Letters to the Editor June 7, 2021: One election, two winners

The photo on the front page “Herzog voted as 11th president” (June 3) says more than a thousand words. President-Elect Isaac Herzog showed respect and warmth to fellow candidate Miriam Peretz in the most magnificent way.

Her address after the results reflected her greatness with joy and genuine happiness. Both of them were winners by their actions and we the citizens of Israel should be proud of them and the dignified way it was handled.

I am sick to my stomach, not only because the new government has no mandate to rule and so is not of the people or by the people, or for the people, but also because you seem to print only articles that favor this bunch of political nobodies. 

If the Knesset permits this coalition, democracy in Israel will be dead. This bunch is not for Israel and her citizens but want just to grab the power away from the best prime minister we have ever had. 

I was a 32-year-old Zionist when I came to live here with my family and after 53 years, for the first time, I am ashamed of my country and want to leave. I beg all our MKs not to let this happen. This conglomeration of parties that pull in different directions will fall apart very soon anyway and we will be back to square one, but with dung on our faces. I doubt if all the perfumes of Arabia will ever wipe the shame from off of us.

Irrespective of the outcome of the vote for the next government of Israel (until the deal is signed and sealed we will not know what Netanyahu will do to stay in power), the one good thing that comes out of the current political upheaval is the emergence of Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid as not only a politician but a statesman.

His behavior and demeanor over the past few days clearly demonstrate his qualities to be a leader and a future prime minister, something sadly missing in the past few years.

The Jerusalem Post has always endeavored to present its readers with a variety of political views. It is unconscionable therefore that in the vitally important debate surrounding the formation of the Bennett-Lapid government you do not appear to have published a single article or op-ed that expresses opposition to this highly controversial step. What we have seen instead are one-sided opinion columns that range from positive to enthusiastic support for the removal of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the establishment of a government that includes far-left elements and is totally dependent for its survival on the approval of the Arab Ra’am Party.

It is not as though there are not public figures who are strongly against the move. For example, MK Amichai Shikli (Yamina) has expressed vehement opposition and will vote against this government giving carefully reasoned arguments for his position. Shikli is a respected educator with a solid military record behind him. He is the founder of a secular pre-military academy in the Galilee. His views deserve coverage. And there are many others you could approach. 

I have been a Post reader for more than 40 years and rarely during that time have I felt such a sense of impending doom as I do now. Love Netanyahu or hate him, he has been a solid and reliable leader and has kept Israel reasonably safe now for the past 12 years. He has also enjoyed a consistent level of support among Israelis, even if in recent times this was not a majority support. The rejoicing over his prospective downfall is reckless and premature.

Barring last-minute developments, the anti-Netanyahu government will presumably be confirmed by the Knesset. The incoming prime minister, Naftali Bennett, may be a talented politician, but he has the backing of only five other members of Knesset of his own party. The world sees this and will react accordingly. Outward respect for Bennett among friends of Israel abroad will be mixed with private skepticism and some derision. The appointment of a politician with such minimal support to the highest post in the land may be legal but it is certainly undemocratic.

Moreover, the new so-called “change” government consists of a group of people of widely disparate views and includes an Arab party whose charter does not recognize the State of Israel as a Jewish state. Many of the politicians who are slated to become ministers have little or no experience. We live in a very dangerous neighborhood; Israel cannot afford risky experiments. There will be no 100 days of grace. Our neighbors are watching closely – including Iran, whose leaders wish to exterminate us, and also terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, which have the same aim in mind. The test of this new inexperienced government will come very soon. I have dark fears about the future.

It’s fair to say that the glue holding the newly formed coalition together would hardly be used by serious builders of models or professional craftsmen; indeed, I’m not sure it would even secure newspaper clippings onto a page of a scrapbook. Little wonder, really, that nary a word has been said of the platform upon which this coalition is based; the concessions that the representatives of diametrically opposed ideologies had to make have to be nothing less than startling. But while there are more than a few weak links to this very fragile and flimsy chain, Ayelet Shaked is the one to keep a close eye on.

Shaked has more in common with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu than with Yamina leader Naftali Bennett. An ardent right winger who lives a secular lifestyle, the Interior Minister-to-be is a bright and aggressive politician who hates, more than anything else, not getting her way. And, as we’ve seen over the last several years, she is particularly obsessed with reforming the judiciary. I was certain that her dispute with MK Merav Michaeli over who would be initially appointed to the Judicial Appointments Committee would wind up being a slugfest in a mud-filled tub, but was glad to see that a compromise of sorts was agreed to. Not that the matter is over, by any means. Shaked, no doubt, is already plotting on how to renege on what promises to be a blatantly inefficient and counterproductive rotation, just as Netanyahu began to scheme from the very beginning on how to get out of his agreed upon rotation with Benny Gantz. The DNA associated with power and authority that both she and Netanyahu share will, within 

a very short period of time, have an adverse effect on both her boss and the other members of the coalition; a series of crises, I’m afraid to say, can be expected.

How she’ll approach her responsibilities as interior minister should be interesting. My guess is she will delegate both daily tasks and long-range budgeting and planning to her deputy or the assigned CEO of the agency. Her primary focus for the next two years, in other words, will be on how to stack the courts with judges who are aligned with her way of thinking. That and doing whatever is necessary to undermine her intended successor and have her banished to the periphery. 

Alon Ben-Meir does not chart a new course (“Charting a new course toward peace,” June 6). While correctly recognizing that the creation of a Palestinian state is not likely in the next four years, the reason given – it’s all Israel’s fault – is out of date and irrelevant. 

