I read Yaakov Katz’s column titled “It is time to pardon Netanyahu” (May 20) and I wish I could understand the logic behind his article. Nowhere in the article does he question the decision made by the justice system, the police, the prosecution, the attorney-general to indict a sitting prime minister for bribery based upon an alleged crime that heretofore had never resulted in a conviction of any politician in this country, let alone a sitting prime minister. Where was the exercise of discretion by various layers of the justice system in approving such an indictment?
People can have different opinions about whether Benjamin Netanyahu had been prime minister for too long and should have stepped aside, but making that decision is not within the purview of the justice system. Although I know that the courts pay lip service to the notion that everyone is treated the same in the eyes of the law, some credence should have been given to whom was being indicted, and if the case was not airtight it would have been better to forego the indictment than to put the country through the turmoil.
Katz seems to be arguing that Netanyahu should be pardoned so that the justice system can be spared the introspection that other parts of Israeli society had to do when they failed the public. He writes: “Half of Israel does not trust the courts already. When you look deeper into the stats, only 25% of Israelis say they have high confidence in the court. Only 25%.”
Is the appropriate way to deal with this, to grant a pardon and thereby save the justice system the necessity of doing proper introspection. Frankly, I am not sure why this is so.
BARRY EISENBERG
Jerusalem
Decent America of Doris Day
Regarding “America’s ‘brand of Judaism’” (May 19): Although it is only May, I think that I can nominate the article by Samuel Hyde wishing for a “secular Israel” for the title of worst article of the year published by The Jerusalem Post – excepting of course every article from the far-Left extremists Baskin and Bloomfield.
Hyde fantasizes that only if Israel were to become more “secular” more American Jews might come.
There are many reasons to believe that at the present time only a very small fraction of American Jews – mostly young Orthodox or retired older traditional Jews – are seriously contemplating making aliyah, and the vast majority of American Jews, especially the highly assimilated and intermarried, and the young university students corrupted by the ongoing assaults fostered on campuses by extremist Muslims, have no interest in moving to Israel, or even supporting us.
But it is Hyde’s notions of an America that may have existed in his childhood that are so out of touch with today’s realities.
His “diversity, equality, and tolerance” have become distorted and trashed by Black Lives Matter thuggery, the anti-historical nonsense of critical race theory and the 1619 Project. Feminism and liberalism have become perverted by transgender rights allowing men claiming to be women competing against normal real women in sports, by Disney employees protesting because the governor of Florida believes that it is unhelpful to introduce such topics as homosexuality and transgenderism into schools for children younger than eight.
The prosperous, free, generous, very liberal decent America of the Doris Day movies no longer exists. And today’s America is definitely not a model to be dumped upon Israel in the hope that this will attract assimilated Americans to make aliyah.
JOSEPH BERGER
Netanya
Cunning disguise of journalists
Regarding “57 House members urge FBI, State Dept. to investigate death of Abu Akleh” (May 22): The request quickly enters the realms of fantasy and fiction since the House members wrote that “it was reported that Palestinian journalists who were with Ms. Abu Akleh at the time said that they made their presence known to Israeli soldiers, and they did not see militants [terrorists] in the area.”
But, there is no such person as an impartial Palestinian journalist. There has never been impartial reportage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Palestinian press. The Palestinian journalists are so-called freedom fighters and their only interest is the furtherance of the Palestinian causes which include the destruction of the State of Israel. They are militants in the cunning disguise of journalists.
YIGAL HOROWITZ
Beersheba
What a travesty! Why are they picking Israel out for special treatment? In the article, there is no mention of Israel’s need to defend itself from recent terrorist attacks that have killed nearly 20 innocents. Or that the Palestinian Authority refuses to cooperate with Israel in a joint autopsy, or to hand over the fatal bullet. This, at the same time that they give cover to the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Being a reporter in a war zone is a dangerous job. That is why they have extensive protection. And what about the journalists killed to date covering the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, regarding which US Commander-in-Chief Joe Biden gave Putin the green light by saying that minor incursions would be alright. Do the 57 members even know the name of one of these journalists?
DAVID SMITH
Ra’anana
Nothing of value
Once again, Douglas Bloomfield (“Antisemitic core of Great Replacement Theory,” May 19) assails anyone who might disagree with the current administration. As usual, his diatribe is replete with insulting conclusory language, accusing Fox News’s Tucker Carlson and Republicans of supporting white supremacy and antisemitism. He offers as proof the Buffalo shooting that left 10 African Americans dead, forgetting that the shooter was clearly mentally deranged, and that the screed he left behind expressly condemned Fox.
