Home

Wishful thinking?

Seth Mandel's editorial comment, dismissing the talk about a crisis between the U.S. and Israel and calling it hyperbole, clearly suggests that the editor would rather not deal with reality, but with wishful thinking.

I am an Israeli, I love Israel, I want to see it continue as a democratic country with a Jewish identity, and the security and safety of Israel (and my family there) is very much a top priority for me. I have been living in the U.S. for over 35 years, and have a lot of concern about the future of Israel in light of utter failure of leadership in Israel.

First, the editor's condescending attitude about Haaretz is not only unprofessional, it is totally without base, and hints that the editor "chooses" his "actual news" to be "true" as long as they fit his worldview (maybe from Fox News?).

Second, to say not to worry about the row between the U.S. and Israel, that it is nothing, that it is overblown, etc., is putting one's head in the sand. All the U.S. presidents and the U.S. congresses have been consistent in their worldview: Although the U.S. is very friendly to Israel and share a lot of the same values, the solution of the Arab-Israeli issue is hindered by the creeping expansion of the Jewish settlements. To embarrass Joe Biden, who explicitly came to Israel to promote some sort of a dialogue (rather than military action) between Israel and the Palestinians, was of the utmost stupidity in diplomacy, and shows much deeper flaws in the ability of the Israeli government to be trusted and be taken seriously.

Thirdly, I do not know when was the last time the editor was in Jerusalem, but I was there last year, have been there almost every year before, and I am becoming totally appalled. A city that had a chance to be a world-class gem and a beautiful symbol of freedom is now ugly, full of high-rise dense buildings dotting all the carved hills, and with limitations of personal freedoms (for Jews as well!). Why should the government -- and thus mostly secular taxpayers -- subsidize a minority of religious people? The country will be a lot richer long-term if "natural growth" can take place in the Negev and the Galil -- not in Jerusalem.

David Hoenig
East Brunswick

One response to two letters

I would like to respond to two letters in the March 19 issue of The Jewish State.

Chiara Nappi complains about Jews building in the so-called "West Bank" and "East" Jerusalem," says that the American Jewish community should be appalled at such actions, and should send a clear message to Israel. I would remind Ms. Nappi that the Arabs were enthusiastic supporters of Hitler ("Mein Kampf" is still a best-seller in the Arab world) who also had a lot to say about where Jews lived. As a native-born American and a Jew, I strongly oppose Hitler's philosophy and methods, and believe that the message Americans and Jews should send to Israel is one of support for their policy that Jews have the right to live in peace and security anywhere they want, including their ancient homeland of Judea, Samaria, and in all of their eternal capital of Jerusalem. Even though the Hitler-loving Arabs and Ms. Nappi disagree.

Stacey Bachrach complains about the placement of an article about J Street, the latest "pro-Israel, pro-peace" organization. Ms. Bachrach wants "a little less politics, and a little more unbiased reporting" in your paper. To Ms. Bachrach I say this: The Jewish State provides a refreshing breath of journalistic integrity into a medium that is pretty much morally bankrupt. The liberal media is totally in line with J Street's philosophy, and Ms. Bachrach can get all the "unbiased reporting" she wants from the New York Times, where the Jews are always to blame.

However, since Ms. Bachrach claims that "open discussion and the ability to learn from different points of view are important ideals of our religion," perhaps she can explain exactly how J Street's philosophy is either "pro-Israel" or "pro-peace". For example, J Street advocates the two-state "Final Solution for the Jewish people." I use that phrase because I have learned from "a different point of view" -- the Arab one. Historically, we know that when Jews give up land, the Arabs escalate violence, e.g., the Gaza "disengagement." So perhaps Ms. Bachrach or some other liberal would explain how, after forcing the Jews into another ghetto, the Arabs will suddenly embrace peace? And where did they learn that "different point of view"?

Then, if she is truly interested in an "open discussion and the ability to learn," we can see how open she is to the idea that Jews have the right to live in peace and security without being criticized for it by J Street.

Benjamin Feigenbaum
East Brunswick