Letters to the Editor: Cameron’s comments

This is a result of the failure of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), operating with six full-time staff.

Letters (photo credit: REUTERS)
(photo credit: REUTERS)
Cameron’s comments
With regard to “Netanyahu hits back at Cameron over Jerusalem comments” (February 26), British Prime Minister David Cameron’s first visit to Jerusalem was on March 12, 2014, but one does not recollect him saying at the time that the situation in east Jerusalem was “genuinely shocking.”
In addition, he was hoist on his own petard by failing to refute the parliamentary questioner’s description of the Old City as being in “Palestine.” Clearly, as somebody who openly claimed when he addressed the Knesset that one of his forbears was Jewish, Cameron’s response was shocking.
This is a result of the failure of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), operating with six full-time staff.
Stuart Polak, a former director of CFI who was made a CBE, and a year later was elevated to a peerage, made the following statement, reported the same day in the Jewish Chronicle: “The prime minister has given me a once in a lifetime opportunity to enter the House of Lords, which will enable me to continue to advocate for Israel.”
Lord Polak, CBE, has well and truly screwed it up, to put it mildly!
COLIN L. LECI Jerusalem
Concerning the insulting statements now wafting from Britain, the country’s flagrant duplicity as mandatory power in Palestine lies at the core of the Arab conflict with Israel. It breached its trust commitments by, inter alia, blocking the reconstitution of the Jewish national home and impeding “Jewish immigration” and “close settlement on the land” (Clause 6 of the Mandate).
When Jewish refugees on stricken vessels sought immigration – many escaping the bloody flames raging in Nazi-occupied Europe – vessels and human cargo were summarily attacked at sea by cowardly British forces in blatant breach of Britain’s mandatory commitments. Yet today, when Spanish warships brazenly sail into British Gibraltar’s territorial waters (a very frequent show of Hispanic hooliganism), David Cameron’s Britain shoddily turns a blind eye and does nothing.
For the gutless Cameron to even chirp on anything remotely connected to Israel is a sign of his willingness to pander to Israel’s detractors for cheap political reasons.
May I suggest that before he digs his nostrils in Israel’s affairs, he should stand up to Spain for its undying, malicious and illegal efforts at quashing Gibraltarians’ political aspirations.
That is where Cameron’s gutless guts are needed. Not in Jerusalem!
LEVI J. ATTIAS Gibraltar
Time to ask
In “Chief Rabbinate in fierce attack on non-Orthodox” (February 26), your reporters fail to mention that the job of the Chief Rabbinate is to represent all Jews in Israel.
Its leadership and staff are not paid by the people of Israel to represent just a minority of Jews. It is time to ask the question as to whether the present organization is suitable for the Israel of today, or whether it should be changed.
Would the Jews they condemn have survived pogroms and gas chambers? The answer is no. So stop attacking Jews and start supporting the majority of Jews, and not the minority that is trying to create a separate religion.
MICHAEL H. DAVIS Rishon Lezion
No ghost is she
I so enjoyed David Brinn’s “Requiem to the ghosts” (Parting Shot, February 26) because I am one of them.
I used to love going to the old building in Romema; collecting books from Elliot Jager to review; being sent with a photographer by Joanna Yehiel to cover stories all over the country; dropping in to say hello to Alex Berlyne. I am overcome with nostalgia.
When my last book came out, a lady rang me and said: “I was delighted you have written another book because I thought you were dead years ago.” Maybe I am, but nobody’s told me yet.
The Trump dilemma
With regard to “Trump’s surge confounds Republican rivals” (February 26), should he lose the GOP presidential nomination, Donald Trump should go into the oil business.
He’s slick and he’s crude.
If it comes to fruition, though, choosing between him and Hillary Clinton will be like choosing between ipecac and castor oil!
HERB STARK Mooresville, North Carolina
Iridological claims
Regarding “Look me straight into the eye and tell me how I feel” (Weekend, February 26), 50 years of practicing ophthalmology tell me instinctively that iridology has no shred of scientific basis. The article does not describe a single change in the appearance of the iris that would point to any general disease. It refers to many “health conditions,” but not a single disease is specified as a predictive factor for any illness.
Modern medicine is based, to a large extent, on clinical studies that are statistically valid, as opposed to findings that are anecdotal. Unless iridologists can submit their methodology to controlled studies involving many thousands of patients, their diagnostic methods cannot be considered scientific.
Shmuley and Cory
With regard to “The vanishing Jews of Cory Booker’s memoirs” (No Holds Barred, February 23), had Rabbi Shmuley Boteach paid heed to the wise counsel of our ancient sages, he would have been forewarned and not so disappointed with his former protégé’s about-face.
In Chapter 2 of the Ethics of Our Fathers, Rabban Gamliel states: “Beware of those in power, for they befriend a person only for their benefit; they seem to be friends when it is to their advantage, but do not stand by you in your hour of need.”
Shmuley Boteach is an effective and articulate advocate for Israel and Jewish causes. His columns are worthwhile reading, not only for the substance, but for the entertainment value resulting from his extensive and amusing name-dropping of celebrities, statesmen and Nobel Prize laureates of his acquaintance.
However, an inordinately long column devoted to his personal disappointment with New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker is not really of interest to the Israeli reader who is concerned with more pressing and important issues.
Expected more
Your February 19 editorial “Free the mikve!” was articulate, well constructed and thoughtful – if one is committed to telling half the story.
It is fascinating and revealing that the author could not find even one redeeming aspect to the reluctance of the Orthodox community to confer legitimacy on other “streams of Judaism.”
Might there be another rationale other than the proffered “to convince them to think differently”? Might there be legitimate religious/halachic concerns that need to be considered? It was very telling that the editorial did not make even a single mention of God, Torah, Halacha, tradition or ritual. Obviously, if one removes these constructs from the conversation, what remains are politics, power plays and the “stifling of creativity.”
Is it truly possible that the author of the editorial could not find even one articulate spokesman for the Orthodox position who could have been able to provide a thoughtful and articulate alternative approach? Such an inclusion would have gone a long way toward demonstrating The Jerusalem Post’s desire to air all sides of an issue. Isn’t this the democratic and “non-discriminatory” way of doing things? Can one reasonably conclude that the Post discriminates against Orthodox Jews? Don’t equal rights have to flow in both directions: the one you prefer and the one you dislike? In my naiveté, I sincerely expected more!