I heartily agree with opposition leader Isaac Herzog (“Herzog calls on Israel to absorb Syrian refugees,” September 6). I think he speaks from the heart.
I would add only one minor caveat, which has become a common criteria for refugee absorption here: conversion.
We will take in thousands of Syrian refugees as long as they enter the new fast-track for Jewish conversion. These Muslims, who once hated us with a passion, would then reemerge, cleansed, as part of our people, sending their boys to the IDF to fight the Muslim hordes.
I believe that some of our Knesset members need psychiatric help.
Why should we let Syrian refugees come here? We settled our own refugees – and are still doing so! Why are the rich or otherwise well-off Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt and Algeria not sending planes to evacuate them? Why are they not doing their duty to save their brethren? Of course, it is up to Israel to save these people. Why? To foment more trouble within our own borders.
How typical of Muslim countries, which are among the richest and most greedy in the world (and with plenty of empty space), to ignore the tragic plight of their brethren and leave them to the mercy of the “infidels of Europe.” They never lift a finger to help anyone, lest they be terrorists or murderers – and the world accepts this.
Muslim “brotherhood,” my foot!
With regard to “Migrants cling to west-bound train, clash with police and refuse to enter Hungarian reception center” (September 4), who would think that less than a century after part of my Hungarian family, including my maternal grandmother, aunt and her children, were forcibly put on trains in eastern Hungary and taken away by the Germans, never to return, we’d find people demanding to board trains in Hungary, screaming “Take us to Germany!” I shed a tear for my family, and for human suffering today. I realize that times have changed and that emotional scenes are now, unfortunately, commonplace.
But where were the sympathetic cameras back then?
Europe murders six million Jews and gets 30 million, mostly Muslim refugees in return.
Just not here Regarding
“Hundreds attend Jerusalem rally in support of capital’s LGBT community” (September 4), greater tolerance, definitely! If a group wants to get a message across by having a parade, that’s fine. However, I can no longer resist pointing out something that is frequently missed when discussing the capital’s LGBT community.
Jerusalem is not just any capital, and not just any city. It is the Holy City. We can deny the existence of the Almighty and malign religion as much as we like. That’s our prerogative.
However, we cannot deny the existence of the Holy City.
And because Jerusalem is, and has been for millennia, the Holy City, certain things that are acceptable in any other place in the world are not necessarily acceptable here, including gay pride parades and LGBT rallies.
All other cities and towns throughout Israel are available for these activities, but not Jerusalem.
Not now, not ever.
Jerusalem The Iran deal
Yet again, we have an opinion piece by a learned author comparing the Iran deal with Chamberlain’s 1938 appeasement (“The Iran deal: More shameful than Munich,” Into the Fray, September 4). But there is no equivalence, and the author does himself a grave injustice.
US President Barack Obama’s America is the most powerful nation in the world, yet he kowtows to Iran, a nation with a fraction of America’s military power.
How can this appeasement be compared to the state of affairs in 1938, when British prime minister Neville Chamberlain was warned by all his chiefs of staff that the country could not win a war because its military had been decimated by years of government reductions? Britain was not able to fight a war, so all this talk of Chamberlain rings rather hollow. It would help if commentators ascribed appeasement where it belongs – with President Obama, and not an honorable Chamberlain.
I agree with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (“PM to continue vocal opposition to nuclear agreement,” September 3). Let us not give up – members of Congress can change their minds.
Are the Jewish Democrats who thus far have aligned with President Barack Obama happy with the downright anti-Semitic, anti-Israel commentaries and advertisements that have proliferated across the US? Do they wish to fund more? Does the idea that “America is not at war with Islam” rule out any consideration of the difference between the tolerant Islam of old and today’s fundamentalist version? (The difference between ISIS and Iran is one of nuance and subtlety.) Do those not opposing the deal really wish to be responsible for a future tragedy, like that in September 2001, but funded by Iran? These are the questions that must be asked now.
DAVID LLOYD KLEPPER
With regard to “White House wins fight to preserve Iran deal on Capitol Hill” (September 3), Israel is now more secure than it was, thanks to the Iran deal.
The deal doesn’t give Israel perfect security in a perfect world, but it gives more security in an imperfect and insecure world. Yet many seem to scapegoat the deal or President Barack Obama himself for this world. How eerily reminiscent of classic anti-Semitism.
The deal doesn’t make things perfectly secure, but rather less insecure. Without it we would go back to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “bomb” at the UN General Assembly (which apparently backfired on him). And there would be no sanctions.
Math in medicine
As a general medical practitioner (35 years in the British NHS and a further five in the Clalit system in Beersheba), I wish to comment on reader Sharon Lindenbaum’s September 3 letter (“The need for math”).
The public, and even members of my profession, do not realize that the general practitioner has a dual responsibility. The first is to his or her patients. The second is to the sub-community for which he or she is responsible.
These two responsibilities can come into conflict. If the practitioner is to understand the dilemma, he or she must become involved in a formal investigation of the practice concerned. Such investigation requires a knowledge of mathematics, particularly concerning statistical analysis.
The practitioner should be prepared to evaluate information concerning drug trials and, when appropriate, design and perform such trials. The practitioner should also be prepared to evaluate new desk-top tests. This requires knowledge of statistical mathematics, as does investigation into blood pressure, which is measured in numbers, and the evaluation of epidemiological findings, both reported and from within one’s own practice.
This is why I welcome an increase in mathematical standards for medical school entrants, in addition to the desirable, but less measurable, qualities listed by the reader.
I do not write from an ivory-tower perspective. Although I had a part-time university appointment in the UK, my work and research was performed in what we called “service medicine,” that is to say, in everyday clinical practice.
Lest your readers suspect that my views are theoretical, I append my qualifications to indicate that I know what I am writing about.