Letters to the Editor December 6, 2021: ‘Natural’ to murder a Jew?

Readers of The Jerusalem Post have their say.

Letters (photo credit: PIXABAY)
(photo credit: PIXABAY)

‘Natural’ to murder a Jew?

From the words of Regional Cooperation Minister Esawi Frej and Joint List MKs Aida Touma-Sliman and Ofer Cassif (“Terrorist wounds 20-year-old in Damascus Gate stabbing attack,” December 5), it seems that an attempt by a Muslim to murder a Jew in the nation-state of the Jewish people is a natural course of events that need not evoke any reaction. However, when a terrorist whose intention was to murder a Jew is killed, well then we hear the above-esteemed persons self-righteously call the act of the Border Police an “act of indifference towards human life,” “an execution,” “a horrible and terrible crime” and “a blatant war crime.”

As a Jewish citizen of the State of Israel, I stand four-square behind the brave Border Police personnel who hastily ran to the aid of the visibly Jewish victim of the attempted murder and killed the terrorist forthwith. These men and women of the Border Police stand guard each and every day as a bulwark against the evil intent of terrorists and as such the speedy reaction of these men in my eyes was a justified act of self-defense in the name of every potential victim of terrorist murderers. Let every terrorist know that he/she will not survive an attempt to murder a Jew.


This is the voice and direction of today’s coalition government. Shameful that we have to sit with coalition members who rush to judgment against Border Police reaction to an armed terrorist who had already and continued to attempt to injure Jews and Israel Border Police.

 Israeli Border policemen patrol the area near the site of a shooting incident in Jerusalem's Old City November 21, 2021. (credit: REUTERS/AMMAR AWAD) Israeli Border policemen patrol the area near the site of a shooting incident in Jerusalem's Old City November 21, 2021. (credit: REUTERS/AMMAR AWAD)

Can we now expect a motion in the Knesset to name this terrorist a martyr and set up funding for his family. 


Cause for another election?

The Bennett family trip (“Trusting leadership,” editorial, December 5) was a poor decision which, in the end will not have much of a result. The prime minister admitted this and it should be the end of the story. 

Is this enough to cause the government to be out of office and have another election?

I don’t think so.


Don’t break us down

In large part, America finds itself irreconcilably polarized as a result of those who have stoked divisions based on race, religion, wealth and other differences which serve their narrative du jour. Israel would be wise not to follow that ill-advised path and further stoke the flames by using dubious polls (“Study examines if evangelicals can be convinced to vaccinate against corona,” December 5) to shore up their claim that “white” evangelicals are the real problem. The article goes on to list, by specific race, percentages of evangelicals who have not been persuaded to take the jab.

While it’s tempting to copy the type of ugly journalism which has clearly contributed to humanity’s split, it serves no furtherance of good will, common brotherhood or unification at a time when no one has 100% irrefutable evidence and all the knowledge on a virus which is still not yet fully understood. So why break us down, by race or religion, into compliant or non-compliant pockets? It only drives a deeper wedge into our already fractured society and puts off so many readers who find these types of articles distasteful, self-serving and downright insulting.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way and welcome others to join in rejecting such shameful tribalistic reporting.


Stories about opinion surveys can be tricky, and the one on the evangelical movement and Israel demonstrates why. In the first place, the headline is, for the most part, clickbait since it leads to a somewhat misleading assumption that the members of the movement are basically “dismissive” of Israel, which, of course, is not accurate. As the story relates, the majority of those surveyed are ambivalent, and not sure where they stand vis-à-vis Israel being God’s chosen people or how high up on the list of priorities Israel should be placed. That uncertainty should have been the headline, but, of course, the one you used more effectively grabbed your readers’ attention.

I’m sure Infinity Concepts and Grey Matter are not new to the world of opinion surveys, nonetheless a word or two of their methodology would have been nice. For example, how was their sample chosen, and what was the precise wording of the questions that were asked. We all know that an “and” instead of an “or” can create woefully inaccurate conclusions.

That aside, there are two more significant and important aspects to the story – one confusing and the other troubling – that need to be addressed.

What’s confusing is that early in the story we’re told that, according to the study, “…28% of evangelicals reject the idea that Jews were ever God’s chosen people…” Toward the end, though, we’re told that “more than half (51%) of evangelicals believe that Jews are still God’s chosen people…” Unless I missed something that explains this contradiction, the stats, somewhere, went off the track.

The troubling part has to do with the four criteria used to define an American evangelical. Three of the four I have no problem with; each person is entitled to embrace faith as he or she wishes. The fourth principle, however, which requires evangelicals “…to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their savior,” smacks of proselytism, if you ask me, which is, if my understanding is correct, illegal in Israel. That fourth principle needs to be kept in mind when interacting with our evangelical benefactors.

And, no, I am not suggesting that the resources and assistance that come from this movement be refused. On the contrary, we should do our utmost to convince the 53% of those sitting on the fence that Israel should indeed be made a high-end priority and welcome them with open arms when they visit the Holy Land. Providing, that is, we make it clearly understood that our expressions of appreciation and gratitude for their financial and political support are just that, and not promissory notes for something more spiritually binding down the road.


Tearing up a tallit

For Leah Aharoni (“Don’t cherish Jewish values? You don’t get to make the call,” December 5), the battle lines are drawn on the issue of religion and state and she is adamant on the point that secular people should not tear up a tallit and use it to wash the house. Why? Because there are millions of people out there who value the tallit as a holy religious item. OK, agreed, we shouldn’t tear up the tallit and we promise not to do it.

