Letters to the Editor June 30, 2021: Alon again, naturally

In “The creation of a Palestinian state is inescapable” (June 27), Alon Ben Meir made at least two egregious errors in presenting his narrative. 

First, he presents statements as facts for which he has no supporting data. For example:

• “Every Israeli will sooner than later recognize that the creation of a Palestinian state is the only way to protect its democracy,” without data to support this claim, how is he able to draw such a conclusion?

• He uses the term “occupation” as if our behavior is similar to that of the German occupation of Europe during WWII or European occupation of African lands in the 19th century. How can we be occupiers in our own land? And how can we be occupiers when much of the Arab population lives in area A and Gaza where the population runs its own affairs? 

• He is concerned that Israel will become an “apartheid” state. Not likely, since Israel is one of the most integrated societies in the world. Besides, the term applies to racial matters and Israel is not a race. 

Secondly, he ignores such major issues as security for Israel and the civil rights of those who live in areas of Israel that were occupied by Jordan. 

• A Palestinian state would probably be run by Hamas and Israelis everywhere in the land would be subjected to the same terror experienced by Israelis who live in the South. This would likely cause shutdowns of the airport and consequent destruction of the country’s economy. 

• And what about the civil rights of the approximate 800,000 Jews who live beyond the Green Line? Will they be driven out of their homes into tent cities?

There are other solutions to this difficult problem, such as the granting of further autonomy and joint economic projects between Arabs and Jews without destroying the infrastructure, security and Jewish character of the state; Ben Meir’s suggestions would lead to a strategic and economic disaster.

Letter writers under the heading “Leave us Alon” (June 28) make excellent points against Ben-Meir’s article. There is so much wrong in his piece that a whole essay could be written in refutation. 

Briefly:

First he threatens us with a loss of friendship. I always told my kids that any friend who threatens us with the loss of friendship is not a friend. This rule of the playground is still in effect.

Next, he attempts to bring into play that we have a new government. If there is anything about our lengthy round of elections that is stable, it is that around 90% of Israelis agree on the situation vis-a-vis the Palestinian issue. That was put firmly into place by arch-terrorist Arafat on starting the Second Intifada in 2020, when he launched a reign of death and destruction on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, causing the immediate implosion of the Israeli Left (me included).

Last, I always felt that the most insidious form of antisemitism is: The Jews, who went through the horrors of the Holocaust, should be held to a higher standard than the rest of humanity.

One wonders whether Prof. Ben-Meir should be teaching at NYU, where he can continue to poison the minds of naive students who can be forced to conform to his views under threat of not attaining passing grades.

The creation of a Palestinian state is so “inescapable” that one already exists. It is called Jordan, occupying most of Palestine and with a strong majority of Palestinian Arabs.

There’s already a second Palestinian state, too. It is called Israel, with a majority of Palestinian Jews.

With all due respect to Ben-Meir’s unimaginative piece, the creation of additional Arab/Muslim states in historical Palestine is neither inescapable nor advisable. There are so many other better solutions available, requiring only creativity, flexibility and good will on the Arab side (whenever they’re ready to trade their hatred for open-mindedness). 

Israel must not capitulate to the loser-take-all demands of the PA and its cheerleaders.

The disaster in Miami highlights the cost of apparent negligence in undertaking essential structural repairs by the condominium committee charged with running the building on behalf of its owners and tenants.

Israel has numerous buildings where there could be structural defects and, like Miami, the respective vaad bayit (building committee) charged with ensuring among other matters, a sound physical structure, neglect to carry out essential structural repairs and ignore when such matters are drawn to the their attention.

Home Command must immediately inspect all such vulnerable buildings, just as it is mandatory for the electric motors of all lifts, irrespective of maintenance and mandatory inspection, to be replaced after 50 years.

The June 28 front page featured two articles – highlighting the Florida Surfside tragedy and the Israel Meron tragedy.

How sad to read of two tragedies that could have been prevented. No “state commission of inquiry” in Israel, or an engineer “flagging” that the building in Surfside had a “major error” during a 2018 inspection/report, will bring back the victims of both horrendous accidents.

What is needed, besides the investigations, is enforcement of regulations. The number of people at Meron far exceeded the capacity and the parties responsible for this did nothing to make sure that the site and the people were safe. 

