Home

Those on the front lines can't wait

As someone who is more than just an armchair Zionist living in the comfort and security of Middlesex County, I was very distressed by Harry Glazer's June 19 op-ed "Chicken Little Zionists". I happen to be one of those people who sends articles to Harry which have been critical of president Obama vis-a-vis Israel and his foreign policy in general. While Harry made it clear that he'd like me to "give him a break," those of us here on the front lines don't have the luxury to sit around and wait for the aftermath of Obama's policies, as Harry would have us do.

As so many of Obama's faithful are doing, Harry has suspended his disbelief with regard to the dangers of Obama's "new approach". How else can one explain Harry's assessment of the list of articles he provided by prominent and respected journalists as "panicked reviews"? Beyond Harry's list, such "panicked reviews" have also been put forth by eminent writers such as Joshua Muravchik, Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson, and Caroline Glick. These authors are anything but "glaringly partial in their grasp of all the facts of specific situations" and are renowned for their deep and thoughtful analysis.

Furthermore, a recent survey taken in the aftermath of Obama's Cairo speech found that only 6 percent of Jewish Israelis now believe that the Obama administration is pro-Israel, down from 31 percent a month earlier. Yet, Harry, sitting over there in Highland Park, knows better. In spite of mounting evidence to the contrary, he insists that our concerns are "premature". Maybe he's right, but here in the Middle East there is virtually no margin for error. So, by the time we wait for the answers to Harry's "critical questions" it will be too late.

Most of American Jewry was similarly "reasonable" in the 1930s. They also waited for answers to "critical questions" and didn't want to rock the political boat. As the lives of yet another 6 million Jews hang the balance, do we really want to err on the side of caution yet again?

Michael Lipkin
Beit Shemesh, Israel

We cannot hide our heads in the sand

I read with disappointment Harry Glazer's article "Chicken Little Zionists". He is tired of reading articles describing and predicting the deterioration in the U.S.-Israel relationship as manifested by President Obama's speeches and policies being carried out by the White House and State Department. He feels that well-known and respected writers such as Daniel Pipes, Jeff Jacoby, Ann Bayefsky, and Caroline Glick, just to name a few, are "often premature and glaringly partial in their grasp of all the facts." He feels that these ''panicked reviews" are more of a detriment. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Glazer.

It is important for the Jewish community to be informed of our government's policies. We cannot hide our heads in the sand and refuse to hear bad news. If John Bolton (former U.S. ambassador to the U.N.) and Malcolm Hoenlein (executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations), two of the most knowledgeable individuals on U.S.-Israel foreign policy, are concerned about an erosion in this long standing relationship, the Jewish community should be informed and consider ways to act to restore the relationship. The role of community and organizational email lists as well as personal emails perform an invaluable service in keeping the community informed and educated. Harry cites one example where "the writers of doom were raising the red alert" about the U.S. participation in Durban II. In the end the U.S. did not participate in the conference. This he considers "a broad show of support for the Jewish state". However, it was not until just before the conference (36 hours before the start) that the U.S. pulled out and possibly all the publicity brought on by these "prophets of disaster" had something to do with the pullout. Could it be that these writers Mr. Glazer calls "alarmist" educated and motivated Jewish groups to influence the Obama administration to withdraw from the conference? It is astonishing, however, that despite the late U.S. withdrawal from the conference U.S. officials declared on June 16: "It was with regret that we did not join the recent Durban Review Conference."

The writer presented a list of critical questions that he feels need to be answered to determine if there is any significant impact of President Obama's policies on the safety of Israel. The answer to most of them is no. No, the U.S. does not have an effective policy to deal with Iran's nuclear weapons program. No, the U.S. is not supplying all the weapons requested by Israel. No, the U.S. is not totally isolating Hamas, the U.S. would consider dealing with a joint Hamas-Fatah government. In fact, it would appear there are a large number of cackling Zionists in Israel, as only 6 percent of Jewish Israelis consider the views of President Obama's administration pro-Israel, according to a Jerusalem Post-sponsored Smith Research poll published June 19. I wish there had been "alarmists" and "writers of doom" writing "panicked reviews" in prewar Nazi Germany and maybe more of the established German Jewish population would have left the country.

