Outrageous action
“‘Netanyahu is not above the law’” (July 25), an article about Jews who joined the pro-Hamas protesters in Washington, is very disturbing. In defense of this outrageous action, a Jewish protester named Jacob Melsh said: “No, it’s not antisemitic to criticize the State of Israel.”
It is true that there is such a thing as legitimate disagreement with Israeli actions, and all one needs to do is observe a session of the Knesset, where he will see Israelis of every stripe vehemently condemning government policies. But these criticisms come from people who at bottom are loyal to Israel and are concerned for its wellbeing.
That cannot be said for Jews who march in solidarity with those who support Hamas in its efforts to utterly destroy the Jewish state. Those who protest together with the terrorists who on October 7 unleashed a pogrom of Holocaust proportions cannot escape the accusation of being antisemitic. Can they not see the difference between Israel, which is a liberal democracy that extends full rights and compassionate treatment to all its citizens regardless of race, religion and sexual preference, and Hamas, which is a cruel and brutal entity dedicated to executing genocide against the Jewish state?
Anyone who joins with the supporters of Hamas in furtherance of their Hitlerian aims clearly has nothing but extreme hatred for Jews and Israel and therefore must be regarded as profoundly antisemitic. In what sense can such a person be regarded as truly Jewish?
REUVEN MANNJerusalem
One disturbing sign seen last Wednesday in DC referred to the “Final Solution” with a mushroom cloud rising above the flag of Israel. Lock them up. Arrest them all. The Nazis murdered most of my family. They did not succeed in the Final Solution, nor will they.
BERNHARD ROSENBERGEdison, New Jersey
Deaf, dumb, and blind
Regarding “Lebanon braces for Israeli retaliation” (July 30): For those who believe that diplomacy will work in getting Hezbollah to permanently acquiesce to UN Resolution 1701 and retreat beyond the Litani River, I have a beautiful bridge to sell them. In fact, under the terms of this resolution, wasn’t the UN’s peacekeeping UNIFIL force meant to oversee its implementation? Instead, all UNIFIL appears to be doing is driving in the area, taking shelter, and acting deaf, dumb and blind to the abuses that are carried out by Hezbollah.
We must not forget that we have over 60,000 of our own refugees who for months now have had to abandon their lives, and we seem to have relinquished this area as part of our own country.
To appear weak and indecisive is dangerous in the face of such heinous enemies, as we learned dearly on October 7. Still, whether this generation is decisive and brave enough to make the decision to deter these enemies at our gates or leave it to another, only time will tell.
One thing that is for sure is that barbarians far and near who seek our destruction are not going away anytime soon, but we have only one home, and are no longer and must not be the wandering Jew.
STEPHEN VISHNICKTel Aviv
Steadfast supporter
Kudos to Tamar Uriel-Beeri, deputy editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, for “Thank you, Mr. President” (July 26). As she points out, President Biden has been ”a steadfast supporter of the State of Israel... a Christian Zionist... [with an] unwavering commitment” to Israel.
By sharp contrast, former president Trump hosted known antisemites for dinner at Mar-a-Lago, forwarded antisemitic posts from neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups, and made antisemitic statements such as that US Jews care more about Israel than the US and that Jews who do not support him are disloyal to Israel and Judaism.
In addition, Trump told Christians that if they voted for him to help him get reelected, he would fix it so that they would never have to vote again, and stated that he would like to be a dictator on day one. He is also in denial about climate threats and made over 30,000 false or misleading statements during his presidency.
RICHARD H. SCHWARTZShoresh
Truly amazing
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress was masterful (“PM: ‘Abraham Alliance’ needed to combat Iran,” July 25). As the leader of Israel, he very clearly spelled out Israel’s goals in winning this war against our enemies, including Iran, bringing home all of the hostages, and returning displaced Israelis to their homes in the North. His words were a glorification of God’s name for Israel and the Jewish people.
What was truly amazing, watching Netanyahu speak before Congress, was the positivity of the event; the frequent standing ovations, as opposed to the lack of Israel’s detractors in the audience, and of anti-Israel demonstrators to disrupt the event.
The absence of Vice President Kamala Harris allowed Jewish Senator Ben Cardin to sit behind Netanyahu in Harris’s seat, which added to the positive impact of the Jewish people as allies of the United States. Regarding “A bad start” (editorial, July 25): I believe that Harris’s absence provided the opportunity to focus exclusively on Netanyahu’s words without any political or negative distractions within the chamber. It was a good start toward peace.
GERSHON LEVITANBeit Shemesh
Prematurely surprised
I was rather pleasantly surprised by the opening paragraphs of Susan Hattis Rolef’s take on the prime minister’s speech to a joint session of the US Congress (“Netanyahu’s address to Congress,” July 29). She was, uncharacteristically, objective and evenhanded. She gave credit where credit was due and expressed reasonable concern over what she viewed as troublesome bumps in the road on which Israel and the United States travel together. Had she stopped there, even extremists from both poles of Israel’s political spectrum would have found little that was objectionable.
However, with the following sentence, Rolef glaringly crashed. “The greatest problem is that Netanyahu’s address portrayed only part of Israel’s reality,” she argued.
That part, the one she spent most of her column on, is strictly internal and, as she indicated, would have been utterly out of place in the prime minister’s address. Why, then, mention them at all? I’ll agree that, yes, perhaps the timing was off and Netanyahu should have postponed the address for a later, less politically-charged time. Still, it’s how Bibi represented Israel that she should have stayed focused on and not the domestic hot spots that have to be navigated.
My initial pleasant surprise with her article was, as such, a bit premature. The reality check she calls for must wait for an internal address on the state of the State of Israel. The speech by the prime minister to the US Congress, providing an update on the multi-front war in which Israel is engaged, was most certainly not the appropriate opportunity.
BARRY NEWMANGinot Shomron