One story leads to another
The December 5 Jerusalem Post showed how sometimes one story leads to another which leads to another. On your front page, there is “Herzog: Antisemitism has reared its ugly head during the war.” The result of the antisemitism can be seen in the headline to the immediate right, “NSC raises threat level for traveling Israelis in 80 countries.” Obviously, if there is an increase in antisemitism in a specific country, it would be common sense to avoid it.
The accompanying National Security Council map shows the entire United States in green, meaning that it’s a safe place for Israelis to visit. However, as I turned the pages of the Post, I came to a story on page six, where I saw “Protesters hurl ‘genocide’ chants at Jewish-owned eatery in Philly.” That doesn’t sound so safe to me. Then I turned to page 13 where I found “Tensions increase over Gaza war as hate crimes spike in New York.” That would be another place that doesn’t sound so safe.
Based on the NSC’s own standards, the United States should not be labeled a green, safe county. However, having traveled to all 49 continental states, I believe the US should be divided into regions which are safe for Israelis and those which are not. The West Coast and Northeastern US (especially big cities) would be labeled unsafe, while the “real America,” including states such as Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, Iowa, and Kansas, for example, would still be safe.
Those are the areas where, when we say that we’re from Jerusalem, residents sigh and say, “Jerusalem, I dream of going there and visiting Israel.” Those are the areas where you don’t find pro-Hamas riots or attacks on Jewish-owned businesses.
That is, in fact, the conclusion which one reaches when reading one Post story after another.
DAVID GLEICHER
Jerusalem
Awful crime
Regarding “Taking hostages is a war crime” (December 5): Qatar hosts the leaders of Hamas, the organization which has committed and is committing the war crime of taking and holding hostages. Qatar should condition the stay of those leaders on their ordering that all the hostages be released immediately.
If the hostages are not released, Qatar should expel those leaders. I am sure Qatar would not like to be implicated, even indirectly, in this awful crime, and all the enlightened countries of the world should demand of Qatari leaders that they take this step.
JEREMY TOPAZ
Rehovot
The truce simply ended
Let’s first correct the error in the opening sentence of your editorial, “What comes first?” (December 4). There was no breakdown of the temporary truce between Israel and Hamas. The truce simply ended, which is not the same thing.
There was never any plan for a long-term pause. Hamas’s revised demands reflects conditions for, effectively, a new truce; demands that were so outrageous that Israel had no choice but to walk away before there could be any sort of breakdown.
Hamas knows full well that it won’t be long before Israel will be unable to ignore the anguish and anger of the families of the hostages not yet released. The harrowing stories of the mistreatment and harsh conditions will force Netanyahu and Gallant to again compromise their stand regarding pauses, truces, ceasefires, or any other politically correct term.
Hamas, demonstrating great “magnanimity,” will alter its demands to a larger consignment of humanitarian aid and a four-for-one or five-for-one exchange. And Israel will have no choice but to bite the bullet for another week or so.
The unity that your editorial calls for is in fact what will, sooner rather than later, break down. That chasm you refer to expands with each passing day. Both goals – the total, permanent destruction of Hamas and the release of the remaining hostages – are, it would appear, mutually exclusive. Hamas will, at any rate, keep fifty or so hostages as a failsafe precaution, and will force Israel to decide between two options: destroy Gaza and search for those fifty among the rubble, or have the fifty captives return home in exchange for a permanent ceasefire.
BARRY NEWMAN
Ginot Shomron
Definition of terrorism
Susan Hattis Rolef (“Grappling with hasbara challenges,” December 4) says that some people question “whether Hamas is a ‘radical’ yet legitimate national liberation organization, or a terrorist organization.” To her, “the main problem [in answering this question] is that there is no agreed definition of terrorism in international law.”
One simple definition of terrorism commonly used is “the threat or use of violence against civilian targets in order to achieve political ends.” The US code uses a very similar definition to identify domestic terrorism.
This definition of terrorism is non-partisan. It describes violent tactics without regard to the policies for which violence is used.
The old canard that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is nonsense. Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. One is a terrorist not because of the ideology espoused, but by virtue of the methods used to further those beliefs. A freedom fighter who employs terrorism to advance his goals is a terrorist.
Clearly, Hamas’s actions fit the common definition of terrorism. Those who assert that Hamas is not a terror organization actually are saying that they accept Hamas’s terror tactics because they support its hateful, genocidal ideology. They have, therefore, forfeited the right to claim in any other situation that they oppose terrorism.
They are simply engaging in situational morality.
EFRAIM COHEN
Zichron Ya’acov
Not-so-innocent civilians
Regarding “Harris urges Israel to protect civilians, sketches post-war vision” (December 3): US Vice President Kamala Harris stated that “too many innocent Palestinian civilians have been killed.” Her statement implies that Israel is responsible for all, or almost all, of the innocent civilian deaths.
I challenge Harris to provide proof that Israel was responsible for any civilian deaths due to inaccurate mortar or missile fire. Knowing Hamas’s total disregard for the safely of its citizens, we can safely assume that there is no basis for the vice president’s comment.
Can she substantiate Hamas’s claims as to how many terrorists were killed and how many civilians were killed? How many Gazan civilians are really innocent? A survey conducted of Gaza and West Bank Palestinians by the Arab World Research and Development group showed that three-quarters of Palestinians support the Hamas October 7 attacks on Israel that killed some 1,200 people, and nearly as many back a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea.”
You might argue that we should worry about the children. However, Palestinian Media Watch clams that Palestinian children from the age of 3 are already being indoctrinated to hate and kill Jews. By their teenage years, they are training to become terrorists and handle weapons.
Obviously, it would be immoral to intentionally target these not-so-innocent civilians. But, at a time like this, when Hamas poses an existential threat to Israel and must be eradicated as quickly as possible, should we really worry that much about accidentally killing some of them?
RAYMOND ARKING
Modi’in