Letters to the Editor June 15, 2021: Knesset kerfuffle

I was appalled and dismayed to view the immature behavior of so many in the Knesset as Prime Minister Naftali Bennett was being installed on Sunday. The booing, nasty comments, insults, catcalls and general boorish behavior made me wonder how many of these people are parents setting terrible examples for their own children and young people in general. 

There must be a way to disagree in a more agreeable way!

As an American olah, I admit that I have had difficulty at times fathoming the workings of the Israeli political system. But never have I felt more alienated than I did while trying to watch the swearing in of the new government on TV.

 Instead of the peaceful transition of ministries, there was an exhibition of schoolyard screaming and yelling, necessitating the removal of several ministers from the Knesset chamber. 

Nor could these be passed off as the “crazies.” I recognized people yelling at the top of their lungs, who would never raise their voices in their own homes. There was not even a semblance of putting the national interest ahead of parochial party.

I shudder to think what the rest of the world will make of this spectacle; certainly we don’t have to worry about being given bad press coverage – we have done it to ourselves. 

It was disheartening, bordering on disgusting, to read article after article parading the disrespect and flawed characters of almost half the lawmakers in the Knesset. The behavior during Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s maiden address was, as David Brinn wrote, “a national embarrassment” (“Shameful display,” June 14).

Outgoing prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, arguably one of the finest leaders of this wonderful country, couldn’t bring himself in his speech to acknowledge the new prime minister in any positive way. No “mazal tov” from him to Bennett, but rather “threats” to take down the nascent government. From walkouts to ousters by Knesset security, the new opposition showed its colors. 

But the one article that had no business at all being in the paper and on the front page, was the one that said, “The Jerusalem Post reached out to someone who has been there before: former prime minister....Ehud Olmert.” As a convicted corrupt politician whose raison d’etre has long been Netanyahu bashing, he is certainly not in any position to grace us with his recommendations.

Please get Olmert off the Post pages and start giving the new government more positive feedback. They and the country need it.

I rarely read Ehud Olmert’s weekly screeds against former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu – I’m not looking to aggravate myself over breakfast – but I read your article about his take on the new government (“Olmert: New PM’s job is to bring calm,” June 14) twice to make sure I wasn’t hallucinating. But no, I got it right: not once in your article did you mention Olmert’s criminal past, his conviction for bribery, his years behind bars. 

This from a newspaper that seemingly has been hounding Netanyahu for years over investigations, allegations and an indictment for a crime made up just for him. 

Hailing Haley

 

It is important to respond to “Haley: Iran deal is ‘death wish’ for Israel” (June 15), because it is so far from the truth. Please consider:

1. A February 23 Jerusalem Post headline was, “Ex-IDF generals, top Mossad officials urge Biden’s return to Iran deal.” This is just one indication that the majority of the world’s nuclear, military, and strategic experts believe that the Iran nuclear deal is the best approach to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

2 The original nuclear deal was signed in 2015 not only by the Obama administration, but also by the United Kingdom, Russia, France, China, Germany and the European Union. All of these countries and others support the US returning to the nuclear deal, as Iran is now closer to getting a nuclear weapon since president Donald Trump pulled the US out of the deal.

Of course many of Iran’s statements and actions must be strongly condemned and sanctions not related to the nuclear deal should be maintained, but, based on the views off military and strategic experts and most world leaders, returning to the nuclear deal is the best approach to preventing Iran from producing a nuclear weapon. 

Former US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley’s visit to Israel this week is deeply appreciated, particularly in light of Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar’s inexcusable, false claim that Israel committed “unspeakable atrocities” by defending itself with precision strikes against thousands of deadly Iran-backed Hamas rockets. 

Haley’s astounding clarity of vision regarding the problems with the Iran nuclear deal has been confirmed by innumerable experts around the world continually for more than half a decade. As far back as August 2015, for example, 190 former generals and admirals sent a letter to Congressional leaders expressing opposition to the deal. 

Capitulating to Iran’s demand that the US return to the original deal without fixing its most fatal flaws would be a blow to Israel and the region, and a boon to destabilization and terrorism.

If Haley is considering a future in politics, I, for one, am ready to volunteer to work for her. Where do I sign up?

Virtually all news items about the “Flags March” deal with security considerations (“Flag march approved despite Hamas threats,” June 15). But there is a concern that does not seem to be addressed or considered: common consideration and good manners. 

