Doesn’t the power and world-historic greatness of the Jewish people reside in a unified Jewishness that such a Sanhedrin would promote?
By JERUSALEM POST READERSYes to unitySir, – The Sanhedrin proposed in “IDC scholars suggest reviving Sanhedrin could help bridge gaps with Diaspora” (February 9) would function as an educative body of live Jewish law for all Jews and the unity of contemporary Judaism, especially for educators and policy makers.Precisely because its main concern would be Israel- Diaspora relations (which means the Jewish people as a whole), it holds promise for less polarization and blog-type fragmentation of our people.Doesn’t the power and world-historic greatness of the Jewish people reside in a unified Jewishness that such a Sanhedrin would promote?JOSEPH DAVID LEVINSONJerusalemThe writer is a retired professor of philosophyPassover revisitedSir, – With regard to “Abbas, Dahlan take out Jordanian citizenship” (February 9), to them, their families and Fatah officials: Next Year in Amman! Good riddance.RUTH BRUNELLJerusalemCharacter in leadershipSir, – In “Yoav Galant’s depressing defeat” (Our World, February 8), Caroline B. Glick suggests that Maj.-Gen. Galant might indeed be the best choice for IDF chief of General Staff because he has a reputation for fearlessness and innovation, and a determination to win wars.It is noticeably ironic, then, that Glick’s essay appeared just after news reports that Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein seems to have an ethical or legal issue analogous to Galant’s (“A-G faces probe for hiring of foreign worker,” February 7). Suddenly, the player who may be most responsible for the general’s defeat now appears on stage with the same flaw. How Shakespearean.Nevertheless, it is not the shared drama of these two men that attracts us, but their potential importance to our country, which now faces significant challenges, some of which Glick enumerates. The question before us, then, is that in light of these challenges, how should the government view Galant and Weinstein? Should both be out of a job? Neither? Only one? Leadership is not about past results. It is about the future. The past is important but, to borrow a phrase from the financial community, it is no guarantee of future performance.Certainly, fearlessness, innovation and determination are crucial for a military leader, as are political considerations (apparently) for an attorney-general. But for both, there could be a more important consideration: character.TUVIA BRODIEMa’aleh AdumimSir, – Like many who want to push their own agenda, Caroline B. Glick reports only what she wants to report. Doesn’t she read The Jerusalem Post? She should talk to Liat Collins, who hit the nail on the head last week (“The inelegant Galant affair,” My Word, February 6).Glick reports that “Galant apparently took control of state land... without authorization.”If I had done that it would be stealing, which is a criminal act.But that wasn’t Galant’s problem. He lied about it.He refused to own up to it.Others were recently kicked out of the army for lying about who was driving a military vehicle! Maybe if Galant had said from the start, “You are right, I was wrong. I’ll vacate the land; let me pay a fine,” the whole episode would have blown over.LOIS GREENKadimaSir, – In commenting on the unpleasant episodes related to the appointment of a new IDF chief of General Staff, Caroline B.Glick ends with the comment that somewhere out there, Israel’s enemies are laughing.This is true, but bearing in mind Israel’s incredible achievements despite the need to overcome several severe attempts at its annihilation, one can add that “he who laughs last, laughs best.”MONTY M. ZIONTel Mond
if(catID != 151){
var cont = `Take Israel home with the new Jerusalem Post Store