Letters to the Editor: May 3, 2016

MP Ken Livingstone has unwittingly done a favor to those fighting anti-Semitism.

Letters (photo credit: REUTERS)
(photo credit: REUTERS)
Labor of hate
With regard to “UK’s Labor launches anti-Semitism inquiry” (May 1), MP Ken Livingstone has unwittingly done a favor to those fighting anti-Semitism.
The poison that has permeated virtually every university, political party, academic circle, trade union and Christian denomination has suddenly hit the headlines.
And by linking Hitler, Nazism and Zionism, Livingstone has shown how historical “facts” are manipulated to fit any obnoxious ideology when they are taken out of context or only partially referenced.
It was Hitler’s intention to make Germany judenrein, empty of Jews. What better way to do so than expel them? And what better destination than Palestine, which everyone knew was the place where the Jewish people originated and from which they had been exiled for over 2,000 years? The only problem was that the British had limited the number to 750 Jewish immigrants per month while permitting unlimited Arab immigration.
In July 1938, in an attempt to solve the problem of Jewish refugees (who were allowed to leave Germany only if they could find a country to take them), the Évian Conference was convened at the initiative of US president Franklin D. Roosevelt and attended by representatives from 32 countries.
Only two – Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic – were willing to increase the number of Jewish refugees they would accept.
The conference proved to Hitler that as no one was interested in the persecuted Jews of Germany, there would be even less interest in the fate of the Jews of eastern Europe. Thus, he was given a free hand to rid Europe of all its Jews.
If not actively against the Jews, the nations of the world were willing to turn a blind eye to their fate. And now? The nations that are seeking the demise of Israel by force or resolutions are more than willing to turn a blind eye to their fate.
I have no doubt that British Labor MP Naz Shah is sincere in her belief about resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict peacefully (“UK Labor Party suspends MP who said ‘Israel should be relocated to America,’” April 28).
But did she check with the US administration? Would it take us? And who would pay for the transfer? I have an alternative suggestion that I hope Shah and others, such as fellow Labor MP Ken Livingstone, will accept sincerely, namely that since there are fewer Palestinian Arabs than Israeli Jews, and since the Arab countries are much closer than the US, it would be easier and more economical to transfer the Palestinians to the Arab world.
Most could go to Saudi Arabia, which has plenty of land and money, and has been conspicuous in its unwillingness to accept Syrian refugees. Some could also go to North Africa and Europe.
I am also sure that Shah would be happy to cooperate by having Palestinians admitted to the UK. After all, she is the one who proposed the principle of transfer to resolve the situation peacefully.
Turn to the UN
Reporter Tovah Lazaroff quotes the representative of the PLO as requesting that the UN provide an international force to keep the “Israeli occupying authorities” at bay (“UN Security Council to discuss protection of Palestinians,” May 1).
The myth of “occupation” is now firmly embedded in the international psyche in spite of the facts. The Palestinians never had sovereignty over the disputed territories, do not have sovereignty now, and never will as long as their judenrein, all-or-nothing approach prevails.
Perhaps Israel should request that the UN help protect it from Hamas rockets, attack tunnels and knife-wielding fanatics of all ages and genders (although that, of course, would be counter- productive, as virtually all UN bodies are anti-Israel – UNRWA and UNESCO, to name but two – and would inevitably aid and abet our enemies).
Since 1977, the UN has observed a day of solidarity with the Palestinians each November 29. The date is the anniversary of the UN partition resolution of 1947. The use of this date is, in effect, an attack on the State of Israel, implying that its creation, made possible by the 1947 resolution, was unjust.
As its standard narrative seems to have been rejected by the UN, it would be reasonable for Israel to use another to justify its existence.
One such narrative might be to stress Jewish continuity in the Jewish homeland during the past 2,000 years, and how these Jews were forced to endure occupations by foreign invaders.
If Israel would discard remembrances of the 1947 partition resolution and the events leading up to it, and instead emphasize that the Jews never lost possession of their homeland, it is quite possible that the world would begin to treat it with more respect.
Court as monarchy
In your May 1 editorial “Sanctifying the Mount,” you state: “The High Court of Justice has upheld the theoretical right of Jews to pray on the Mount. In rejecting a petition by the Temple Mount Faithful in 2012, the court ruled that every Jew has the right to pray on the Mount as part of the freedom of religious worship.... But the court also ruled that these basic rights are not absolute and may be limited where human life is at risk.”
This position indicates that the court does not understand the existing law for the protection of holy places, which is significant and cardinal. In part, it states that the “holy places shall be protected... from anything likely to violate freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them,” and that “whoever does anything to violate the freedom of access to them...shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.”
The court derogates the existing law without any decisional process that would declare it unconstitutional. It does so because it considers itself a monarchy to which all must bow and accept its dictates without a legal basis. It negates Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount in order to prevent Arab violence, which should be the legal responsibility of the police.
From another point of view refuting the status quo, Article 9 of the Israel-Jordan peace treaty guarantees that each party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance.
The court does not bring honor to the Israeli judicial system.
This could be because of the failed judicial-selection process, which does not evaluate the fitness of nominees to serve on the court. Therefore, the question arises as to whether there is equal justice under the law.
Israel as culprit
Eric R. Mandel’s excellent “Time for an Israeli strategy for the next American administration” (Comment & Features, May 1) presupposes that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to a find an accommodation with the Palestinians.
This manifestly is not the case, as the US, France and now our good friend Germany have publicly articulated.
Unfortunately, we do not have an intelligent enough government to reverse Israel’s role as the culprit, which is entirely due to the prime minister’s sole preoccupation: his endless maneuvering for his own political survival. Mandel’s ideas would at least put the Palestinian Authority on the defensive and undermine the anti-Israel camp’s current advantage.