Home

J Street: What does pro-peace mean?

When I was younger and would encounter a Peace Now or New Israel Fund type, I would ask the question, "How many Jews have to be murdered or maimed before you recognize that your methods are wrong?"

We both knew the answer, of course, which is "never". The reason they would never recognize that their methods are wrong is that (a) they are leftists, so recognizing a position they espouse is wrong will never happen, and (b) their position wasn't wrong -- what was wrong was my assumption that, because they claimed to be Jews, their goal was the survival and well-being of other Jews.

Today I know better. And because I am a right-winger, I can admit my mistake. So, I will readily admit that I was wrong in assuming that those self-proclaimed "Jews" who advocate appeasement of terrorists were interested in the survival of other Jews.

Which brings us to your article on J Street (Feb. 12). Yes, like Peace Now and the New Israel Fund, J Street claims to be "pro-peace". (J Street also claimed to be "pro-Israel," but J Street's university arm recently dropped that monstrous lie from their message). Anyway, the question that we in the authentic Jewish community need to answer is what does pro-peace mean when these groups use it, and what are we going to do about it?

The answer to the first question is obvious. Just as the Arabs (who were allies of the Nazis and whose every word and action is directed toward completing the Nazi goals) speak of "peace" as part of their plan, so too J Street and the other appeasement groups speak of "peace". The answer to the second question should be equally as obvious.

Benjamin Feigenbaum
East Brunswick

J Street misinformed?

The leadership at J Street appears to be either terribly misinformed or wants to bring harm to the Jews in Palestine.

Per the Feb. 12 article by Michele Alperin, J Street is arguing for "a peaceful two-state solution." The whole premise of the argument is ridiculous. Asking for a second state in Palestine is like asking why the people in Korea can't have a place for Koreans. After all, on the Korean Peninsula, the North Koreans have North Korea; the South Koreans have South Korea, but what do the Koreans have? Just as it would be preposterous to argue for a partitioning of South Korea to form a Korean homeland; it is equally absurd to argue for a Palestinian homeland when three countries in Palestine already exist. In Palestine today, there are three governments: Jordan, Israel, and Gaza. The Muslims clearly own the vast majority of Palestinian lands, with Jordan alone occupying about 76 percent of pre-partition Palestine. The notion that a Palestinian Muslim state does not exist is to ignore reality.

In Jordan, no Jew can be a citizen or own land. In Israel, it's like the U.S.A. Anyone with money can buy land and move right on in. If anything, Israel is already being more generous then everyone else. In summary, with Jordan and Gaza already comprising 77 percent of Palestine, could J Street kindly explain why carving up Israel to make a third Islamic state in Palestine makes sense?

Allan Searz
Hightstown