Letters 393678

Readers comment on previous issues of the 'Magazine.'

Sara Netanyahu in JPost Magazine (photo credit: JERUSALEM POST)
Sara Netanyahu in JPost Magazine
(photo credit: JERUSALEM POST)
REFRESHING READ
Kudos to Naomi Ragen on “A professional woman” (One on One, February 27). After reading about Sara Netanyahu, I have a lot more admiration for this woman the press loves to hate.
She is an educated woman and does a lot of charity work; she is polished, charming and very intelligent. I have a newfound respect and love for her.
The abuse she has taken from the media has hurt her, but she handles everything in a very respectful fashion without screaming, yelling or getting upset – which she would have every right to do.
She is still in close contact with the family (or what’s left of it) that was brutally attacked at Itamar. She still lends support to Rachel Attias, the girl who lost her family in a car accident. Ms. Ragen painted a very warm and loving woman.
Thank you for giving us some good news for a change. It was, believe me, refreshing to read this article.
BATIA MACALES
Kedumim
Green-eyed media cats were at work years ago with another professional woman, an educated, beautiful woman – too beautiful for the times.
Ofira Navon, may she rest in peace, wife of the fifth president of the state, was openly criticized and harassed by the press for her style, which was not in sync with its banal taste.
Her greatest crime was a breast cancer diagnosis and her rejection of a mastectomy, the only treatment offered by our local medical establishment.
Instead, she chose to fly to Boston for a lumpectomy and chemo. The media cats in Israel turned into a pack of wolves.
A lot has changed since the days of Ofira Navon – aside from the media, which is still the same, always out to kill.
FAIGIE HEIMAN
Jerusalem
Kudos to the Magazine and Naomi Ragen. This is the first time I have gotten a decent picture of Sara Netanyahu in the media. You have restored my confidence in you!
ANN MENDLOWITZ
Jerusalem
ROUGH COMPARISONS
In “The dangers of prime ministerial comparisons” (A Dose of Nuance, February 27), Daniel Gordis begs us not to compare prime ministers. Yet it is inevitable that people do so.
Every prime minister has his or her certain time in history.
But it does not mean that we cannot look at what motivated them, and at the circumstances of people at every stage of Israel’s existence.
The present prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has his faults – as did everyone who served the people of Israel.
King Saul was not King David, Elijah the Prophet was not Elisha the Prophet, and Menachem Begin surely made his mark in history beyond that of Ehud Barak. However, better than any other Israeli or world leader, Mr. Netanyahu articulates both the need for Israel’s survival and the destruction caused by Islamic terrorism.
The problems that beset Israel in 2015 are almost insurmountable, and its place in the world arena is certainly not that of 1948. We must go forward in history and not look behind. We must achieve greatness and not fall under tyranny of Iranian dominance.
TOBY WILLIG
Jerusalem
What, exactly, is Daniel Gordis trying to get at? That Benjamin Netanyahu and David Ben-Gurion were different people? Thanks for clearing that up.
What is to be achieved by noting that the two of them might have had major disagreements? At least from the quote that Gordis provides, all we see is Netanyahu using Ben-Gurion to prove that it was possible to flout the desires of the US administration and still do quite well.
Gordis not only errs in interpreting this as a comparison between the two men; he makes at least one egregious assumption when contrasting them: According to him, Netanyahu’s decision to address Congress is about his “disdain for [Obama] and desire to embarrass him.”
I know of no evidence for this statement. Certainly, Gordis provides none.
In all, the piece reads like a long-winded “I knew Jack Kennedy.
You’re no Jack Kennedy” – basically, a personal insult meant to distract from the real issues.
And speaking of real issues, Gordis proceeds to contrast Netanyahu’s attempt to work via the US to stop the Iranian bomb with the late prime minister Menachem Begin’s military strike on the Osirak nuclear reactor. Is he really contending that Netanyahu should have bombed Iran first and notified the Americans afterwards? It’s possible, certainly, but I doubt he is in a position to know whether it would have been an adroit tactic or the worst sort of adventurism.
I can make a good guess at how Gordis would characterize it had Netanyahu actually done it, though.
MICHAEL BERKOWITZ
Alon Shvut
THE VISION THING
In “Obama’s Churchill, Netanyahu’s Chamberlain” (“A Fresh Perspective, February 13), Dan Illouz says that US President Barack Obama sees the Middle East with a utopian vision. I see his vision either as willfully ignorant of the situation or, more likely, as seen through the eyes of what cannot and should not be denied as a person who is pro-Muslim.
There is no question that Netanyahu should have gone to America to try to stop Obama’s dangerous moves with Iran. However, if Netanyahu, as stated by Illouz, is the greatest spokesman in the world today for a realist worldview, why has no one listened to him over the many years he has been talking of the Iranian threat? Is it perhaps because with all his talk and bluster, he has done nothing about it? Instead of relying on Obama, Netanyahu many years ago could have made a Churchillian decision and destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities while the program was still in its infancy.
Talking is one thing.
Taking the decision to actually alter the situation is the difference between a follower and a leader.
The prime minister’s words ring hollow when he talks of the importance of Israel’s security and how it is his prime objective. This is not only due to his failure to take action against Iran, but because after each one of our many wars, our enemies are still there and getting stronger.
There is no will to destroy them, and that is a recipe for disaster that this country should not be expected to continue to accept.
PHYLLIS STERN
Netanya
CLARIFICATION
On the cover of the March 6 issue, it was incorrectly stated that the Arab Bank had been convicted the previous week for financing terrorism.
Instead, it was found liable for this in a US civil court in September 2014. It was the Palestinian Authority and the PLO that were found liable the week before, in a US federal court. The cover story profiled the Sokolow family, the lead plaintiff in Sokolow vs PLO.

Write to: maglet@jpost.com
Only a selection of letters can be published. Priority goes to those that are brief and topical.
Letters may be edited, and must bear the name and address of the writer.