To the Editor:

There are two major problems with the Jewish Ledger editorial, “Israel’s Election Day Results: The View Stateside.”

One problem is its hostility to Israel, something ill-fitting a publication that is supposed to be serving the Jewish community rather than anti-Israel fringe groups like JStreet and Jewish Voice for Peace. It is an insult to the memories of longtime Ledger publishers Bert Gaster and Ricky Greenfield.

The other major problem is the misrepresentation of what Benjamin Netanyahu said near the end of the Israeli election campaign.

Mahmoud Abbas, the leader not only of the Palestinian Authority, but also of both the PLO and Fatah, is clearly never going to agree to peace, regardless of Israel’s leadership. His record is pretty clear. He walked away from the negotiating table in 2008 after Ehud Olmert offered him everything but the kitchen sink and has pretty much stayed away ever since. (When Netanyahu froze Jewish construction in the disputed territories for ten months, he came to the table during the tenth month, after announcing he’d walk away again three weeks later. He returned again for John Kerry’s futile exercise, being bribed by the release of numerous Arab terrorists, including several mass murderers, but never negotiated seriously and made sure to torpedo the process.)

If those actions, along with his incitement, his glorification of terrorism and terrorists and his unilateral steps in violation of his signed agreements weren’t clear enough, he delivered his own infamous three no’s to President Obama: no to recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, no to giving up the demand for a so-called “right of return” for millions of Arabs hostile to Israel, no to the signing of an end of conflict agreement. The first is a rejection of the “two-state solution,” since it rejects its very meaning of two states for two peoples. The second is incompatible with the principle of a two-state solution. The third is incompatible with peace.

It’s pretty obvious that it doesn’t matter who leads Israel; the Palestinian Arabs aren’t going to agree to peace in the foreseeable future. Netanyahu may have spoken in a manner designed to get his party votes – that’s what all candidates do during election campaigns – but what he said was basically just a statement of this reality.

In terms of Netanyahu’s comments about Arab voters, as has been pointed out by Maurice Ostroff, “First Lady Michelle Obama blatantly used the race card urging Blacks to vote Democrat” (Washingtom Times, Nov. 4, 2014)). “Realistically, her remarks were more openly racist than those of Netanyahu.” (Note: Ostroff did not vote for Netanyahu.) This doesn’t excuse what Netanyahu said, but he not only apologized, the Arabs to whom he apologized in person reacted emotionally to his apology, even hugging him.

One should also recognize the demagogic nature of the Arab politicians running on the United Arab List. Most are anti-Zionist and many are also hostile to Israel. Many have acted in concert with Israel’s enemies. Some not only would not be allowed on the ballot in any other country, but would have been prosecuted and convicted for treason. The leader, Ayman Odeh, may be the most moderate Knesset member in his party, but even he has incited Arabs to neither serve in the IDF nor even do National Service.

I believe Jews who disagree with policies or actions of the Israeli government don’t only have the right, but have the obligation to express their opinions to Israeli officials.  However, the nation-state of the Jewish people remains under attack by enemies still dedicated to its destruction. It’s not just Hamas. Try to take a look at the revised PLO charter with the provisions calling for the destruction of Israel removed. You won’t succeed, because it doesn’t exist. Despite all the hoopla back in 1996, the PLO charter has yet to be revised. The charter of that group, led by Mahmoud Abbas, still calls for the destruction of Israel.

Given this reality, it’s irresponsible and destructive to publicly sow conflict within the Jewish community, whether at a JStreet conference or on the editorial page of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. If we are not for ourselves, who will be for us?

Alan Stein, Ph.D.
Founder, PRIMER-Massachusetts
President Emeritus, PRIMER-Connecticut
Natick, Mass. / Netanya, Israel 

To the Editor:

Let’s be very clear about Obama’s attitude toward Israel.  He has never been a real friend of Israel. He just positions himself over time so he fits into wherever position the Democratic party happens to have about Israel at any particular point.

Obama has simply evolved to the point where he has outed himself on Israel because he had an opportune moment to do so.

During Obama’s watch, Iran has grown in strength and influence in the Middle East.  Obama seems to be aligning himself with Iran in Iraq and Syria, even as traditional US allies (such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel) are threatened by Iran in Yemen, Sinai and Gaza.  What a mess and we can only blame Obama for it.  Obama is looking for a scapegoat for his mess, so he targets Israel.

Lester Freundlich
Stamford

To the Editor:

Your editorial, “Israel’s Election Day Results: The View Stateside,” was most distressing, both for its content and tone. It smacks of “Gotcha!” Hardly a respectful or useful approach to our brothers and sisters.

The Ledger should put itself in the shoes of the Prime Minister, who arguably holds the world’s most difficult and demanding position. As Netanyahu pointed out persuasively, the President of the United States must worry about his nation’s security, but the Prime Minister of Israel must worry about his nation’s very survival.

Against this backdrop, your editorial ignores the reality that Israel is a democracy, with a 72 percent election participation rate and a careful and orderly election, hardly a given in the Middle East, supervised by an Israeli Arab. Instead, you focus on isolated instances of electioneering, which was mild as compared to American elections but was sensationalized by our media.

Forgotten in your rhetoric was the fact that there was an election only because Netanyahu dissolved the previous government, thus exposing himself to the vicissitudes of an election, in order to govern in accordance with his principles or else not to govern. This was not the approach of someone who, as you imply, wanted to win at all costs.

Regarding the almost intractable Palestinian situation, your editorial adopts an overly simplistic and reckless approach. Ignoring all recent and not-so-recent history, you want Israel to rush headlong into a “two-state solution” without regard to Abbas’ open refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state or to agree to end the conflict. The frightening security ramifications appear not even to be on your radar.

Finally, while Israel faces a deteriorating Middle East on all sides with thousands of missiles aimed at it, awaiting just one Israeli misstep, and the imminent granting of license to Iran to develop nuclear weapons, your solution is to encourage your readers to ‘pile on.’ Certainly not very compassionate or judicious.

There is an adage that one should think before he speaks. Please heed this.

Mark I. Fishman, Esq.
Fairfield