Letters to the Editor June 13, 2021: Bennett benedictions

I can’t help but wonder why former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu – a master at political strategy – did not play the “3 a.m. call” card that both he and Ehud Barak used during their respective campaigns against Tzipi Livni. Bennett, not too long ago, was for the most part exiled from the political theater. His return has been with a limp rather than a roar, and he has reached the pinnacle only because of an electoral system that is in dire need of an overhaul. In the event of an international crisis, would any of the G7 leaders be ready to call Bennett in the middle of the night, confident that he has the skill, knowledge and ability to put into action and coordinate Israel’s resources quickly and efficiently? Time will tell (or, hopefully, not), but I have some doubts.

Bennett is a decent, bright and honest individual who may in fact have the potential for national leadership. But he is not without warts. His zigzagging during the Gaza uprising was more than a little troubling, and that he can forgive himself for having broken promises to those who voted for him will have consequences. For now, though, I am less concerned with his personality as a politician than with his ability to keep Israel safe, and that he will know what to do if and when “the call” comes.

Naftali Bennett was sworn in as the premier of the State of Israel on Sunday, a historic moment for many reasons, but I want to look at one of the reasons that seems to have been overlooked by the media. For the first time, someone whose parents were born and raised in the United States will be in the highest position in the Israeli government.

I believe this will be an historic moment for the relations between Israel and the Jews of the United States. It hopefully will be an historic opportunity to change the negative direction of this relationship.

For the first time there is a family and very strong cultural connection between a leader of Israel and the Jews of the United States. I hope that all of us, regardless of our political viewpoints, take advantage of this new opportunity.

How many people will spend the next few weeks in consternation, apprehension and maybe even trembling – thinking to themselves, “Who will look after us now ? Here in the country – and abroad – who will stand strong in the face of the diplomatic pressures that are always being arraigned against us?  

For about 30% of the adult population, no other leader has occupied the “throne” and made us feel safe. It may be that the efforts of no man are fully appreciated until he ceases to do them.

How much longer will the parties now in opposition status in the Knesset continue to rail and rant against the incoming government?

Great leaders should respect others and inspire them to reach heights otherwise unattainable. They are motivated by ideals, not by personal ambition. They do not succumb to the arrogance of power (C.S. Lewis, as quoted by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks).

Not only am I devastated by the words of the Likud and haredi leaders but I just think back to what happened 2,000 years ago. Sinat hinam (baseless hatred) is what  I feel we are hearing now – and we should always remember what the result was the last time...

These parties should go into opposition with honor and work towards accepting their (self-inspired) failure rather than ranting and raving and prolonging the feeling of “us and them.” We are one people and I, for one, would like to see all the politicians working toward maintaining this and not perpetuating the “fact” that one section of society is better than the other.

Who needs worldwide promoters of antisemitism when the leaders of the haredi parties were so unprecedented in their ferocity? (“Bennett’s an evil wicked Reform Jew,” June 9)  They do a good job just on their own!  Do they not adhere to not judging others? Only Hashem can do that.

To insult Naftali Bennett for trying to bring a unity government to fruition is a disgrace. I know little about politics, but wish him luck in his endeavors. He is struggling to unite Israel as a nation, catering to all needs but stipulating that no changes will be made unless everybody in the government agrees!   

It all seems very sensible, and what has been needed for a very long time.

 

 

Keren Azaria wants Israel to re-tool its hasbara (explanations) concerning the conflict with Gaza (“Israel, It’s time to understand: It’s complicated,” June 9). We should recognize our flaws and mistakes and show more empathy for the other side. We should recognize the diversity of views and perspectives. We must understand that it’s complicated. 

Okay, here is my suggested version of the new hasbara. Rockets are fired indiscriminately at Israeli civilian centers, but we understand that the Hamas is forced to adopt this form of warfare since it does not have pinpoint bombing capabilities that would enable them to destroy the Haifa oil refineries, the Knesset, the Dimona nuclear reactor, etc. We urge the UN to supply Hamas with projectiles of greater accuracy so that they can avoid these forced-upon-them war crimes.  