The Surfside report apparently was ignored and the resulting disaster falls squarely on the shoulders of those irresponsible people. To the families of both these tragedies, too little, too late.

Nothing will bring back the 45 men and children who died in Meron, nor the scores still missing in Florida. What may bring some semblance of comfort to the families left is the hope that this will never happen again.

We owe this much to the lost souls.

Regarding “Heart of a Nation: Progressives changing US-Israel-Palestinian paradigm” (June 25), the movement sounds like it is camouflaging something; the stated bottom line of the initiative strikes me as being more than a little ambiguous. 

To make America and Israel “better” countries is indeed laudable, but the parameters that will be used to measure “better” were not identified. Given that “progressive” is the underlying buzzword of this movement, it’s fair to assume that the State of Israel as well as Jews throughout the world will be asked to accept paradigm-shifting compromises and adjustments with nothing but good intentions to guarantee Jewish identity and security.

Personally, I’m not ready to lend a sympathetic ear to BDS advocates, to reduce prison time for convicted terrorists, or to share sovereignty in Jerusalem with anyone else. I would like to think that such “progressive” ideas will be unacceptable to all but those sit on the leftmost side of the political spectrum, and that Heart of a Nation’s attempts to radicalize current thought on where Israel exists in today’s world will be faced with frustration and rebuttal.

In addition, I’m rather tired of hearing how former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu caused a major meltdown with the Democrats, and have little faith that Jonathan Keller can objectively fill in the gaps that may in fact exist between the two major parties. The six congresspersons that comprise the so-called Squad have one objective – to eliminate the State of Israel. But they represent an extreme point of view; the party as a whole is supportive of our country and will not enthusiastically embrace policies that endanger our well-being. 

I have every confidence that the Bennett/Lapid advocacy and partnership will be acceptable to the majority of both houses of Congress regardless of the color of the state they represent.

The changes being proposed by Heart of a Nation will polarize rather than harmonize, and shine a spotlight on existing vulnerabilities. 

When Shakespeare has Romeo plead to Juliet: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” a profound truth is being articulated: the names ascribed to items, whatever the items are, have no intrinsic relationship to that particular item. Language requires the ability to think abstractly, and as such, requires that we have defined what we mean by the words we use. 

That brings me to “Previously unknown prehistoric human discovered in Israel” (June 25). We read that this newly discovered type of human lived here 130,000 years ago. Now that claim could raise the hackles of a significant fraction of Jews. Humans 130,000 years ago? Here go the scientists again with their foolish ideas based on a few bones. Adam and Eve were the first humans and they lived less than 6,000 years ago.

Fortunately, Shakespeare 400 years ago articulated the solution. What’s in a name is that which we choose to ascribe to that name. A scientist using the word “human” is referring to a being that is similar to modern humans in shape. A knowledgeable theologian who uses the identical term is referring to a being that is similar to modern humans in shape and is imbued with the neshama, the human soul. Biblically, that dates to 5,781 years ago, the date of the biblical calendar, which starts not with the creation of the universe, but with the creation of the human soul (Genesis 1:27). 

A visit to the Mesopotamian Room in the British Museum provides a strong indication of the accuracy of the era of this transition from pre-human homo sapiens to human homo sapiens .

There is something fatuous about the argument put forth by the Polish government that they will not pay restitution to Holocaust survivors for property stolen during the Holocaust, since these were “German crimes,” (“Polish PM: We won’t pay one zloty for German crimes,” June 26). 

 That the Polish people indeed suffered from the German invasion does not take away from the fact that they regularly occupied the homes of the murdered Jews and took their possessions as their own. Nor did these same people show any inclination to return these properties to the few straggling Jewish survivors who attempted to return to their homes after the war. 

On the contrary, these survivors were often beset upon and even murdered by their former neighbors, as in the example of Kielce, where 42 Jewish survivors, who did not even dare to reclaim their property, were brutally murdered by the locals on July 4, 1946, over a year after the war had ended.

This was not the case in other countries, where the few Jews who survived the war were often able, as in Nazi-occupied Paris, to return to their homes and find their possessions intact. 

