Vile proclamation
Neville Teller (“Right problem, wrong solution,” December 11) argues that UN Secretary-General António Guterres should have petitioned for an increased flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza rather than have the Security Council proclaim a demand for a ceasefire.
He believes, incorrectly, that an organized and coordinated effort of providing the besieged Gazans with medicine, food, and clothing would help alleviate the toll on the “innocent” citizens and not require Israel to lay down their arms. To think that Hamas would not use protected convoys for their own use is shortsighted at best and naivete at worst.
The call for the ceasefire Guterres drafted, based on the support of the rarely-used Article 99, was, in essence, an attempt to portray Israel as a one-nation axis of evil. I can’t hide my disappointment that of the five permanent members of the UNSC, only the United States stood alongside Israel by vetoing the vile proclamation. I have no words for how the UK cowardly abstained from casting a “nay” vote.
And talk about true colors, I’ve never been overly enthusiastic about the Abraham Accords (AA), and still remain skeptical as to the resulting benefits of this alliance. That is why I’m not in the least surprised that one of the UN secretary-general’s staunchest allies in wishing to pass a resolution calling for a ceasefire was AA charter member UAE. Cultural, academic, and commercial exchanges are all well and good, but unless the members are ready to participate in the protection of Israel’s diplomatic back, the accords, for all practical purposes, are meaningless.
Pressure is now mounting on Israel to agree to a ceasefire in order to prevent a full collapse of the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Yet, nary a word is mentioned regarding Hamas’s perversions and readiness to commit coldblooded murder.
The alphabet army – UN, EU, WHO, and US – will be nudging Israel to hold back and “give peace a chance.” They offer, however, no assurances that the Hamas terror-centric infrastructure will be destroyed or that the Simchat Torah reign of terror will not be repeated.
The world, it seems, is most comfortable when Israel is behind the eight ball.
BARRY NEWMAN
Ginot Shomron
Directly or by insinuation
Josh Hasten’s “In search of ‘settler violence’” (December 7), describing the need of reporters for material to ensure a steady stream of “settler” persecution of Arabs, reminded me of a conversation several decades ago.
One of my ulpan companions was a successful independent photographer. We were discussing journalism and Israel, in the course of which she recounted the demand given to her by an editor. He said firmly, “I want pictures of violence! Israeli violence!”
The Hasten article contained no surprise. The media remain constant, defining Israel, directly or by insinuation, as an aggressor, harming Arabs, and, in the current war in Gaza, indiscriminately killing Palestinians by the thousands.
When reporting or commentary concerns Israel, media and objectivity do not always fit together in the same sentence. Too often, the word “bias” does.
BERNARD SMITH
Jerusalem
Malign purposes
“Gaza’s reality” (editorial, December 11) is a most welcome elucidation of what Hamas has wreaked in Gaza. It is now beyond dispute that Hamas converted schools, hospitals, residences, etc. into infrastructure to support the Hamas goals of eradicating Israel.
Another editorial is warranted exposing the myriad enablers of Hamas: UNRWA, the many NGOs providing aid to Gazans, Qatar, etc., and how they either kept silent or were actively complicit in supporting Hamas.
Also, I hope the IDF pays attention to this important editorial and includes in their hasbara efforts a detailed record of the many instances where Hamas has been caught red-handed in subverting civilian infrastructure for their own malign purposes and against the general welfare of the Gazan population.
ROD MCLEOD
Timrat
Not large enough
In “After Gaza” (December 10), Zalman Shoval makes an excellent point. Gaza is not large enough to support a population of 2,300,000 people. Nor, we should note, was UNRWA ever intended to support a population of 6,000,000 “Palestine refugees.”
Some population shifts are going to have to be made in order to facilitate the rebuilding of infrastructure in Gaza. Such relocations will also be helpful in realizing the objectives which Prime Minister Netanyahu has outlined – demilitarizing Gaza and deradicalizing the Palestinians.
Israel will certainly need to maintain security control in Gaza until it feels it is safe to step away. However, the formation of a civil government should be left up to Arab countries which have allied with Israel in the Abraham Accords.
The US and other Western countries should be involved in carefully monitoring the use of funds donated for repair of war damages suffered in Gaza during Operation Iron Swords, and in integrating Palestinian refugees into the citizenry of Arab countries. All countries involved should work to revise the school curricula to remove anti-Jewish language and to acknowledge that the modern State of Israel is located in the Jewish ancestral homeland.
TOBY F. BLOCK
Atlanta
Concessions and surrender
With the death toll among our IDF soldiers reaching horrific numbers, and who knows how many more will fall even as I write, it is surely Israel who should be making the decision as to when this deadly war should end (“Israel says US has not set a deadline for end of war,” December 10).
Israel’s National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi told Channel 12 on Saturday that “achieving the goals cannot be measured in weeks or months; the IDF will reach any point it wants in Gaza.” One would hope and expect that point will only be after the total elimination of Hamas, as promised by Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Hopefully this will be one promise that is kept if we are not to have another October 7, as threatened by Hamas. Of course this situation of horror in which we find ourselves would have been avoided had Hamas been eliminated years ago, instead of being bribed with money from Qatar, with Netanyahu’s consent, to keep its attacks at a minimum, and also if Jewish families had not been forcibly expelled from Gush Katif.
Concessions and surrender have proved wrong so often. One wonders how the lesson had not been learned, especially by the prime minister, who has always assured us that only he is in charge, and that only he can bring security and peace to our little and precious Jewish land. The atrocities speak for themselves as to the veracity of his words.
EDITH OGNALL
Netanya