The Old City’s Muslim Quarter is a neighborhood – a place of residence of east Jerusalem Muslims. Common consideration of the sensitivities of others mandates that all who live in this land behave in a respectful and considerate manner toward each other. Even when many members of “the other side” fail to do so, this does not relieve us, as Jews, and simply as civilized persons, from showing respect and consideration toward others. 

How would we “feel” if non-Jews were to drive through Jewish neighborhoods blaring their car radios and disturbing the atmosphere? Would we not regard this as inconsiderate? Reciprocally, isn’t it insensitive and inconsiderate for Jewish Israelis to disturb the atmosphere of an Arab residential neighborhood by loudly parading through it with flags emphasizing our ownership and pre-eminence here? 

Yes, this is a Jewish country. It does belong to us and we do have the right to walk anywhere in it. At the same time, this is the country of anyone and everyone who was born here and lives here, regardless of religion or ethnicity. This is their home as well as ours. We are all neighbors and need to show neighborly consideration for each other. 

“Love thy neighbor as thyself” applies to all neighbors, not only to fellow Jews.

Regarding “Gideon Sa’ar’s New Hope Party announces ministerial nominations” (June 13), the parties who decried the bloated ministry appointments of the previous government have now passed an all-encompassing Norwegian Law allowing seemingly unlimited appointments (and drains on the budget) at a time when austerity makes the most sense. Many of the appointments are “learn on the job” positions, as their holders have no relevant experience.

Rather than take away unemployment benefits, perhaps Finance Minister Avigdor Liberman should take away inappropriate appointment benefits.

It appears that this government, which has no cohesive ideology other than “dethrone Netanyahu,” is showing its true colors: say anything to get elected, but do what’s best for me. 

To the two leaders of the incoming government, I, as a haredi, would like to offer some words of advice.

Both of you profess a deep love for Israel and Jewry as a whole. Now that you are assuming responsibility to govern, you must ensure that what you do is for the whole of Israel and not just a part. It is your duty to understand and respect each segment of the community, their hopes, desires and beliefs. Any other course leads to a disastrous rupture of the fabric of our society. 

This must shape what and how you introduce change, particularly regarding the religious sector, which sees the traditional form of Judaism as an unchanging guide to their way of life. Their Judaism is a central core of life, with an importance for which their ancestors have sacrificed their lives.

This was recognized at the foundation of Israel by David Ben-Gurion, who was not a haredi, but whose knowledge of history taught him to accommodate the beliefs of the Haredi element, which was then not as large as today. We have in the past had the unfortunate experience of dividing Jewry into two separate branches – both during the Temple period and later – and only traditional Judaism survived. Ben-Gurion realized that the state needed to respect the forms of that religion if it was not to be split into “them” and “us,” and Jewry was to remain a single nation in Israel. That was the basis of the famous “status quo,” a major block to changes that apparently are now envisaged.

You have been told that there are many faces of Judaism and religious beliefs, as preached by the American Reform Movement, which has little support from the majority of the Jewish population and disregards traditional beliefs, such as Shabbat and kashrut. Their concept of changing laws to conform with the times is anathema to traditional belief, a repudiation of divine revelation and thus an abandonment of the sanctity of the Bible. To proceed on that understanding is to adopt the approach of the Reform at a time when that movement is diminishing as a relevant factor for what remains of American Jewry.

Before you introduce legislation, contemplate what its consequences will be. Legislation cannot change Halacha. To require a rabbi to officiate at a wedding between a Jew and one whose conversion is valid only according to civil law will render most rabbis liable for refusing. I trust you have no desire to convince a large part of Israeli Jewry that they are in exile in what should be their own country. To some extent that has already occurred; there are those who wonder whether they are about to suffer the same intolerance that observant Jews have suffered at the hands of non-Jews for so long. It is your obligation as leaders to disabuse them; any other course could lead to a major conflict between the state and religion, which could lead to undesirable consequences.

No one in Israel is forced to be religious, No one is asking either of you to become haredi. We pray that your term of office will exemplify that we haredim are citizens too and are entitled to our beliefs.

I can go along with much of the opinion expressed in the editorial “End religious incitement” (June 10). The MKs of the religious parties expressed themselves in ways I think Torah-observent Jews refrain from.

But I understand where they are coming from – and I am sad to say one line in the editorial shows you do not. “Showing flexibility on civil marriage (is) not a threat to Judaism”

True, for the individual, who has free choice to observe or not observe, this would probably not make much of a difference. However, for the entire Jewish people, for Klal Yisrael, especially in Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel, these issues are of tremendous impact and importance. They are a threat to Eretz Yisrael.

