“Social cohesion, political divides” by Liat Collins (June 28) was good commentary and an article that all should read. The question is which comes first: the chicken or the egg?
If we can possibly achieve unity, will that mean the return of the hostages, end of the war and a long-lasting peace, or do we need the above first to obtain the unity?
Lots of people protest and want change, or do not like the current government. I have not heard or seen any strategic alternatives to the current situation that will bring home the hostages, return the evacuees to their homes, and guarantee peace.
Protests are alright as long as they do not disrupt the ongoing lives of others, but how do you make that work?
Stay safe and well. Keep up the good commentaries. Thank you for your strength.
JACK A. SALTZMAN
Hashmonaim
Responsibility and kindness
Regarding Jonathan Lieberman’s “On the shoulders of giants” (June 28): I am fortunate enough to be of the generation of his parents, of whom he spoke. I too wonder, on reflection, whether I was patient enough, was I too strict, and do I fully appreciate the responsibility and kindness offered to me by my four children? Am I too independent to accept what they so kindly offer me?
I must not close my eyes. Instead I should thank them and the Almighty, before it’s too late, for my very good fortune. Now, on the flip side, it is our “baby boomers” who are the giants, upon whose shoulders we rely so heavily.
JOY COLLINS
Bnei Dror
Indifferent to their fate
I fully agree with Sherwin Pomerantz in “Mr. Prime Minister: The buck stops with you” (June 26). It is pathetic that all he talks about is unity, and meanwhile our innocent citizens, and those of other countries – whose leaders seem indifferent to their fate – languish in tunnels in Gaza.
Would Prime Minister Netanyahu still talk about unity if one of his own sons had been taken hostage? Methinks the situation would be very different.
BRENDA GOLDBLUM
Jerusalem
Part of the equation
Regarding “High Court orders full draft of ultra-Orthodox students” (June 26): I’m an Orthodox Jew and an Israeli Zionist. We are a family of IDF combat and non-combatant soldiers and IDF reservists, for three generations already.
I really wonder – especially since October 7 – just what these ultra-Orthodox men would actually do if they’d see their women and babies being raped and murdered right in front of their own eyes? Would they just stand by, only reciting Psalms, or would they throw some nearby heavy objects at the terrorists in self-defense?
Would they turn their backs on their wives and children, and run away in fear of their own lives, or would they run and grab some kitchen knives, if at home, and actually struggle to protect themselves and others? Would they act to the fullest to protect others, while knowing that they might be killed in the process?
If they would, in fact, act in the interest of their immediate self-defense, then what is the difference between acting on an immediate personal level, and a local, regional, and/or national level for the defense of the Jewish population in their own land?
These are all basic questions on my part. I’ve been restraining myself, and not asking any of these same questions of the haredi men who I know. It’s been a very long almost nine months already. Do haredi Jews really believe that it’s only due to their prayers that we have been winning battles and wars against our enemies for the past 76 years?
If they do acknowledge any sort of miracles regarding our survival against our enemies, don’t they ever acknowledge that the IDF – our IDF – is part of the equation of our national survival, as an arm, a means of self-defense, granted to us by God? Do they and their leaders have a stubborn blindness and lack of appreciation for this part of the equation?
As a footnote: I am of the opinion that any school or yeshiva in Israel that refuses to teach basic core subjects – Hebrew, English, math and computers, plus ideally also history, geography and physical education – to school pupils ages 5-18 should be denied any and all governmental funding, and that anyone whose children are enrolled in such schools should be denied all tax exemptions and social welfare benefits.
Perhaps such measures will highly encourage these citizens to agree to having their children be educated in subjects which are basic learning material in the 21st century. Without this core curriculum attained at a young age, few of these potential draftees will be able to serve effectively in the IDF, and in fact they would be more of a hindrance in an army that requires such basic knowledge and skills.
Likewise, the time has come, following October 7, for all Israeli Jews to be partners in the shouldering of obligations in our Jewish nation, and not remain as ungrateful benefactors of the contributions of others in the fields of defense, security, health and welfare.
The 613 Torah commandments include: “Do not stand aside as your brother’s blood is being shed.”
LEAH YERUSHALMI
Jerusalem
Visibility as leverage
Zach D. Huff suggests that an Arab Israeli serving as co-president (“Time for an Arab co-president,”June 30) is not to be feared because the “position offers visibility without authority.” Alas, that’s what we thought about the presidency that we live with today, but no Israeli president, for decades now, has resisted the temptation to use visibility as leverage.
The position, created to be purely ceremonial, has repeatedly served as what Teddy Roosevelt called a “bully pulpit” for the president’s own political vision. Even Huff himself muses that “an Arab leader could help expand the Abraham Peace Accords and mediate disputes.” That’s not the president’s job, and with an Arab president alongside a Jewish president, even in what Huff hints would be a lesser presidency, how confident can we be that the two presidential agendas won’t conflict?
Even the visibility itself is a problem. Would the existence of an Arab co-president send the message that Israel embraces the Arabs, or would it send the message that Israel consigns the Arabs to separate leadership?
It would be better by far to further the social and political integration of the Israeli Arabs into the existing structures, and maybe – as Huff recalls that Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly once wanted – abolish the president’s office entirely.
MARK L. LEVINSON
Herzliya