Blatantly biased
As a proud Israeli I was very pleased to read your editorial “Terrorists, not homes, to blame” (July 2). This clearly and objectively states the truth about the building of Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria.
Your speaking up for Israel against the blatantly biased UN statement indicates a refreshing new direction in editorial policy and encourages me to look forward to reading your paper every day.
Hopefully other media in Israel and throughout the world will follow your example.
RAFI SHVIL
Jerusalem
Different sets of rules
Regarding “There’s nothing Jewish about it” (June 30): Yes, burning Arab cars and homes is a desecration of God’s name. But we seem to be operating with our Arab cousins with two different sets of rules.
Arabs killing Jews, attacking Jews, harassing Jews, etc. are rewarded in their society. You actually kill an Israeli Jew, or any Jew for that matter, you get paid. You get neutralized in the process of killing a Jew, and your family gets paid for life.
Jews burning Arab cars and homes are themselves arrested, tried in court and punished, as they should be. Yes, once in a great while an Israeli Jew will actually kill an innocent Arab. I don’t recall that Baruch Goldstein’s family received any stipend from the Israeli government. I do however recall the utter revulsion that Israel and Jews the world over had toward Goldstein and his dastardly crime. In fact, Goldstein was not even allowed to be buried in the Jewish cemetery in Hebron.
So, the playing field is not fair nor equal between us and our cousins. As Jews, we will never condone the killing of innocents. Our Arab cousins need to condemn the killing of innocents.
It doesn’t look like this will happen with our so-called Palestinian cousins anytime soon.
NORMAN DEROVAN
Ma’aleh Adumim
Manifest weaknesses
Eric R. Mandel is exactly right to call for an honest appraisal of the 2015 Iran Deal (“The new Iran deal requires an honest appraisal of the JCPOA,” July 2). This misguided arrangement guaranteed that Iran would be able to obtain an industrial strength nuclear arsenal within a few years, despite president Obama’s inaccurate protests otherwise.
The porous inspection regimen contained in this deal guaranteed that Iran would cheat all the way through it, which is precisely what Iran proceeded to do. For example various European state intelligence agencies have confirmed Iran’s repeated covert attempts to obtain enjoined nuclear proliferation equipment since 2015, during the tenure of the JCPOA and afterwards. Of course the discovery of illegal uranium storage sites in and around Tehran, and the liberation of the Iranian nuclear archive yielded additional evidence of Iranian nuclear perfidy.
Mandel is exactly right to point out the role of Shi’ite Twelver apocalyptic beliefs underlying Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. In this fanatic belief system, the return of the Twelfth or Hidden Imam is to be brought about by an end times war with those regarded as infidels. Israel heads that list, and the United States is not far behind.
Unmentioned by Mandel but also of central importance to an honest appraisal of the JCPOA is the role of the Iranian Shi’ite doctrine of taqiyya in negotiations with those regarded as infidels. Taqiyya is religiously sanctioned lying to those whom the terrorist tyrants of Tehran seek to destroy; deceptive negotiations with enemies seen as too strong to attack, and then sudden attack when those enemies weaken. Unfortunately Iran has the impression that the US is weakening, which is why Iran’s stance in the Vienna and Oman negotiations has become increasingly inflexible.
In part this impression has been created by US Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley. Several members of his negotiating team resigned because he was making too many concessions, and Malley’s security clearance and negotiating responsibilities have now been suspended because he mishandled classified information. This impression has also been created by the Biden-Harris administration’s supine lack of meaningful responses to Iranian military attacks on US troops and contractors, and on our regional allies, who are also increasingly alienated by this administration’s frank hostility along with its manifest weaknesses.
Mandel is exactly right to point out that Israel would have been eager to sign on to the sort of nuclear deal with Iran which would actually have accomplished the appropriate goal – the complete denuclearization of Iran. All previously successful nuclear disarmament agreements have required the disarming country to rid itself entirely of nuclear infrastructure in return for inducements, or else face the prospect of a credible military option to accomplish this goal.
This is the deal which the West should offer to Iran, with a firm deadline for complete agreement. Israel would be eager to endorse this proper version of a nuclear deal with Iran.
DANIEL H. TRIGOBOFF
Williamsville, New York
Many naysayers
One thing of which you can’t accuse the various countries and the persons involved in and committed to the Abraham Accords, and that is naivety (“Don’t argue with success of Abraham Accords,” July 3).
They have willingly come on board despite the protestations of the naysayers who have continually megaphoned that without a peace agreement with the Palestinians no relations with these neighbors can gain ground or be fruitful.
Well let’s look at it from an Israeli perspective. We have so much to offer in the fields of health and agricultural technology alone that places like United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco are rightly taking the opportunity to incorporate so much of this for the betterment of their people.
However, that is just the point. A novelty here is that leaders of countries have consideration for their people as opposed to those who believe that eliminating the Jewish state is the only way to their salvation.
Yes, there are many naysayers such as John Kerry. And with major protagonist Iran and its proxies a constant threat, we must always attempt to forge a path of peace with others whenever possible, but in turn constantly be on our guard and wary of those who wish us harm.
