosen. In the US, for example, justices are nominated by the current US administration, subject to Senate review and approval. This ensures that Supreme Court vacancies are filled with rough exponents of the prevailing political view. The nomination and its approval by separate branches of government, not infrequently controlled by different parties, is a “check and balance” that ensures that nominees are relatively moderate ideologically in order to pass muster.
In Israel, by contrast, justices are approved by a nine-member Judicial Selection Committee composed of only four members of government (one from the opposition) and the rest from the Israel Bar Association and judiciary. This – at least until Ayelet Shaked’s aggressive use of a three-vote bloc to advance more right-wing appointments – has resulted in a Court that has largely replicated itself ideologically since Aharon Barak’s “judicial revolution” introduced judicial review in a context of Left-leaning judicial activism by which the Court essentially arrogated to itself unchecked power and authority over all governmental decisions.
The ideological makeup of this kind of Supreme Court, unlike in the US, could not keep pace with evolving political trends with the result that it was virtually certain to be at continual loggerheads with the elected right-wing governments and Knesset majorities that have become the norm. As a result of its lack of judicial restraint and political posture going beyond its traditional role of counter-majoritarian protector of rights, the Court has increasingly been perceived as a supra-governmental authority, always able and ready to overturn government decisions that conflict with its own views.
Unlike the US, where the political battle is shifted to the nominating process (witness the recent Kavanaugh hearings) and then largely subdued after the appointment, in Israel, the political battles between the government and the Court continue and even intensify, resulting in the polarization of the two branches of government, and increasingly extreme calls to eliminate judicial review entirely, or allow its overriding by a simple Knesset majority, which is essentially the same thing.
This might be the time to reconsider the means of appointment of Supreme Court justices where they might better reflect the changes in the Israeli body politic.