LETTERS:Pledge of allegiance

Not only should swearing allegiance to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state be required of all MKs, it should be required of every single citizen.

Letters (photo credit: REUTERS)
(photo credit: REUTERS)
Pledge of allegiance
In response to reporter Udi Shaham’s “Law would swear allegiance to state” (March 3), the lack of an existing requirement for this most basic necessity is what allows the Knesset to give seats to sworn enemies of the state like joint List MKs Ahmad Tibi, Haneen Zoabi and Basel Ghattas, among others.
Not only should swearing allegiance to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state be required of all MKs, it should be required of every single citizen. All citizens should be made to pledge to protect Israel as a Jewish democracy, and to protect and honor its symbols, such as the flag and national anthem.
Citizens, Arab and Jew alike, who refuse to swear allegiance and participate in national service (military or civilian) should be stripped of their citizenship status and rights, and deported. Residents aspiring to citizenship must be held to the same standard – demonstrate loyalty to, and support for, the Jewish, democratic, sovereign State of Israel or face the same consequences.
Democracies operate on a shared social contract and commitment to the rule of law. Rights come with responsibilities – certainly, among these rights is the right to serve in the country’s legislature.
AVIVA ADLER Beit Shemesh
Thrilled with Trump...
I was disturbed by your March 3 editorial “Trump’s apologists.”
It should be more than obvious that we Jews are constantly threatened for our very survival. The three biggest threats have been the Iranian deal, Islamic State and the constant undermining of Israel by the incredible bias of the United Nations.
When we finally have a US president who openly declares his intention to fight all three, any Jew with common sense would embrace such a leader regardless of anything else – our survival and security come before anything else.
I, for one, am thrilled to have Donald Trump in the White House.
...and not so much
Novelist and essayist George Orwell was afraid of overseers depriving us of information. His fellow writer Aldous Huxley, on the other hand, warned of an onslaught of news, real or fabricated, that would reduce its consumers to passivity and egotism.
Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed; Huxley contended that when truth was drowned in a sea of irrelevance, we would become a trivial culture.
Both views have proven presciently true in these uncertain times of the dangerously fractured and dystopian post-Trump world.
Real facts are deliberately submerged into the swamp-bottom of lies and manipulation (Orwellian) by the sea tides of their manufactured alternative cousins. The media, both press and social, need to take care that this moment-by-moment accounting doesn’t drown us in its thought-extinguishing momentum (Huxleyan).
JOSEPH TING Brisbane, Australia
Looking at Gaza
Two items in Yaakov Katz’s “Tunneling protocols” (Editor’s Notes, March 3) made me cringe with surprise and apprehension.
Katz mentions “over a decade of unprecedented quiet in the North.” But this is because of the complete disregard for UN Security Council Resolution 1701 by Hezbollah and the world. Now, Hezbollah is armed to the teeth with tens of thousands of longrange missiles and all kinds of fighting equipment it is itching to use on us.
Then there is this: “Israel...
needs to look at the [Gaza] tunnel threat with the right perspective.
Terrorist tunnels... can be used to infiltrate a kibbutz and massacre dozens of people. But they do not pose an existential threat to the State of Israel.”
I wonder how many of the residents bordering the Gaza area would agree with him. Do these citizens deserve less protection than the rest of us? The real danger of dozens of children and adults of all ages being slaughtered is most certainly an existential threat!
Critical components are missing from the discussions of the 2014 Gaza war, its planning, conduct and aftermath. Specifically, we can stop supplying the Gazans until they return the Israelis held hostage there, and there is a complete cease-fire. A siege is likely to end a future war in less time and more humanely, with much fewer casualties on either side. Why is this not done or even discussed? The Gazans are expert tunnel builders, even with limited means.
By contrast, we can use much faster tunnel-digging machines to reach the sensitive places where the nefarious Hamas keeps its headquarters and launchers. We can then startle them with great force when and where they do not expect it. Such a concern would keep them very busy trying to discover our tunnels. Why not? Finally, we need a long-term vision of what should happen in the Gaza Strip. Clearly, the “Singapore” solution is very unlikely, as Gazans are not like Singaporeans.
So how do we proceed toward a permanent, stable and reasonable situation instead of the incessant and costly short-term fix?
With regard to “Gaza war report blasts Netanyahu, Ya’alon, Gantz” (March 1), it is comparatively easy for the state comptroller to write with 20/20 hindsight the condemning report on Operation Protective Edge years after the event. However, at the time, most people, including The Jerusalem Post, approved of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cautious waging of the war with Hamas.
In wartime, the best plans go wrong, and the heat of battle is quite different from conclusions drawn in the quiet of an office.
Nevertheless, we should learn from any mistakes made.
The previous war against Hamas spawned the infamous and biased Goldstone Report. The report unfairly damned Israel. Judge Richard Goldstone, who chaired the UN-sponsored commission of inquiry that wrote the report, later withdrew his support. However, once written, it was permanently there.
Protective Edge was probably waged with that in mind. We not only had to fight Hamas, but also those obnoxious anti-Israel, anti-Jewish NGOs funded by anti-Israel foreign governments that pay the salaries of those who conspire against us. The IDF did its utmost to fight over and above the demands of the international rules of warfare and is still being condemned.
The rules of war cannot be applied when fighting against a terrorist non-state where the other side does not abide by these rules.
In any future conflict with terrorists, the world should be put on notice that we will not fight with our hands tied by rules that affect one side only.
Fayyad confusion
I am confused. Columnist Caroline B. Glick wrote a damning indictment of Salam Fayyad, his anti-Israel activities over the years and his support and cover-ups for the massive graft of Yasser Arafat and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (“The Livni-Fayyad two-step,” Our World, February 14).
However, The Jerusalem Post published an editorial (“Support Fayyad,” February 13), an op-ed by Canadian jurist Irwin Cotler (“The UN, Salam Fayyad and Israel,” Observations, February 17) and a Magazine article by Felice Friedson (“The Fayyad affair: A symptom of a diplomatic disease,” Observations, February 24), all in support of Fayyad – as if the reasons for Glick’s criticisms simply did not exist.
Can one be enlightened as what to believe?
With regard to “ICA marks March as Colorectal Cancer Awareness month” (March 3), half of all Israeli Jews who are diagnosed with colorectal cancer in their lifetime are diagnosed after the age of 70.