Consider noted Jewish journalist Jonathan Tobin’s sage advice: “Democracy can’t work if you treat political opponents as not just wrong but evil.” That’s what commentators on the Left are doing by linking mainstream conservatives and Republicans who speak up against illegal immigration to the Buffalo shooting, he adds. He warns that when this kind of a smear becomes normative political discourse, “It means we are approaching a moment of no return with respect to efforts to bridge the partisan gap and rebuild not just bipartisanship but a sense of shared community.”
Bloomfield’s weekly “Washington Watch” column should discuss such issues as the non-existent southern border that allows soaring illegal immigration and the unfettered entry of deadly fentanyl into the US; historic gasoline prices; galloping inflation and a looming recession; unprecedented shortages of food and baby formula; a crashing stock market; and Supreme Court justices being subjected to mob intimidation with the administration’s tacit approval.
Bloomfield refuses to admit that antisemitism exists on both the Left and the Right. Otherwise, he would highlight the recent “Resolution Recognizing the Nakba and Palestinian Refugees’ Rights” introduced by Representative Rashida Tlaib and supported by several Democratic members of Congress. Tlaib charges, “The Israeli apartheid government’s ongoing ethnic cleansing seeks to degrade Palestinian humanity and break the will of the people to be free.”
Similarly, if he is truly concerned for the lives of African Americans, he would report on the national crime wave and record-breaking murder rates. The number of African Americans murdered in Democratic-led Chicago dwarfs the toll in Buffalo.
Bloomfield will not discuss any of these national crises because he knows that they are, to a large degree, animated by President Biden’s own policies and rhetoric. As such, they do not fit his preferred narrative: Democrats good; Republicans evil.
Bloomfield’s divisive hatred has run its course. He adds nothing of value to discussions of today’s vital issues.
EFRAIM COHEN
Zichron Ya’acov
No moderate voices
Regarding the editorial “Two states” (May 19): There are no moderate Palestinian voices with whom Israel can talk about a two state solution, never mind negotiate such a solution. Over 80% of Palestinians favor Hamas whose goal is to destroy Israel and its people.
The Palestinian Authority has calculated that to regain popularity it must accelerate its anti-Israel incitement including paying its people to attack Israelis, so it too is not a partner for peace. There is nothing Israel can do, no concession it can make that will bring the current Palestinian leaders to the negotiating table.
Moderate Palestinians who work with Israelis on daily life issues such as child enrichment are under intense pressure to avoid normalization with the hated Israelis. Maintaining that there is a two state solution process or moderate Palestinians with whom Israel can negotiate is a dream.
LARRY SHAPIRO
Calgary
It is myopic to editorialize that Israel’s recent failure to find a partner for peace has anything to do with Mahmoud Abbas. The issue is the 1964 PLO Charter which is the enabling document of the Palestinian Authority. That PLO Charter mandates the annihilation of every Jew in Israel.
Those clauses on annihilating the Jews have never been revoked as per the statutory requirements of Article 33 of the PLO Charter: public notice of a meeting to revoke the annihilation clauses, followed by a two-thirds vote at such a meeting. Such a meeting has never been held.
Therefore every member of the Palestinian Authority – regardless how moderate the editors of The Jerusalem Post may wish them to be – is legally bound to murder every Jew in Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority very publicly revokes those annihilation clauses as per Article 33 of the PLO Charter, Israel has no partner for peace. Abbas or no Abbas.
The Second Intifada was in some ways the result of myopic Israeli politicians and journalists believing that those annihilation clauses could be verbally revoked by Yasser Arafat or anyone else. Over 1,000 murdered Jews resulted from that myopia.
RICHARD SHERMAN
Margate, Florida
War of genocide
Gershon Baskin knows the Nakba was the failed attempt to destroy Israel (“The Nakba, the flag and responsibility,” May 19).
He knows that under international law (San Remo Accords – 1920, League of Nations – 1922, and article 80 of the UN charter), Israel includes all of Mandatory Palestine.
In 1947, the UN ‘suggested’ the Jews share the land with the Arabs to avoid further conflict. The Jews agreed. The Arabs, under Nazi war criminal Haj Amin al-Husseini, grand mufti of Jerusalem, refused.
In 1948, Britain ended the Mandate. The Jews declared the State of Israel and the Mufti declared a war of genocide against the Jews.
Arab armies joined the war against the new state. 700,000 Arabs fled the fighting, most at the urging of their own leaders.
Jews caught behind Arab lines were ethnically cleansed. Their synagogues were destroyed and their properties stolen. Arabs caught in Israel became Israeli citizens. There was no moral equivalency.
The tiny Jewish homeland welcomed in 850,000 Jews forced out of Arab lands.
The 56 Islamic states, 22 of them being Arab, still won’t take in their brothers who became refugees, forcing them to fester in camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and under PA and Hamas control.
Arabs created the Nakba. They lie about it to their children and to the media. Their refusal to allow Israel to participate in investigating Abu Akleh’s murder is an example of continuing Arab atrocities.
LEN BENNETT
Ottawa