October 29: Minimal force

A minimal use of force ensures that the terrorist is down only for the count, but the odds are he or she will come back for a rematch.

By
October 28, 2015 21:38
Letters

Letters. (photo credit: REUTERS)

Minimal force

Seth Winberg (“Killing a terrorist who is no longer a threat?” Comment & Features, October 27) makes some persuasive arguments, but I feel he’s unaware of the situation here.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.


The halachic debate is predicated on the fact that the killer or terrorist will be incarcerated for what he has done, probably for life. Here in Israel, though, we have learned that this often is not the case. The government has released people convicted of attempted murder by the droves; even actual murderers have been freed. Unfortunately, a good number of them – even one is too many – have returned and killed.

A minimal use of force ensures that the terrorist is down only for the count, but the odds are he or she will come back for a rematch.

So does minimal force really make sense?

JACOB HIMMELFARB
Jerusalem

It’s about religion


Regarding Gil Troy’s “An open letter to the slashers and shooters of the Palestinians’ ‘In-teen-fada’” (Center Field, October 27), of course the violence is not going to bring a Palestinian state closer to reality. The creation of “two states living side-by-side in peace and security” is not their goal.

These children have literally been raised from infancy to hate Jews, who, they are taught, are pigs, infidels and worse. Palestinian children’s TV interviews fiveyear- olds who gleefully claim they want to grow up to be shahids (martyrs), and video clips from classrooms show young children chanting “Kill the Jews.”

Not kill them to allow a state – kill them because these children are told that Jews are evil infidels.

If the Palestinians want a state, it is one “from the river to the sea.” As Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said many times, there will be no Jews in this state. This obviously means there will be no Jewish state or Land of Israel anywhere from the river to the sea! This is not a conflict over borders.

This is a religious war over the existence of Jews anywhere in the world, and especially in Israel.

RUTH ZIMBERG
Safed

Stemming the tide

We are seeing too much criticism of the security situation, and little in the way of positive suggestions. I offer these simple steps that Israel could take to immediately stem the tide.

• Place the names of terrorists under a gag order. Every time we identify an attacker, he becomes a “martyr.” The Palestinian Authority doesn’t know who these people are until we announce it, and then these people get glorification and handsome rewards. So the first step is to simply “disappear” any attacker.

If taken alive, don’t tell the world his condition. If dead, don’t mention it. Our only comments should concern the condition of the victims. I’m sure we can learn from the South Americans, the Russians and the Chinese some easy lessons about “disappearing” people.

• Stop the home demolitions.

The PA loves them because the Palestinians get sympathy from the world press over “collective punishment.”

• Deduct from the PA’s monthly share of tax revenue an amount equal to the “rewards” being paid to attackers and their families.

I think a substantial part of the incentive for “lone wolf” attackers has been the promise of monetary reward much more than the clichéd view of the 72 virgins in paradise.

It’s time we started thinking outside the box because the situation we are dealing with breaks all the rules.

HENRY KAYE
Ashkelon

Perhaps we should be flooding the Palestinian streets with leaflets.

Leaflet number one might say: Would you like your economy to grow, as the Israeli economy grows? The Israelis will be happy to help you. Do you want your children to have a good education? The Israelis will be happy to help you. Would you like peace on the Temple Mount? The Jewish Bible says: “The house of the Lord shall be established on the top of the mountains... and all nations shall flow onto it” (Isaiah 2:2).

A week later, a second leaflet might say: Would you like to live in conditions where no checkpoints are needed, where you can move freely, where you decide how to conduct your daily life? The Israelis will be happy to cooperate to such ends.

A week later, a third leaflet might list the monies donated by the nations for the benefit of the Palestinian people to make their life happier.

If this is repeated a few times, the message might just get through.

ESTHER EHRMAN

Beit Shemesh

Just for us

I would like to know why certain countries, such as Germany and the United States, are always saying they respect the right of Israel to defend itself. Why do they never say this about other nations? Why does it have to be said about Israel in particular?

HARVEY HASS

Jerusalem

Today’s mufti I am waiting for the Vatican and other Christian Churches, especially those that have eagerly embraced the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, to ridicule the absurd assertion by Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, that no Jewish temples ever stood on the Temple Mount and that the Temple Mount has been a mosque from the time of creation (“Grand mufti: There was never a Jewish temple on the Mount,” October 27).

The New Testament describes how Jesus’s parents went up to Jerusalem for Passover (Luke 2:41-52) and that Jesus remained behind and taught in the Temple. In addition, various chapters mention overturning the money changers’ tables outside the Temple on the Temple Mount.

We will know that the coming of the Messiah is near when all Christians will side with the Jewish state instead of cowering in the face of Muslim bullying.

ISIDORE SOLOMONS
Beit Shemesh

Yesterday’s mufti The furor over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claims regarding the wartime mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, is more a reflection of the politically correct narrative in which the Palestinians are the innocent victims of Israeli extremism than a sober assessment of the facts.

His comments might well not have been entirely accurate, but many points were certainly true.

The policy of the Nazis, at least until the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, was to expel Germany’s Jews rather than annihilate them. Admittedly, there were massacres, especially after the invasion of Russia in June 1941, but these were a far cry from industrialized extermination, which was definitively decided only at the Wannsee conference on January 20,1942, some two months after Hitler’s meeting with Husseini.

Though he might not have initiated the idea, as a Nazi sympathizer and rabid anti-Semite, the grand mufti would certainly not have been averse to such a policy, having conducted a campaign since the early 1920s under the slogan Itbah al-Yahud (Slaughter the Jews). He continued to spread this message in broadcasts from Berlin throughout the war and, perhaps more significantly, raised three SS battalions from among Balkan Muslims to help the Nazis implement their policies.

Netanyahu’s claims therefore are not the travesty of truth that so many on the Left claim.

MARTIN D. STERN
Salford, UK

CORRECTION: AIPAC did not hold a fund-raiser for Democratic US Sen. Chris Coons, as was erroneously reported in Caroline B. Glick’s “AIPAC’s devastating decision” (Our World, October 28). Coons was the featured speaker at a general fund-raiser for AIPAC.


Related Content

May 24, 2018
Israel and the EU

By JPOST EDITORIAL