Jerusalem Post Letters to the Editor: MoU and Iran

The porridge would not have been in Israel’s gullet, but all over its face.

Letters (photo credit: REUTERS)
(photo credit: REUTERS)
MoU and Iran
Thank you for your continued coverage of the dispute among Israeli leaders as to whether or not Israel would have had billions more in US military aid if only Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had not pushed his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal (“Netanyahu calls criticism of US aid package ‘ingratitude,’” September 19). Especially noteworthy in this regard is “Senior US official: MoU not compensation for Tehran deal” (September 18).
With 30 years of experience in American foreign service, I particularly appreciate the fact that such consistent opposition has positioned Israel as the new coalition builder against the ayatollahs of Iran, especially for the Middle East.
This is a direct result of Netanyahu’s staunch stand against the deal.
US President Barack Obama gleefully points to some Israeli defense officials to insinuate their support for the deal just because the ayatollahs are abiding (so far) with its terms. And why wouldn’t Tehran, given that the deal is so advantageous for it? How much more would Obama be exuding sounds of vindication had Netanyahu caved? And for what? A supposed extra bowl of porridge? “How like the Jews!” would have resounded from the rafters. And in the same flourish, Jerusalem would have betrayed all its friends, supporters and allies against Iran in the hour of decision.
The porridge would not have been in Israel’s gullet, but all over its face.
Pervasive malady
My wife has long been saying that Seth J. Frantzman is a great columnist, but I could not fully agree until I read “The failure of Israel’s intellectual class” (Terra Incognita, September 19).
Bravo Seth! You have clearly, indeed bravely, identified a pervasive malady of disconnectedness that affects intellectuals here, as well as in the US. They have forgotten that they are actually public servants, supported, if not coddled, by society in the name of helping to elevate it, guide it and make it think harder and perhaps differently about what it perceives.
There is a thin line that has been erased between a loving rebuke and sanctimonious, disdainful preaching about the wrongfulness of society, its leaders and its direction. The result has been an intensifying, vicious circle in which jilted intellectuals have become ever more shrill in their social condemnations.
While not an intellectual, the wealthy Shunammite woman who supported Elisha the prophet, who in turn miraculously revived her dead son, captured succinctly the mission statement that intellectuals have long forgotten: I dwell among my own people.
Trump and the Jews
Your “special report” (“Pride and affirmative prejudice: Donald Trump and the Jews,” September 19) was inherently an opinion piece disguised as investigative reporting. But what’s the opinion? Too much nuance and unsophisticated interviews present a view of Donald Trump where one can take away whichever opinion one prefers. Does Trump like to do business with Jews? Yes. Is Trump xenophobic? Yes.
The Jerusalem Post, interested in selling papers, is clearly not going to ruffle feathers. Readers are fickle. But tell me the relevance of Trump’s polling place being New York’s Central Synagogue.
One is assigned a voting location. There’s no choice. This was a gratuitous fact to build the pro-Trump case.
The time for parity in this election is long over. It is an abomination that any Jew might consider electing the demagogue Trump. The man is a desperate liar with a lifelong history of immorality.
“Show me your friends, and I’ll tell you who you are.” Sound advice for American citizens who are looking for a presidential candidate who will be strongly supportive of Israel.
Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers include Huma Abedin (whose mother is an editor of a radical Muslim publication), and Sydney Blumenthal (whose son openly calls for the destruction of Israel and compares it and its soldiers to Nazi Germany).
In order to secure the support of Bernie Sanders, her opponent in the primaries, Clinton is said to have agreed to selecting some of his pro-Palestinian advisers for her cabinet. During the Democratic convention, she approved the most pro-Palestinian platform in the party’s history.
On the other hand, one of Donald Trump’s closest advisers is his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a Jew and a Zionist. Likely choices for his cabinet include Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee, all avid friends of Israel.
And the Republican platform adopted by Trump is unequivocally pro-Israel.
The choice is clear. Donald Trump is your man!
As a long-term subscriber to The Jerusalem Post, I was surprised and appalled at reading not only a front-page article about candidate Donald Trump, but also a full two-page “special report.” Never before have I seen you publish a “special report” on any American candidate in the front section.
I subscribe to the Post in hopes of finding things on Israeli topics and Israeli people, not comprehensive spreads about American presidential candidates. This is a waste of space, a waste of time and an almost blatant currying of Anglo votes for a specific candidate.
Please, give us more rounded reporting of Israel in our newspaper! LORRAINE SKUPSKY Jerusalem Neither of the candidates belongs in this presidential race because of their “excess baggage.”
It’s pitiful and embarrassing for this great nation, and I am of the opinion that Congress shares responsibility for the catastrophe.
Voters should hold the winner’s feet to the fire for unfulfilled promises.
HERB STARK Mooresville, North Carolina
There is a fortune to be made by someone who markets a simple device – a padded clothespin that allows voters to hold their noses while using their hands to vote.
Elitist proposal
With regard to your September 19 news item “Lapid calls for two-term limit for prime ministers” [erroneously headlined “Lapid calls for two-year term limit for prime ministers” – ed.], I am old enough to remember that when the political Right proposed something the Left disliked, the Left would call it “fascist.”
The good news is that the Left has become a bit more civilized, and it now calls everything it doesn’t like “undemocratic.”
How ironic it is – and, of course, perfectly understandable – that because the Left and Center have been unable to replace Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu through democratic means or use of the court system, their new tactic is to deprive voters of free choice. There is nothing more undemocratic then saying to voters you are not allowed to vote for a particular person. Thus, the recent proposals to institute term limits is the most antidemocratic and elitist proposal we have heard in a while.
It’s basically the Left and Center saying: “We don’t like who the rest of the country democratically chooses as leader, so we will take away one of their choices and tell them who they can vote for.”
My reply to them? How about using the democratic process and finally fielding a candidate who can win an election for prime minister?
Checking the books
Relating to “Israel’ textbooks ‘do not incite against Palestinians’” (September 16), is anybody checking the Palestinians’ textbooks and curricula to see if they meet “UNESCO-derived standards of peace and tolerance in education”?