Sovereign and independent
Regarding “One-China is an indisputable fact” (December 29): I believe democracy-loving readers of The Jerusalem Post agree that people are masters of the country. The democracy that the Taiwanese government has built is for the Taiwanese people to determine their own future, and it shouldn’t be decided for anyone’s political legacy.
It is an indisputable fact that Taiwan is a sovereign, independent country, called Republic of China (ROC). We strongly believe that any political dispute should be resolved peacefully, and that the rejuvenation dream achieved by any form of forceful coercion will be met only by condemnation.
I also want to point out a historical fact that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 does not determine that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has sovereignty over Taiwan, nor does it exclude Taiwan from participating in international organizations.
We are pleased and grateful to see a growing consensus and consistency in messaging across the globe to reject the PRC’s misinterpretation of the UN resolution that it affirms the so-called “One-China Principle,” and we call on the PRC to stop misusing it for its own political ends in relation to Taiwan. Taiwan will continue to deepen our cooperative and substantive relations with like-minded countries and allies.
It is also imperative to note that neither Taiwan nor the United States is the destabilizing force, as the article falsely accused. By contrast, Taiwan is a responsible stakeholder for maintaining the peace and resilience of the global supply chain.
For instance, Taiwan staunchly supports and joins US sanctions on Iran and terrorist organizations, and pledges to preserve the peaceful and stable status quo of the Taiwan Strait, an area through which more than 50% of global maritime commerce passes.
We therefore call on peace-loving countries to join the US-led freedom of navigation in the Taiwan Strait to ensure continuous peace and prosperity. These are the shared interests of each and everyone of us.
Only when we democracies speak in one voice and coordinate our actions against authoritarian aggression can we preserve the liberal international order. Taiwan stands in unity with democracies and chooses to be on the right side of history in safeguarding the rule-based society. What is your choice?
YA-PING (ABBY) LEERepresentativeTaipei Economic and Cultural OfficeTel Aviv
Ego-massaging perks
I’d like nothing better than to hear National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir threaten to leave the government coalition because of the recent High Court ruling against a component of the Police Law (“High Court nixes part of contentious Police Law,” January 3).
But, of course, he won’t; the ego-massaging perks that come with a ministerial post are not easily surrendered. Besides, now that Gideon Sa’ar has rejoined both the government and Likud, Ben-Gvir’s leverage has been seriously diminished.
So instead, he rants about the bias of the court and how the ruling is, if anything, a dramatic blow to Israeli democracy. What he – and others – are overlooking is that absolute objectivity is required when examining and evaluating police operations. Anyone who plays a major role in the promulgation and implementation of general guidelines, procedures and protocols governing law enforcement cannot achieve that level of objectivity.
For precisely that reason, many police departments throughout the world have established civilian review boards which conduct periodic oversight activities and take charge of investigations involving suspicious or controversial operations. The court’s ruling does not in any way undermine Ben-Gvir’s authority; it simply introduces the notion that a complementary procedure may very well have to be defined.
The ruling will most likely be overturned once the composition of the High Court changes and the five-four vote will go the other way. Whether Ben-Gvir will still be around when that happens is an open-ended question.
BARRY NEWMANGinot Shomron
Observant and active
Thank you, Sherwin Pomerantz, for your extremely interesting article about Rabbi Karzen (“Rabbi Jay Karzen turns 90,” January 1). He reminds me very much of Rabbi Philip N. Ritholtz, the Orthodox rabbi of my Conservative congregation in Highland Park, New Jersey.
At that time, it was the only Jewish congregation in Highland Park, and my father was a board member. Like Rabbi Karzan, Rabbi Ritholtz, too, encouraged congregants to become more observant and active in Jewish community causes. Besides six hours of Hebrew school twice a week after the regular school day, we were also requested to attend Friday night and Shabbat services, plus required classes which took place after Shabbat kiddush (with no writing) and on Sunday.
It is thanks to the influence of Rabbi Ritholtz and the Orthodox upbringing of my parents that I have my current level of observance. I interacted with him mostly during my bat-mitzvah year, and unfortunately moved away for college and afterward, so didn’t get to know him better. I still greatly appreciate him, and am often appalled at the dismissive attitude of some people toward other streams of Judaism (including modern Orthodox).
Thanks again for bringing back these wonderful memories.
RIVKA ZAHAVYJerusalem