With their failure to infiltrate Israel with underground attack tunnels and many other foiled operations, Hamas operatives are beginning to show signs of depression. Israel must show empathy for their frustration and provide urgent psychological aid. It’s the least we can do.

It is disappointing when Israel is criticized for defending itself against attacks but it helps to understand the context. As Jews we are familiar with the background of antisemitism. But to an observer who is ignorant of Jewish history, Israel’s responses might appear disproportionate. 

Most people prefer the underdog. Following the Holocaust, over two-thirds of countries voted at the UN to establish a Jewish State. This was achieved even with all the Muslim countries voting against it. In those early days, when Israel was still considered to be the underdog, much of the world enthusiastically supported her unexpected victory in the Six Day War.

Those were exciting times for Zionists, when they felt no need to defend Israel’s image.

Since then David has become Goliath and Goliath has become David, and of course David is always more popular.

The side with the most dead children will win the war of public sympathy; it is not necessarily antisemitism (or even a just cause) that determines this.

Why was Israel not using precision-guided ground-to-ground missiles against Hamas in Gaza instead of hundreds or aircraft sorties? The loss of one of our planes could result in huge financial (and human) losses – an F-35 costs $100 million! Or is it that we do not have such suitable weaponry in our arsenal as the IDF/IAF did not consider them necessary? 

Clearly, there needs to be a public investigation into our defensive planning since we appear to be making the same mistakes as happened before the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

 

 

Dr. Lior Lehrs’s “No, Jerusalem is not off the table” (June 6), is a piece of sophistry to justify Jerusalem being divided between two supposedly equally deserving claimants, recognizing “the existence of both Jerusalem and al-Quds.”

By al Quds, he means the Old City containing all the Jewish holy sites becoming the Palestinian Arab capital, including the surrounding suburbs to the east, leaving only modern west Jerusalem, as the Jewish capital.

International law in the 1920 binding San Remo agreement unequivocally allotted sovereignty in the entirety of Palestine to the Jewish people for their future national home, including Jerusalem. There was never any provision for any other sovereignty, or separation of Jerusalem from the rest.

It was ratified unanimously by all 51 members of the League of Nations in its 1922 Mandate for Palestine document and remains the last legal ruling. It is the “permanent status agreement”.

Ceding parts of Jerusalem would be the first time in history that a defeated invading army (Trans-Jordan) with no claim to the land either in law or historical connection, would be rewarded with territory.

As to Sheikh Jarrah, (the Shimon Hatzadik neighborhood), it was ethnically cleansed of its Jewish inhabitants by the Trans-Jordanian Arab invaders in 1948 and in 1956 UNRWA illegally gave the Arab invading “refugees” the homes Jews were forced to abandon.

After the 1967 reunification of Jerusalem and lengthy court cases proving deeds of ownership, a deal was struck whereby the Arab squatters were allowed to remain conditional on payment of a “peppercorn” rent. No rent was paid – hence the eviction notices. To cancel the evictions would be to pour contempt on the rule of law and invite more of the same.

It is dishonest to claim that property law is discriminatory, there being no parallel “right of return” of homes in west Jerusalem to their Arab owners. Those were temporarily left upon the exhortations of the Arab invaders who promised that after the Jews would be thrown into the sea, they would return and all of Palestine would be theirs.

Regarding the “Israelization” of east Jerusalem, Lehrs need not worry!  The Palestinians have been making a mockery of planning laws in every respect, building huge cities within cities in audacious land grabs to create facts on the ground to the north, east and south of Jerusalem to encircle it, aided and abetted by the malice of the EU, and ignored by the Israeli authorities, who fear the onslaught of predictable hostile world opinion.

Meanwhile, the planning laws are respected by Jerusalem’s Jewish citizens because, in their case, they are meticulously enforced.

The same scenario of Palestinian land grab exists increasingly in the Negev and the West Bank. Enforcing the rule of law equally upon all Israel’s citizens would not “severely undermine Israel’s international standing” as Lehrs claims. On the contrary, it would earn respect.

