Petulant teenagers
Regarding “Reinstate West Bank Palestinian workers” (February 27): The Palestinian Authority insists on being recognized as an independent state, while simultaneously shirking the responsibilities this entails. One of these duties is to foster gainful employment of its own citizens.
Ofek Balisha’s article suggesting that Israel permit Palestinians to work in Israel is paternalistic and essentially encourages the Palestinian Authority to continue its irresponsibility (for example, the cited egotistical hissy fit of refusing funds from Arab states). The only reason that Israelis want to employ Palestinians is to exploit them; since they are cheap labor. However, as so demonstrated on October 7, the friendly Palestinian laborer is often the hostile Palestinian spy, reconnoitering their enemy’s cities and villages.
It would be far more beneficial for the Palestinians if they were no longer treated like petulant teenagers and were forced to govern responsibly; and far more safe for Israel not to assist the enemy in its reconnaissance.
KOBI SIMPSON-LAVY
Rehovot
Ascertain the facts
In “Are we reverting to October 6?” (February 26), Herb Keinon rightfully decries protesters blocking traffic and police using water cannons as a possible reversion to October 6. However he avers that with the colossal intelligence failures that allowed the Simchat Torah massacres to occur, elections will be necessary in order for the people’s voices to be heard after that horrific event.
What Keinon doesn’t mention is the necessity of having a commission of inquiry to ascertain all the facts before people go to the voting booth. There was a breakdown in communication between the intelligence services and the government and other missteps which need to come out.
The original “day of infamy,” Pearl Harbor, which also saw a disregard for the signs of an impending attack on another day of rest, Sunday – December 7, 1941 – did not result in US president Roosevelt’s resignation. The facts may turn out to be very different in our case and an election is necessary to keep Israel unified, but it is essential that the voters are apprised of all the information needed in order to make an informed decision on who should form the next government.
Keinon rightly concludes that all the parties must accept the outcome of the election and not take actions that tear the nation apart. If “together we will win” was the slogan during the war, “together we will overcome” should be the motto after Operation Swords of Iron, in a world that continues to bear down on the Jewish people and the Jewish state.
FRED EHRMAN
Ra’anana
Only one view
Regarding “When Roni Kuban interviewed Yinon Magal” (February 26): I would like to remind Susan Hattis Rolef that the whole point of a free press is to hear other opinions. If we were only to hear what she would like us to hear, we would become like the Soviet Union; only one view, none others allowed.
In the meantime, we can still freely choose for which party to vote and from which news program we would like to get our information. Thank you for your concern.
FREYA BINENFELD
Petah Tikva
This person’s caliber
Reading “Columbia professor takes on antisemitism” (February 26) prompted me to write to you about this wonderful man. When I saw the video of Prof. Davidai speaking at the vigil for the victims of October 7, warning Jewish parents about the dangers awaiting them at elite universities, I decided to write to him. I have a cousin who is a doctoral candidate at Columbia and who is a high-profile pro-Palestinian campaigner, playing on the fact that he is a Jew, so how can he be antisemitic?!
Prof. Davidai is a psychologist, and I wrote to him firstly to tell him how moved I was by his speech at the vigil at Columbia, but also to ask his opinion of how we, as a family, should deal with a high profile pro-Palestinian campaigner in our family. I was not naive enough to expect a response from him, and even wrote that in my letter.
However, he did respond, and even apologized for the week and-a-half delay in writing to me! He was sympathetic, gave some very pertinent observations, and entreated me to keep him informed as to how the family is dealing with it. For a man of his stature, in the midst of a horrendous, career-threatening, and high profile situation at Columbia, to take the time to write to a complete stranger, says so much about the caliber of this person.
We wish him well in his endeavors.
ELLIE MORRIS
Aseret
The story of how a Columbia professor takes on antisemitism reminded me of my days as a graduate student at Columbia University, decades ago. As a new student in the Department of Political Science, freshly graduated as an almost straight “A” student from Hunter College, I was shocked to receive in one of my first papers a less than stellar grade. The professor invited all who wished to discuss his grading to make an appointment with him in his office and so I did.
I felt an uneasiness there which I could not define, especially when he referred to my “background” or lack thereof. When I mentioned it to a fellow student, I was told that “of course, this professor is a notorious antisemite.” Having lived in New York City my whole life, it was my first such encounter.
I soon forgot the incident and felt very much at home at Columbia, studying with some of the most famous scholars of the time including Jewish studies Prof. Salo Baron, who was revered by all on campus.
Toward the conclusion of my degree, I was assigned a new thesis mentor, who guided me to the publication of my paper. In one of our final meetings, he seemed a little agitated and revealed that he was being considered for a high administrative position but was concerned that antisemitism would block his appointment.
I had not even known that he was Jewish and despite my earlier experience was still unaware of discrimination, when he described to me how he had been snubbed by colleagues at official meetings and social events alike. He explained that he tried to brush off all these slights, and since he had an affable manner, I was not surprised when some time later I heard that he did get the job.
This dates back to a time when antisemitism was expressed in a “gentlemanly agreement” fashion in contrast to the current blatant anti-Jewish demonstrations, but it illustrates that it has existed at Columbia for a long time.
The question today is whether bringing it into the open will suppress it to its former status, or bring about its total eradication. Let us hope it will be the latter.
MARION REISS
Beit Shemesh