Whether or not the Polish government decide to give monetary restitution or not, it is important to keep the record straight and preserve historical accuracy.

“Gideon Sa’ar proposes new bill to strike problematic evidence” (June 28) reveals that the police collect problematic evidence. The police are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Security. A statement of this ministry’s vision includes “bringing about a significant improvement in... the sense of security” of the citizens of Israel.

We cannot feel a sense of security, if the police collect problematic evidence. Clearly, the Ministry of Public Security must strive to change the mindset of the police from one that countenances collecting problematic evidence, to one of  endeavoring to find the truth.

Israel must never give up sovereignty and control over the Golan Heights. Through the recent decades, the Golan has proven to be an invaluable strategic asset for Israel. From the cessation of incessant shelling and shooting into Israel when Syria controlled this area before the Six Day War, to the critical role the territory played in defending northern Israel during the opening phase of the Yom Kippur War, to the bulwark the Golan has proven to be against Iranian affiliated terror groups, to the consensus of international military experts on the area’s strategic importance to Israel there is no possible scenario in which Israel can or should relinquish the Golan Heights.

It is unfortunate that the Biden-Harris Administration’s understanding of these realities may be inadequate, although the latest statement clarifying previous State Department ambiguity on the matter was reassuring (“US: No change to policy recognizing Israeli sovereignty on Golan,” June 26). 

Nonetheless Israel and her supporters must remain vigilant and ready to forestall any misguided, pie-in-the-sky, foolish notions about giving up this particular parcel of land for supposed peace. The stakes for Israel are far too high.

His Excellency Kyle O’Sullivan’s article “Ireland’s push to encourage progress” (June 24) really whitewashes Ireland’s behavior towards Israel in recent years. He draws a comparison between Ireland’s independence in 1949 and Israel’s independence a year earlier. He even talks about a kindred spirit between the two peoples. 

Rubbish! He represents a country that only a few weeks ago was considering expelling the Israeli ambassador because Israel had the chutzpah to defend its citizens from Hamas rockets. Ireland zealously supports the BDS movement and is one of the most virulent anti-Israel countries in the EU (quite a feat considering how much antisemitism there is in Europe).

We are talking about a country where institutionalized sexual abuse of orphans by priests was common during the latter half of the 20th century and where newborn babies of were stolen from single mothers who were then used as slave laborers.

If Ireland were really interested in promoting peace, it should tell its Palestinian friends that the road to peace lies through removing references to the destruction of Israel in its charter as laid out in the Oslo Accord, and informing its people in clear Arabic that the two peoples have to peaceably live side by side. Then his excellency could write a genuine article for about friendship and kindred spirit between our peoples.

The Irish Ambassador’s attempt to whitewash the Irish government’s antisemitism doesn’t wash. On May 24.2021 the Irish Parliament voted to expel the Israeli ambassador. What would Mr. O’ Sullivan say or feel if the Israeli Parliament voted to expel him?

We are incredibly grateful that the Ambassador assures us that the Irish government supports the right of Israel to exist I am sure that most Israelis would support the right of Ireland to exist.

He has the effrontery to talk about the images from Gaza last month but does not mention the 4,500 rockets that Hamas fired toward Israel, which were the cause of what happened. What would the Irish people do if the people of Belfast fired 4,500 rockets at Dublin? And yet they feel they have the right to tell Israel to establish a Hamas state on the borders of the Ben-Gurion airport who would threaten the airport with rockets and stop Christian tourists from visiting the sites holy to them.

Why can an Irishman leave his native land and settle in Chicago – a settlement built on land stolen from the Winnibago Native Americans, but it is not permitted for him to live in Ma’aleh Adumim built on Jewish-owned land in the J(ew)udean Desert?

Many Irishmen accuse Israel of being apartheid, yet there are two million Arabs living as equal citizens in Israel, whereas many Muslim states, such as Jordan, do not allow Jews to live there. In addition, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas has said that no Jews would be permitted to live in a future “Palestine.” 

So, which is the apartheid state?

I was delighted upon seeing the front-page announcement (“A new beginning, Ehud Olmert takes a break from his weekly column,” June 25), but was disappointed to find in his final article his tirade against former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If anyone raises “disgust and schadenfreude” it is Olmert.