To reconcile takes two sides but the Palestinian leadership has refused to engage and actively campaigns against “normalization.” The idea that Hamas would use a long-term ceasefire to build civilian rather than military infrastructure is far-fetched, as well as postulating that it will eventually recognize Israel. Hamas cares little for public opinion or even the opinion of its Gaza “citizens,” and revels in (rather than rebels against) its classification as a resistance/terrorist organization. 

When Israel is “read its rights” by the Biden administration, will these include the recognition that the land is disputed, times have changed, and the ceasefire lines (not borders) have moved from the position of the old “Green Line?” 

Lastly, by suggesting that Israel should focus on the “unprecedented” violence between Israeli Jew and Palestinians, Ben-Meir again lays the blame on the Israeli government, rather than on those who rioted in support of Hamas.

I agree that the new government, which includes the Ra’am Party, has an opportunity to reduce spending discrepancies between Jewish and non-Jewish towns. But it’s not Israel that needs to “demonstrate to the whole world” that it is ready to make peace, but those who still are sworn to and encourage its destruction.

Alon Ben-Meir’s demand for a two-state proclamation is as naïve as giving Hamas cement and steel and asking them not to build tunnel. Three points:

1) People who have been bombarded with anti-Jewish, anti-Israel propaganda from childhood are incapable of making a sudden switch to promoting peace with the “enemy.” It will take a generation and a re-tooling of school curricula to enable Gazans and West Bankers to be able to change this mindset. At present there is not even a shred of evidence that this is about to happen.

2) Until the Arabs can admit that five million descendants of “refugees” will never return, there is also no way for an agreement to be forged.

3) As Churchill said: “There has never been a war between two democracies.” Until there is some semblance of real democracy in our neighbor states, the chances of any agreement sticking are remote. 

Some form of two-state arrangement may ultimately be the ideal solution, but not until the Arab street is ready for it and their leaders are able to make the concessions and changes needed.

Two years ago the PEW research company surveyed a population sample in the West Bank checking what rulers they’d prefer. Over 70% preferred Hamas. It is no surprise that PA leader Mahmoud Abbas has been routinely postponing elections for over a decade.

Haste is counterproductive. We must have the patience to wait – if necessary for another 50 years – to see if changes have been implemented to warrant a two-state move. Until then, we’re doing just fine, thank you very much.

Reading “Fighting for legitimacy” (June 4), IfNotNow and other left-wing Jewish-American organizations that claim to be so concerned about the “Palestinian narrative” should certainly want to listen to a highly positioned historical Palestine Liberation Organization figure. 

In a 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw, Zahir Muhsein, a member of the Executive Committee of the PLO, freely acknowledged that “the Palestinian people” were a propaganda invention:

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.

“For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beersheba and Jerusalem. However, the moment we claim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”

Any Western anti-Israel activist who has issues with the statement “There is no Palestinian people” should take heed of the words of this Arab who knew better and spoke the truth.

Rabbi Uri Regev (“The war is over,” June 2) writes how the “who is a Jew” issue is a key problem and has to be freed from the shackles of the Chief Rabbinate. He suggests that any rabbi should have his conversions recognized.

Does that include rabbis who perform at intermarriages? What, if anything, is required by the non-Orthodox rabbis for conversions besides being paid? 

Regev cites polls that his organization took that show a majority of Israelis want the conversion process taken out of the hands of the Rabbinate. I question the validity of these polls, since most Israels don’t realize that these “rabbis” who would perform intermarriage eat non-kosher, don’t observe Shabbat, etc. Moreover I wonder if a poll makes something right or wrong. After all, the recent Pew poll shows over 70% intermarriage in the US. Does that mean that intermarriage is correct? 

I respectfully suggest that Regev and his colleagues deal with the serious intermarriage problems while we continue to deal with conversion and other Torah-traditional issues.   

In “Chutzpah Prize contenders” (June 4), Liat Collins details the identities of our Palestinian enemies who have been treated in Israeli hospitals. The 17-year-old niece of our arch enemy Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh – as well as his daughter, granddaughter and mother-in-law have all been receiving medical treatment at Israeli hospitals. The sister of senior Hamas terrorist Abu Marzouk has received cancer therapy in Israel and the list goes on and on.

It is certainly chutzpah on the part of our Hamas arch-enemies but it also demonstrates abject servility and humiliating behavior on our part. What are we trying to prove? Do we get any positive press or acknowledgment of humanity for this behavior? 

On the contrary, the perception is that we must feel guilty and this is our way of showing penance for our terrible treatment of the Palestinians. Hamas interprets this as the behavior of a weak and spineless people who can be easily manipulated and insulted. I’m embarrassed by our behavior. It reminds me of how defenseless galut Jews behaved – fearful and cringing. It has to stop.

Regarding “US adviser sworn in on 1492 edition of Pirkei Avot” (June 4), the writer’s choice of words about Jews “being kicked out of Spain” in 1492 could not have been worse. Practicing Jews were not just “kicked out,” the entire practicing Jewish population of Spain was officially, cruelly and completely expelled from Spain by royal decree. Furthermore, countless numbers of these forced refugees died or were murdered in their journeys to seek shelter in other countries. 

Even more bizarre is this official Eric Lander’s motivation for choosing a 1492 edition of Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) to be sworn into office. To say “the world experimented in 1492 with tolerance – with the idea that we would have a diversity of people and perspectives” is preposterous to an extreme. Lander twists one of the world’s most successful and massive expulsions in history of a native population from its homeland by the Catholic Church into something positive. Talk about revisionist history and outlook. 

Either Lander is completely naïve and uninformed about what happened in 1492 or suffers from one of the worst cases imaginable of political-correctness or cancel-culture.