In fact, we never intended to do it and would be shocked if we saw anybody do it – in their home or outside. Just like we would be shocked if we saw somebody beating a baby or a defenseless animal. No Shabbat transportation and the Friday night dinner are also holy rituals for Leah but there are also millions of people out there who want to take their family to the beach on Saturday, have fun, splash around, enjoy a dinner meal with the kids on the way home (even if the restaurant is not kosher).

It may be a bit more simple-minded than studying Torah all day long but not everybody can or wants to be a Talmud scholar and live like the Jews of old. Live and let live should be the motto. We won’t desecrate the tallitot; you keep your eyes off the road on the Sabbath. Anyway you’ll be inside at home or at shul most of the day. 


Laughing at the West 

Regarding “129 nations reject Jewish connection to Temple Mount, call it solely Muslim site” (December 3), the United Nations exemplifies ill repute. It is a place for potentates and their relatives and flunkies to party, largely at the expense of the United States. The issues they deal with have little real import. They are there to drink, eat and schmooze.

They laugh at the innocent western nations, who treat them with dignity, and plot how to suck more money out of them to continue their lavish lifestyles, while most of their people wallow in poverty (all the more helpful to make us feel guilty at the inequality). 129 members of the UN disavowed Jewish ties to the Temple Mount. 129 members of the UN are liars and every one of them knows it. 129 members of the UN reject both the Jewish and Christian attachment to the Temple Mount. Will these members rewrite their bibles as they are rewriting history?

Why is it that one of the few liberal democracies in the world, and the only one in the Middle East and North Africa, is castigated at the behest of a false Palestinian victimhood agenda?

The UN is antisemitic. That is evident, but why?

The 56 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation employ Taqiya, the right/obligation to lie to the infidel to gain an advantage over them. That concept is foreign to westerners brought up under the rule of law, based on the Ten Commandments which include ”Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

All the dictatorships fear freedom and democracy as setting a bad example for their people. All states that hate the US, hate Israel as well. Some countries are under economic control and others fear the growing power of the radical Islamists in their midst.

The most pathetic states are those who “abstain.” They know the “Jerusalem resolution” is wrong and racist, but haven’t the spine to vote against it.

The biggest hypocrisy is that every UN member knows article 80 of the UN Charter ensures they cannot abrogate what was promised the Jews by the San Remo Resolution in 1920 and ratified by the League of Nations in 1922, yet they persist in condemning Israel.


This recent UN vote is, indeed, very disheartening. Not only does the resolution deny the historicity of Jewish claims to Jerusalem and the city’s holy sites, but it also ignores the question of how different groups have treated each other in Jerusalem. Israel protects the holy sites of all religions, while synagogues were destroyed and Jewish graves were desecrated during Jordan’s illegal occupation of eastern Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. Furthermore, the Jordanian Wakf, which Israel graciously allows to administer the mosques located on the Temple Mount, has permitted Palestinians to defile al-Aqsa Mosque, using it as a site for storing weapons and staging attacks on Jews worshiping at the Western Wall.

The statement of Riyad Mansour clearly reveals that Palestinian leaders are not seeking a state, coexisting with the nation-state of the Jews, in which the Palestinians could become productive citizens. The permanent observer of Palestine to the United Nations seeks to give the Palestinians “hope,” by having the UN approve resolutions denying that Israel has roots in the Middle East. But it is not the existence of the Jewish state that has driven the Palestinians to despair. Their hopelessness comes from having seen their leaders’ stealing monies donated for the people’s benefit; from seeing donated funds and supplies diverted from civilian use to efforts to destroy Israel; from seeing generations trapped in refugee limbo, told that their only escape will come when Israel is forced to give them the homes they claim their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents… lost during (Arab-initiated) violence against the Jewish community in Palestine and against the Jewish state; from knowing that Israel will not commit suicide by agreeing to take in millions of people raised in societies that honor and reward the murder of Jews.


Saving UNRWA

Regarding “Stop saving UNRWA from itself,” (December 3), UNRWA became obsolete when the UNHCR was created. As a humanitarian aid agency, it should have been immediately absorbed into UNHCR.

Today, it serves mostly as another propaganda arm for the Palestinian Authority and an additional source of free income for solving PA problems in the health and education spheres.

Consider the following two quotes:

PA Minister of Social Development Dr. Ahmed Majdalani as quoted by the Al-Quds website on October 27 – “UNRWA is not an institution that provides services to the refugees, but rather a political symbol of the right of return... UNRWA is the basic political address for the right of return and self-determination for the Palestinian refugees.”

Fatah Commissioner of Refugee and UNRWA Affairs Hassan Ahmed on official PA TV on October 16 - “The right of return is a sacred right, individually and collectively, which has no statute of limitations... The refugees are not just those who were expelled from their land, but also all their offspring are refugees until Judgment Day. This is contrary to what the US wants: to empty the refugees of their meaning, thwart this, and turn the refugee commission into a humanitarian cause. Our cause is political and not humanitarian, because we have an identity of which we are proud. It is essential to return to our land and our homeland.”

Dissolving UNRWA might force the PA to face its responsibility for health and education problems in Palestinian society, and to fund such programs themselves, hopefully, at the expense of other PA programs like stipends to terrorist murderers and their families, sometimes referred to as “Pay to Slay” funding.