How wonderful that “Israel bans sale of fur to fashion industry, first country to do so” (June 11). This is consistent with Jewish values, since Jews are to be rachmanim b’nei rachmanim (compassionate children of compassionate ancestors), emulating God, Whose compassion is over all His works” (Psalms 145:9), and consistent with tsa’ar ba’alei haim (the Torah mandate to treat animals with compassion).

However, I wonder why most Jews are ignoring the many abuses of animals on factory farms. Now that there are plant-based substitutes with appearance, texture, and taste indistinguishable from meat and other animal products, why continue diets that involve so much cruelty to animals, are unhealthy, and contribute significantly to climate change and other threats to humanity, risks for future pandemics, and the wasteful use of land, energy, water, and other resources, thereby violating many basic Jewish teachings?

 

 

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) chose to have its offices in Switzerland, from which they spew their obscene hatred of Israel, recently in the form of a permanent committee to investigate Israeli war crimes (“The UN Human Rights Council isn’t human or right,” June 3). 

The Swiss were neutral in World War II while millions of Jews were being slaughtered  in countries around them. They were neutral to the Holocaust atrocities and escaped relatively unscathed from the horrors of the war. Now they are more than happy to host the UNHRC in its obsessive criticism of Israel. Now they can actually participate as silent partners in the UNHRC antisemitism.  

Pakistan, a Muslim country, infamous for its human rights abuses, introduced the draft resolution on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference. A cohort of countries determined to destroy Israel, and the Swiss are more than pleased to host these racist defenders of humanity – Jews, of course excepted.

 

 

Regarding “Ex-Mossad chief Tamir Pardo: Netanyahu broke policy with Iran, US” (June 9), Pardo said, “we must do everything to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” but that it was a mistake for Netanyahu to call it an existential threat. Really? I guess we are in serious trouble if the ex-Mossad head does not think that Iran is an existential threat to Israel! 

On the one hand, we have Michael Oren, the former Israel’s ambassador to the US during the Obama administration, who in his book Ally wrote: “Finally, after many months of attentiveness, I reached my conclusion. In the absence of a high-profile provocation – an attack on a US aircraft carrier, for example – the United States would not use force against Iran. Rather, the administration would remain committed to diplomatically resolving the Iranian nuclear issue, even at the risk of reaching a deal unacceptable to Israel. And If Israel took matters into its own hands, the White House would keep its distance and offer to defend Israel only if it were counter-struck by a hundred thousand Hezbollah missiles.”

On the other hand,  we have Bernard Lewis, who said of the Iranian mullahs: “For people with this mindset, mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.) is not a constraint; it is an inducement…”

So how can Tamir Pardo say what he did? It makes no sense whatsoever. 

I commend Moshe Dann for his erudite article “The politics of guilt, the Left and ‘the occupation’ (June 13).

The point he makes that the best option is to recognize Jordan as the one and only Palestinian State and to encourage Arabs who want to live there to do so echoes, among others, the British opinion confirmed by a British diplomat in the Middle East for four decades, Sir Alec Seath Kirkbride, in his 1956 book: “A Crackle of Thorns: Experiences in the Middle East.”

Numerous international law experts have outlined our right to sovereignty from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

The multiple calls for a “two-state” solution overlook the fact that there are 22 Arab states – more than enough to satisfy the two-state solution – and only one small Jewish state.

Moreover, with Jordan occupying more than two-thirds of Palestine and having an overwhelming majority of Palestinians, another Arab Palestinian state would be redundant.

A mouse doesn’t need a hat rack.  

Regarding “Police refuse Ben-Gvir permission to visit Temple Mount” (June 9), Jewish Israelis are banned from the Temple Mount because it would upset Arabs. Jews are barred from celebrating the unification of Jerusalem after 2,000 years because it would upset Arabs.

Arabs are allowed to demonstrate and celebrate their political conquest over Jewish Israelis even if it upsets Jewish Israelis. There is no response to incendiary balloons from Gaza that cause significant damage in southern Israel proper although current and future Defense Minister Benny Gantz promised a dire response to any missile, incursion or balloon.

This is a pattern of appeasement that I am afraid will only get worse with the incoming government. Shameful and embarrassing; a return to the cowering shtetl yid of yore.