August 19: Not much of a day

If negotiations succeed in bringing genuine peace, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will be a hero and able to stay in office as long as he wants.

Letters 370 (photo credit: REUTERS/Handout )
Letters 370
(photo credit: REUTERS/Handout )
Not much of a daySir, – What Gil Hoffman does not seem to understand in “The day after Netanyahu” (Politics, August 16) is that there are only two possibilities: If negotiations succeed in bringing genuine peace, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will be a hero and able to stay in office as long as he wants. If the negotiations fail, as seems more likely, then no one having anything to do with them will be able to get elected dog catcher let alone prime minister.
Israel will need a new set of candidates – for example, those who had the good sense to oppose Netanyahu’s “goodwill gesture” of releasing prisoners.
I would like to suggest three names that might be familiar to readers of The Jerusalem Post: Martin Sherman, Caroline Glick and, my personal favorite, Sarah Honig. These three have been almost Churchillian in their foresight. They are better qualified to run the country than any of our current crop of politicians.
Sir, – What an appalling lineup of Netanyahu “afters.” It begs the question: Who picked this lot? You have a bunch of has-beens; one who is president and thinks he is prime minister as well; another who has the credentials of a crook (whether convicted or not); the Left; and a few who mirror Netanyahu and precious little else.
There is no one who has the aura of statesmanship, toughness and the ability to look other leaders in the eye. Not since the days of Menachem Begin have we seen that.
The one most suited with leadership, toughness and the courage of his convictions – Naftali Bennett – is omitted.
I. KEMP Nahariya
Sir, – Purim seems to have come early for Gil Hoffman.
Is he kidding? Livni? Yacimovich? Lapid? It gets even funnier.
With all due respect to our president – who has never been elected to any post through the ballot – Shimon Peres at 90? Mr. Hoffman, please get serious.
Thoughtful piece
Sir, – How thoughtful of Ben Hartman to regale us with feelings of sympathy and understanding for the freed Arab murderers of our brethren (“The prisoner release – this time around,” Reporter’s Notebook, August 16). Perhaps he could now pen a similarly empathetic profile of the following murderers of Hebrews: Hitler, Stalin, Ukraine’s Petlura, Haj al Amin al-Husseini and Arafat.
Reach out
Sir, – Martin Sherman (“Justifying Judeocide,” Into the Fray, August 16) again warns of the delegitimization of the State of Israel by those who have launched a “well-oiled, wellfunded assault on its legitimacy, which has critically jeopardized the government’s decision-making freedom.”
I think we should thank Sherman for his ideological concern and astuteness in pointing out that many of our enemies are actually in Western countries – especially among the Europeans, who have been decimating us for the past 2,000 years.
There are literally thousands of small daily newspapers in the US that can be of help to us if we do some reaching out. There are Jews and lovers of Zion who can individually and in groups make personal contact with publishers and editors in every part of the US. Each newspaper can be given a “local angle” for publishing accounts of Israeli and Jewish affairs.
By failing to do this Israel avoids confronting essential vital interests connected to the news and other media.
MELVIN LEWIS Jerusalem The writer is a former journalist for US dailies
Define ‘normal’
Sir, – In “Israel’s demands” (Savir’s Corner, August 16) I came upon this gem: “From the Palestinians, we must demand [as part of a peace agreement] the same normalization clauses that we insisted upon with Egypt....” I burst out laughing.
Every person who has followed events in the Middle East for the past 30 years knows that Egypt has vitiated, if not violated, all the normalization that then-prime minister Menachem Begin insisted on in the belief that normalization was the heart of future peace between the two peoples.
Savir follows the well practiced principle of the so-called peace camp: If the fact does not conform to your belief, ignore it. Or, if possible, distort it until it does fit.
He might ask the Polish people about peace as a guarantee; surely, they are experts on the subject after hundreds of years of failed treaties with the Russians.
He could find out from the Iranians how successful their guarantee of peace with Iraq was following a peace treaty signed shortly before the Iraqi invasion. How about France’s several experiences with German “guarantees.” Or the Ottomans’ with Catherine the Great. One could go on and on, back through the centuries, learning that peace is no guarantee of security.
Nations remain at peace as long as their national interests demand it (never mind Muslim beliefs regarding treaties with infidels).
Sir, – Uri Savir has toughened his stance. He’s not willing to pull back and hand the enemies of Zionism a state of their own next door in return for just a piece of paper. No, he insists on not one but several pieces of paper – trade relations, recognition, people-topeople relations, the twinning of cities.
What’s missing is a provision for when the Arab side fails to act as envisioned. After all, at Oslo the Arab side promised to protect Joseph’s Tomb, and shortly afterward the place was trashed and an Israeli soldier killed. At Oslo it promised to give up violence and hostile disinformation, but afterward those merely increased.
There’s little point discussing agreements unless the discussion includes foolproof enforcement.
Pollard’s op-ed
Sir, – A very well-timed article written by Jonathan Pollard appeared in your August 16 edition (“Restoring Israel to greatness,” Observations). I believe it may be a first! What a good “friend” the leaders of the United States are to Israel – we free as many murderers as they wish and they cannot free one prisoner who has definitely served his time.
Sir, – In the interest of journalistic accuracy and full disclosure, the editors at The Jerusalem Post might wish to amend the postscript that follows Jonathan Pollard’s opinion piece decrying Israel’s current state of “moral ambiguity.”
Saying that Pollard is serving a life sentence “for his activities on behalf of Israel” denies readers the essential truth: He drew a life sentence after pleading guilty in 1987 to spying for Israel on its chief ally.
That’s the fact. To recast Pollard’s so-called service to Israel shows an editorial bias readers can do without.
JOE WINN Providence, Rhode Island
Sir, – Kudos to the Post for the op-ed by Jonathan Pollard – despite what some will deem its controversial content.
Incredibly, after 25 years of incarceration, Pollard still has concern for Israel and its people.
His dismay at the failure of our government to make choices based on courage of conviction rather than political expediency is shared by the majority of Israelis, as evidenced by the outcry at the recent release of murderers from our jails.
May Pollard’s heartfelt plea for historic restoration and the rebirth of ethical politics be a clarion call to all Israelis in the next election.