Sir, – With regard to “German foreign minister: Palestinian state must come from negotiations with Israel” (November 17), it has been reported that the European Union is preparing a document for the sanctioning of Israel if the two-state solution is not implemented.
With all the murderous turmoil in the Middle East – civil war in Syria; Iraq in the throes of internecine warfare, with the barbaric Islamic State beheading westerners on video; Lebanon being ruled by a terrorist organization; thousands of refugees; public executions in the Gaza Strip; suicide bombings; women being killed by their own husbands, fathers and brothers for exposing the families to shame; Christians being harassed and persecuted in countries from which Jews were once expelled and with laws that, to the West, are barbaric – how is it that the EU, which thinks itself so liberal, democratic and humanitarian, wishes to see the establishment of another anti-West, corrupt, failed Arab state? The EU is slavering at the mouth in anticipation of removing sanctions from Iran so as to take business advantage of the oil wealth of that inhuman dictatorship, which is bent on the destruction of Israel. How hypocritical can you get?
Sir, – Martin Sherman’s excellent command of the English language is sometimes difficult to follow, but “The cusp of carnage” (Into the Fray, November 14) is quite clear – and frightening.
I’ve verbally fought on behalf of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with my dear right-wing and left-wing friends, but Sherman’s column reiterates a formidable warning: You cannot please all the people all the time.
Our adversaries do not consider concessions “conciliatory,” only as weakness leading to defeat! Our prime minister must act, not only speak, with stronger measures.
We can’t afford to lose, even once, in order to survive.
Sir, – Whenever the Arab-Israeli conflict flares up – be it a terrorist act, rioting or outright war – we are either condemned or, at best, held equally culpable under the concept of moral equivalency What the world doesn’t understand is the basic inequality between the sides: Israel makes war in order to exist whereas its enemies exist in order to make war.
Jerusalem Please sit down
Sir, – The piece “Would the real Zionists please stand up?” (Comment & Features, November 16) begs a response.
Can someone who believes that Israel should put other “moral” considerations before its survival be called a Zionist? Wow! At one time we debated whether someone who lived outside of Israel could call himself a Zionist. Now someone who would like to see Israel disregard security considerations because some of its positions make the US-dwelling Jew feel uncomfortable and unpopular has the audacity to call himself pro-Israel! This phenomenon has nothing to do with Zionism and more to do with taking self-centeredness to a new level.
Anyone can call himself anything, but an Israel detractor who calls himself a Zionist is more detrimental, not to mention hypocritical, than a self-proclaimed Republican living on welfare and never seeking employment. This is because the self-proclaimed Zionist supplies ammunition to Israel’s enemies.
And while the claim can be made that there is an ample supply of Israelis who share those sentiments, the reply is twofold.
First, the number of Israeli leftists has dwindled significantly over the past decade as it becomes clearer that there is no peace-seeking partner. Second, living in Israel entitles one to be called a Zionist more than someone living outside Israel who will support it only as long as being pro-Israel is fashionable.
Sir, – That Isaac Roszler has smoked a bit too much from the Hartman Institute kumbaya pipe is evident from his utter misreading of Israeli society.
Roszler, an American student in Pennsylvania who spent a year being brainwashed at Hartman, argues that there are two Israelis: the paranoid, existentially obsessed generation that is a relic of 1967, and the apparently enlightened “new guard,” which has “a different set of moral standards or [has] internalized international criticism.”
If anything, it is the opposite. It is today’s younger generation that understands the existential threat and has shifted its allegiances to the Right while it is the dying remnants of old leftist, secular elites – heirs to the morally and economically bankrupt kibbutz movement – who are the remnants of 1967. Indeed, a newspaper like Haaretz, a powerhouse back in 1967, is bereft of readers and survives now on handouts from Germany.
The Hartman Institute does all of us a disservice by pumping out self-serving, arrogant opinion as if it were factual information.
The Hartman family has the right believe anything it wants and to flash its wad anyway it chooses. But it does not speak for a majority of Israelis. (And this is doubly true for a wet-behindthe- ears, post-adolescent law student in Pennsylvania who, when it comes to understanding Israel’s real issues, can’t hold a candle to a buck private in the IDF.)
Jerusalem National security
Sir, – While I appreciate Yosef Abramowitz’s passionate plea for Israel to “lead by example to save the planet from desecrating God’s great name” by declaring carbon a “sin” (“Peoplehood with purpose,” Better Energy, November 16), I think the truest reason for Israel to lead in solar energy can be found in the adjacent editorial, “Hamas’s riches.”
I do not fully buy into the argument of climate change, and there are many experts who don’t either. In fact, many are now predicting another Ice Age! But either way, if Israel can show the world how to live off solar energy instead of petroleum, it would benefit our economy, tremendously lower our cost of living and, most importantly, deprive Muslim terrorists of the majority of their funding from petrodollars.
I think every Israeli citizen can agree that we should never have electric bills to pay when we have such solar power waiting to be harnessed.
Our government should enable this project for reasons of national security!
Ma’aleh Adumim Frequent flier
Sir, – With regard to “The ethics of infection” (Comment & Features, November 16), it would be much easier to make decisions on travel with an illness if there were no other mitigating circumstances.
Say one wakes up with flu symptoms on the day of a flight. Logic and ethics would keep the patient in bed and away from the likely contamination of others. But airlines do not adhere to this logic.
Neither do cruise ships. There’s a hefty charge for no-shows or cancellations, which means that most people will take their germs with them to the plane or ship and carry on with their plans, no matter how miserable they feel. Their fellow travelers, not to mention the crew, will pay the price.
Hence, the flu flew.
Sir, – With regard to “A fresh view of Menachem Begin” (The POSTman Knocks Twice, November 14), what a fresh breath of air in journalism by a man who could be a political enemy of the late Menachem Begin, considering that Avraham Avi-Hai worked in advisory roles in the offices of David Ben-Gurion and Levi Eshkol, two strongly anti-Begin politicians.
Avi-Hai is a gentleman, scholar and a great credit to fair journalism. Bravo and kol hakavod.
TZVI HERSHEL TOREM