STEPHEN VISHNICK
Tel Aviv
Wishes of the majority
Regarding “Alsheich’s alarming statement and the collapse of Netanyahu’s trial” (July 2): Clearly, the imbalances in Israel’s government have gone beyond a tug of war between the Knesset and the Supreme Court. And the problems won’t be corrected in the blink of an eye. Yet, making a few quick changes now might set the tone for the more complete overhaul that is needed.
Lawyers who would be presenting their cases before the Supreme Court should be removed from the selection committee which chooses new judges, to be replaced by members of the Knesset in numbers set in relation to the relative number of Knesset seats held by the members of the ruling coalition and members of the opposition. And an override clause should be introduced with a supermajority of 80 MKs needed to approve reversal of a court’s ruling of the “unreasonableness” of a law.
Again, with the ruling coalition having only a few seats beyond the simple (61-seat) majority, agreement of some opposition MKs is necessary to ensure that the override truly reflects the wishes of the majority of the voters.
After these simple changes are made, MKs can move on to the tasks that have been neglected for too long – writing a constitution (or completing the set of Basic Laws that will serve as a constitution) and changing the electoral system to produce more stable Knessets that are more likely to complete their nominal four-year terms.
TOBY F. BLOCK
Atlanta
The fundamental cause
Yaakov Katz (“If Jewish attackers were Palestinians, we know how Israel would respond,” June 30) cites officials who have not responded appropriately to past acts of Jewish terrorism. These include “government ministers… who do not have a problem with settlers or right-wing activists who take the law into their own hands,” as well as the IDF and the police who “have turned a blind eye to the problem of Jewish violence in the West Bank.” Unfortunately, he ignores the fundamental cause – large swaths of Israeli society.
The official shortcomings that Katz identifies did not happen in a vacuum. Democratic governments react to the expressed will of the people. There was neither little if any sustained outcry in response to earlier “price tag” atrocities, nor calls for those responsible to be apprehended and punished severely. After brief expressions of disapproval the issue faded from our collective consciousness.
The “boys-will-be-boys” attitude with which many Israelis treated earlier attacks on Palestinians emboldened our terrorists in training, making this latest outrage inevitable. Our failure to respond adequately to the illegal actions of hilltop youth and other extremists allowed them to conclude that there would be no consequences for further illegalities; indeed, that their actions were heroic.
These crimes violate basic human morality and severely damage Israel’s standing in the world. By allowing this violence to escalate, we have ceded the moral high ground, inviting well deserved international condemnation. Widespread retaliation from our neighbors is only a matter of time.
We cannot credibly assert our opposition to terrorists if we minimize terrorism within our own society. We must express our strong disapproval not only of the terrorists themselves, but of those in positions of authority who have allowed this cancer to metastasize throughout the body politic.
We must make it crystal clear that we will not tolerate terrorism in our midst. Jewish terrorists must be purged from our society as the abomination that they are. Failure to label them accurately and oppose them with all possible legal and moral force makes us enablers and accomplices.
In the end, we are all responsible. History will judge us harshly if we fail to act.
EFRAIM COHEN
Zichron Ya’acov
Guilt and contrition
A significant moment in the sweep of Israel’s history should have been on the front page, in my opinion, and not back on page 19 (“The prime minister is innocent – let’s move on,” June 30). The three judges in Netanyahu’s bribery trial told the prosecution that they did not prove the crime with which he was charged.
One would normally think that a trial would result in either a guilty or a not guilty verdict, but according to the article, this is not the case in Israel. Apparently, the prosecution can drag this out for many more years to come, somehow in the pursuit of some sort of plea deal. I’m at a loss why the prime minister would go there. In Britain, which has a similar basis of justice as Israel, the case would have been dismissed.
The other bombshell was that the former chief of police, Roni Alsheich, admitted that their working assumption was that the case would not go to trial, and therefore that Netanyahu would fold under threat of an indictment. What appalling action by the chief of police, the Left, the media and other actors, who figured that if they couldn’t remove him at the ballot box, then they would use the judicial system to meet their nefarious intent, thereby disenfranchising a large sector of Israeli voters from their rights. One can see parallels in the US, where similar actions have been taken against a sitting and potential future president.
In a moral society, one might expect admissions of guilt and contrition by the perpetrators for the incredible harm they have inflicted on Israeli society for the past seven years, after a slew of inconclusive elections in the country, probably affected by the idea that if Netanyahu was indicted, then he must be guilty of something. Last November’s election showed that the voters have largely moved on from the disgraceful farce of legal processes, and awarded him a conclusive result, even though many are unhappy with the outcome brought on by his coalition partners.
Don’t hold your breath to hear from the guilty parties.
DAVID SMITH
Ra’anana
Liberal free-for-all
Oh Sara Dobner, how kind of you to speak with forked tongue from the safety of Toronto about your dear brothers and sisters in Israel; well not all of them, just the liberal ones (“Thank you to our sisters and brothers,” July 4).
You speak in disparaging and dismissive terms of all those who voted for this democratically elected government as corrupt, messianic, theocratic and of course, undemocratic. But what you really mean is that it does not represent your bankrupt, anything goes, irreligious and we love everyone, except those who aren’t like us, liberal free-for-all. The people voted, and in a real democracy, all should abide by that decision, even the liberal Left.
Thankfully, you are in Canada and have no vote here. But we who do live here would love you to join us, send your children to the army, contribute to the economy and then, by all means, have your say.
DANIEL BAUM
Zichron Ya’acov