Other foot

It seems it is permissible for the US to interfere in internal Israeli politics, but it’s an affront to US sovereignty when the shoe is on the other foot.

By
July 14, 2016 20:30
3 minute read.
Letters

Letters. (photo credit: REUTERS)

 
X

Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analyses from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user experience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew - Ivrit
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief

UPGRADE YOUR JPOST EXPERIENCE FOR 5$ PER MONTH Show me later

Other foot

The hypocrisy of world leaders when it comes to Israel is unbelievable (“NGO used US tax dollars against Netanyahu, charges Senate report,” July 13).

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.


President Barack Obama was angry at our prime minister for addressing Congress on a matter much more dangerous to Israel than to the US, and also for his imagined support of Republican Mitt Romney in the last election.

He declared that this was gross interference in internal US politics. Yet he has no problem when his State Department supplies funds to an Israeli NGO in order to try and defeat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

It seems it is permissible for the US to interfere in internal Israeli politics, but it’s an affront to US sovereignty when the shoe is on the other foot.

Then we have the US and European Union weighing in on the new NGO transparency law. Obama declared that it went against freedom of speech and free expression, while the righteous EU made similar noises. I wonder what their reactions would be if Israel were to say that it would support fifth-column, anti-government NGOs in those countries in order to fight their anti-Israel policies.

Let’s see how you like it!

MENACHEM DAYAGI

Tel Aviv

New twist

Udi Segal, in his appeal to Arab members of Knesset (“Show us what you’re really made of,” Comment & Features, July 13), has inadvertently shown us what the Israeli Left is made of.

Rather than suggesting, as would any responsible person, that Arab MKs act for purely humanitarian reasons in demanding the return of the Israelis held in Gaza, he gives a new twist to the Left’s “Anyone but Bibi” ideology: He advises them to do so in order to win the “Zoabi and Tibi versus Yvette and Bibi competition.” Is that really what it boils down to in the eyes of the Left? In the Left’s frenzy to beat Bibi at any cost, the price we pay is the burgeoning number of anti-Israel NGOs financed by foreign governments hypocritically warning that Israeli democracy is in danger because these same NGOs have to reveal the source of their financing.

Note that well: Reveal the source, not forgo the funding.

Would the EU, UK, US or any other country allow us to finance any activity against their democratically elected governments? Sadly, the disingenuous, dishonest, deceitful and duplicitous ranting of the Left is getting more and more coverage in The Jerusalem Post.


BERYL RATZER
Netanya

Worth its salt

I normally like her columns, but AIPAC has absolutely not lost its way, as Caroline B. Glick suggested in “AIPAC’s moment of decision” (Column One, July 8).

AIPAC is strong and remains committed to its goal of strengthening US-Israel ties.

Yes, AIPAC found itself at odds with this administration over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear deal with Iran. Countering the impact of the White House is no easy matter, especially when you have the president getting on the phone and calling members of the Senate.

Furthermore, the vote on JCPOA was a procedural vote. The president needed only 41 votes to sustain a filibuster. He got 42. AIPAC and the opponents of the Iran deal got 58 votes.

It also happened in 1981, during my time in the Senate, with the battle over the sale of AWACs aircraft to Saudi Arabia. That was the only other high-profile vote like JCPOA that I can recall.

Then-president Ronald Reagan got on the phone, and we lost that one, too. That was a straight up-and-down vote, not a procedural vote.

The president won, 51-49.

AIPAC is a long way from growing soft and losing clout. In fact, the AWACs encounter caused its supporters to rally, and AIPAC went forward to become a stronger, more effective organization. The latest battle will also serve to re-energize AIPAC.

Any organization worth its salt is challenged, particularly those in the political arena.

RUDY BOSCHWITZ

Minneapolis
The writer was a US senator from Minnesota from 1978 to 1991.

Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>

Related Content

An IDF soldier sits on a beach in Tel Aviv
December 13, 2018
The best advocates for Israel: IDF soldiers

By DOV LIPMAN