Our land is not like all other lands. Our land is holy; it’s the place where the Temples stood in Jerusalem, where the Tabernacle stood in Shiloh, in Samaria for 400+ years prior to the Temple, where our forefathers walked, raised sheep, dug wells, preached monotheism. This is the country where Jews can live as Jews more fully, keeping commandments that don’t apply to the Diaspora, such as tithes and shmita (coming up soon). 

We who made aliya, who left nice Jewish communities in the world because we wanted to live in a Jewish land where Shabbat is the official day of rest and no one is forced to work on Shabbat (unless their profession is vital, like medical or security personnel). My sons served in a Jewish army with the highest moral code of all, and which serves officially kosher food. The Knesset has 120 members like the Anshei Knesset HaGdola, the Great Assembly of Sages that codified much of our laws. What is in the public sphere is of a Jewish nature. Our laws reflect much of Mishpat Ivri, and should not take in every trend or “politically correct” idea that is out there.

My aforementioned sons have gotten asked why they are here and not in the States, as they have dual citizenship. They explain the essence of living in a land different from all others, with an atmosphere that is one of holiness, of being home. 

Diluting Jewish public life, reducing it to being like all other nations, threatens that fabric of holiness.

I want to commend Meara Razon Ashtivker for “Zionism should not come with a disclaimer” (June 10). She captures well the misinformed and mistaken perception of US Jewry about Israel’s disagreements with its “Palestinian” neighbors. Most US Jews have never visited Israel or have spent just two weeks here in the sun. They most probably have never been in an Israeli home or held an in-depth conversation with an informed resident. Their knowledge stems from the American news media, which evaluates Israeli policies from the perspective of Bernie Sanders, a self-hating Jew. Unless one experiences the trials and tribulations of life in Israel and lives and breathes day-to-day events for a considerable time, it is not possible to make a reasoned judgement on either Israel’s actions viz a viz her immediate neighbors, nor on the attitude of its citizens.

I have just one reservation. The writer quotes the IHRA, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s statement that “criticism of Israel, similar to that leveled against any other country, cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” That is effectively an excuse for the majority of antisemites who are using Israel as a cover for their anti-Jewish activities.

In any case, it is taken out of context because within the IHRA definition of antisemitism the quoted sentence begins with the words: 

“Manifestations might include the targeting of the State of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity,” which throws a different light on the writer’s claim. 

Regarding “Israel and Evangelicals – a complex relationship” June 13, who should speak for the Jewish people, the Jewish religion and the Jewish State?

Even more important, who should be listened to?

There are people who aren’t Jewish yet feel a God-given obligation to support and devote their lives to the Jewish people and their homeland. There are Jews, on the other hand, who have no affinity for the Jewish religion, people and homeland, but are devoted, instead, to “social justice,” “Jewish values,” “democracy” and “pluralism,” which are subjectively defined and have no meaning other than through a Jewish context.

Matt Nosanchuk, president and co-founder of the progressive advocacy group New York Jewish Agenda (NYJA) and former Jewish outreach director in the Obama White House sees “a new perspective” and “reinterpreting” of what it means to live a Jewish life in America. Nosanchuk’s claim to fame was his arguing in the US Supreme Court on behalf of homosexuals for the Marriage Equality Act.

That is his progressive, new perspective, reinterpreting of what it means to live a Jewish life in America.

Unlike my cousin Matt, I was born to two Jewish parents (his mother was Catholic and he was raised as a Catholic), I was brought up in a Torah-observant and Jewish-educated home devoted to the Jewish people and homeland.

A great deal of water has flowed over the Potomac – and the Jordan – since I, as a young Citibank officer, would come to your congressional office in Washington to give you detailed briefings on the New York City fiscal crisis.

I also came once bringing Prof. Hans Morgenthau, the pre-eminent expert on International Relations of the 20th century (and the teacher of Henry Kissinger). Morgenthau’s message was a very simple one: A Palestinian state would be inherently irredentist.”

That warning is even more timely today The war cry of “Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea” is the catchphrase of the pro-Palestinian movement. Their maps show not two states-but one: Palestine

Now that Iran is on its way to being a nuclear power and hews to an extremely anti-Israel line, the “two-state” solution would give Iran a convenient launching pad from which to annihilate the Jewish State. I don’t think either of us would want that result.