Letters to the Editor: December 10

All the politics of the past are affected by the fact of the upcoming election.

Letters (photo credit: REUTERS)
(photo credit: REUTERS)
Protecting rights
Sir, – The article “Kerry: There is no alternative to two-state solution” (December 8), repeats the consensus formula for the peace process. This (the “two-state solution”), is supported by many past statements of dignitaries, such as “PM stresses to Obama he remains committed to two-state solution” (October 2).
However, all the politics of the past are affected by the fact of the upcoming elections. In addition, the formula of the two-state solution ignores the problem of denial of Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount. Indeed, all those countries proclaiming the existence of a Palestinian state do not mention the Temple Mount, probably because they don’t know what to say about it. It is hoped that the world community doesn’t think Israel will give up any of the Jewish homeland without regaining its inalienable rights to Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount.
Whereas decades ago some senior rabbis forbade aliya to Palestine, and currently some rabbis forbid and express recriminations at those rabbis who support prayer at our holiest site, let us not forgo our responsibilities. We expect both our religious and our political leaders to protect the religious and just rights of the Jewish people, as our governments have protected the religious rights of Muslims and Christians.
Sir, – We seem to accept that any country or group of people including the UN has the right to interfere in the dispute between Jews and Arabs and to insist on the partition and establishment of a “Palestinian state” in the tiny piece of land known by many as the Holy Land (to Christians and Jews but not to Muslims).
Contrary to the accepted perception, the legacy of Yitzhak Rabin was not the establishment of two states in the aftermath of the Oslo Accords. In his last speech to the Knesset before his assassination he said the State of Israel is a Jewish state, it would include most of the land which was under the rule of the British Mandate, the Palestinian entity would be less than a state, we will not return to the pre-1967 lines, and the security border will be the Jordan Valley. This speech is a matter of public record.
No country is concerned with the demands of the Kurds or the Catalans or any other group who want a state of their own, why do we accept that Israel is the only country subjected to worldwide interference and the pressure of establishing another state within the borders of the British Mandate?
Beit Shemesh
A lot to learn
Good for this group of haredi women for standing up for rights that have been trampled for far too long (“‘No representation, no vote’ say haredi women,” December 8). Though most haredi women not only are the breadwinners but also the cooks, cleaners and child minders of the families while their husbands learn, they receive no representation in the parties they are all induced to vote for.
Haredi women are expected to remain in the wings while the men of the ultra-Orthodox world attempt to represent their needs in the Knesset. Why shouldn’t their voices be heard? I think we all have a lot to learn from these hard workers.
Why should we even allow political parties in our so-called democratic parliament who bar women from ever appearing on their lists?
Unwise call
Sir, – It is not surprising that Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua and David Grossman publicly express their support for a two-state solution as they have been doing this for years (“Oz, Grossman, Yehoshua call on Europe to recognize ‘Palestine,’” December 8). It is, however, somewhat surprising that they call for supporting a one-sided measure to recognize a Palestinian state at the same time as the Palestinian leadership is insisting it will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Their action at this time can thus be seen not only as a repudiation of the Israeli government’s official position, but as giving support to one-sided resolutions which reject all compromise.
Their action would thus seem to be in the direction of distancing rather than encouraging peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Apparently, outstanding literary skill does not necessarily bring with it wise political judgment.
Sir, – I find it sad that leading Israeli writers understand less about the Middle East than does the French-Jewish philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy who recently wrote: “For nearly half a century I have favored the two-state solution.
But I believe that the ‘unilateral recognition’ of Palestine under consideration in the French parliament is a bad idea for three reasons. 1. Hamas. Its charter and its agenda. The fact that, for the time being at least, Hamas administers one of the two territories that make up the state that supposedly must be recognized immediately and with great fanfare. The fact that Hamas’s doctrine is that Israel must be destroyed.
One does not recognize, even symbolically, a state in which half of the government denies another state’s right to exist.
One does not recognize, especially not symbolically, a government in which half of the ministers dream of annihilating that state.”
Blatant bias
Sir, – I am writing in reference to the news item in The Jerusalem Post “Leave or let live? More Arabs move in to Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem” by Dan Williams of Reuters (December 8).
What a reporter writes is clearly his or her responsibility. What a newspaper publishes is obviously the responsibility of its editors.
When a supposed news article – in contrast to an opinion piece – appears with a blatantly political bias, noting “...a small but growing number of Arabs are moving into Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem” – referring to French Hill, Pisgat Ze’ev and Neveh Ya’acov, it behooves the editorial staff to, minimally, note the political connotation of the word used.
I am extremely disappointed that you allowed that to pass without comment.
Colossal joke
Sir, – The recent Jerusalem Post article quoting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu requesting US Secretary of State John Kerry release Jonathan Pollard is a colossal joke (“After Pollard hospitalized again, PM tells Kerry to let him go,” December 7). He might as well direct the request to Lassie. The only one that can grant clemency to Pollard is President Barack Obama. Unfortunately, Obama’s immoral objective is to see that the Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard dies in prison.
Zichron Yaakov
Sir, – Once again, Netanyahu is playing the political game of requesting a pardon for Jonathan Pollard that he knows will be denied. With elections looming, violence brewing, budgets thinning, an ecological catastrophe spreading in the South and relations with the US far from ideal, our prime minister should have plenty other things to work on.
But Netanyahu is just another in a long line of Israeli officials convinced by the well-oiled Pollard PR machine that somehow the release of a convicted spy should be top of the Israeli agenda.
I’d like to see our officials focus instead on the other eight million Israeli citizens, most of whom didn’t commit treason for the profit.
The Jerusalem Post apologizes for incorrectly reporting on Tuesday that Geula Even had been suspended from her job at Channel 1. We regret the error.