I also wish there had been "alarmist commentators" in the U.S. during World War II to motivate the Jewish community to pressure the Roosevelt administration to save more Jewish lives from death in the camps. I, for one, appreciate the current articles and commentary from leading journalists and feel they are doing a good job keeping us informed about issues concerning the Jewish community. Rather than being concerned about "chicken little Zionists," I am more worried about the "Ostrich Syndrome" in those that refuse to read or hear about a negative change in this administration's Middle East policy.

Dr. Marc Hanfling
Edison

Interfaith lack of understanding

I would like to comment upon the article "Out of the 'comfort zone' and into interfaith understanding," by Michelle Alperin (June 19).

I am saddened at the facile treatment that this article gives to what is termed interfaith understanding, and the stated "three faiths coming together and breaking down artificial barriers". Indeed, the article broke no barriers, opened no understandings but did pretend that all three religions are "Abrahamic" and thus easily seen as the "same."

The article stated: "From the [Muslim] Imam's Ali's perspective, many people misinterpret the history of Islam, claiming that it is spread by the sword. He suggests, however, that it 'grew by Scripture, the spiritual word'."

Which of course is entirely untrue, and in fact raises the substantive problem that was not addressed by such an event. Or to be more blunt, as the Imam opined, "The root of the words Islam and Muslim is s-l-m, which means literally 'he rested,' with the connotation of resting and hence being at peace. A Muslim, then, is one who submits peacefully and willingly to what God wants, and Islam is the peace that God has established in the world. 'It is not a religion,' Ali said. 'It is a way of being.'"

Well, the word Islam means submission and a Muslim submits to Mohammed's word and therein lies the history that negates the statement about it being a "way of being".

The world according to Islam is divided into the dar-al-Islam, the world of submission to Allah, and the world of war, which is everywhere that Islam doesn't rule.

This is the reality of the history and as such, these so-called 'interfaith' meetings are missing the point, which is this: there is no religious freedom in Islamic countries, there is no religious equality in Islamic lands, and there is very much oppression of non-Muslim religions. Jews cannot go to Saudi Arabia, and a Christian cannot bring a crucifix to wear openly there. And the history across Muslim lands is one of conquering previously non-Muslim lands until they become Muslim and then there is no equality nor freedom of religion.

Thus the entire notion of the "Abrahamic initiative" is a non-sequitur. As the historian Hugh Fitzgerald noted, "Will the 'Abrahamic Initiative' explain the murder of 400 schoolchildren, and teachers, in Beslan, theatregorwers in Moscow, a truth-teller in Amsterdam (Theo Van Gogh), Buddhist monks in southern Thailand, the mass killing of Hindus in Bangladesh, the persecution and killing of Christians, Hindus, Sikhs in Pakistan, the killing of Christian villagers in the southern Philippines, the genocidal killings of Christians, animists, and non-Arab (and therefore inferior) Muslims of Darfur, the imposition of Sharia in northern Nigeria, the persecution of Copts in Egypt and Maronites in Lebanon and Assyrians in Iraq, the Islamic cells discovered in Portland, Ore. and Lackawanna, N.Y., and in Detroit, and Falls Church, Va., and Ohio and Texas and Florida, the destruction of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, the Muslim bombing of cafes in Capetown, the Muslim northerners attempting to take more and more of formerly Christian Ivory Coast, the Jihad — in Col. Ojukwu's words in the Ohiara Declaration — against the Christian Ibo that led to the Biafran war for independence, the thwarted attacks on the water supply in Milan, on the Vatican, on the Christmas market in Strasbourg, on a thousand or 10,000 other targets?"

Finally, why should not the more aware and informed and intelligent members of this congregation make it a point to thoroughly inform themselves about all the legal, political, and social disabilities — not merely the jizyah — which, for 1,300 years, all non-Muslims had to endure, unless they were killed or converted outright?

There is much more to be said in this regard. But your paper no doubt will turn a blind eye in the quest to deny the enormity of the problems and misery Islam provides across it's history for any other "faiths" who live never as equals, and rarely comfortably.

In fact, ask the Imam of Trenton how he feels about Hamas. I'm sure he'll feel that they are oppressed freedom fighters in need of understanding and "freedom."

This is not some rarity, some "extremists" who have corrupted Islam. This is Islam. This was Islam, and this will be Islam.

Singing "Kumbaya" will not change any of that. In fact, it is a gross distortion of what the reality truly is and has been.

Mark Goldberg
Aberdeen