South African Calumny
Regarding your lead editorial in last week’s Jewish Press (“The ICJ and the South African Anti-Israel Genocide Calumny”):
I was born in Vryheid, Natal, South Africa on July 19, 1935, and lived in the country during the apartheid years, which extended from 1848 to the early 1990s. For several years I worked amongst the Zulus, a very welcoming and warm people, despite the life imposed on them. In 1977, I was invited by the U.S. giant, Westinghouse, to join the company as an engineer, the profession I had qualified in as a South African resident. While living in five U.S. states, outside of work I became a zealous Zionist activist. (See Editorial, “The ICJ and the South African Anti-Israel Genocide Calumny,” Jan. 19.)
During most of my years in New Jersey, I celebrated Zionism through the activist movements AFSI and CAMERA. Never through all those years – 41 in South Africa and 26 in the USA, did I envisage the changes to South Africa.
In 2003, we made aliyah to Israel, from which I traveled to Italy, Japan, China, Holland, Germany and Sweden. Never did I anticipate anything like South Africa having to face the Hamas evil-inspired case against Israel.
The present-day war was started by Hamas, not Israel, as were all the other four, the first being in 2006. The current day catastrophic actions by Hamas go well beyond savagery. There probably are no words beyond “savagery” to describe them. After all, how can you best describe, “Under fire of thousands of rockets, a massacre was carried out, with mutilation and rape. They tortured children in front of their parents and parents in front of their children, burned babies alive and systematically raped women, men, and children. 1,200 were murdered, 240 were taken hostage, including infants, elderly Holocaust survivors, and people with disabilities.” These are the words of Attorney Tal Becker, Israel’s Foreign Ministry’s legal adviser.
Dr. Victor Davis Hanson’s, op-ed, “Questions: Making Sense of the World,” posted on March 29, 2002, goes part way when referring to the 9/11 World Trade Center. His conclusion: “If 19 Americans incinerated 3,000 Muslims in Mecca or Medina, and blew up 20 acres in either of these cities with a two-kiloton explosion, would the Saudis or the Egyptians, a few weeks later politely, listen to admonitions from the American government about their incorrect Islamic policies in the Middle East?”
Alex Rose
Ashkelon, Israel
The Power Of Collective Action
As the public opinion war intensifies, it becomes imperative for the pro-Israel community to take proactive measures to ensure unwavering support for the nation.
The ongoing conflict has seen Palestinians and supporters of terror taking to the streets, engaging in boycotts and pressuring leaders to demand a ceasefire. In this climate, it is crucial for supporters of Israel to not only maintain their stance but to also actively promote and defend it.
In this war, there is a need for a more proactive approach, asking what is being done to sway public opinion and ensure continued support from American leaders. While the majority of the country’s leaders currently back Israel in its self-defense efforts, there is a growing concern that external pressures might erode this support. We cannot be too confident; six million people made that mistake.
The call to action extends beyond expressing support on social media or within the community; it involves actively countering anti-Israel sentiments in public spaces. Two months ago, word got out that there was a very anti-Israel program scheduled at Rutgers University. The community worked together to share a pre-written letter to the president demanding he cancel it. Although the event proceeded as planned, the sheer volume of emails sent to the university’s president, Dr. Jonathan Holloway, did not go unnoticed.
The episode at Rutgers underscores the impact of proactive engagement. Despite the event, the community’s collective voice was heard, with over 12,000 emails expressing concerns about the program. This example serves as a testament to the potential influence that can be exerted when a united front takes action.
This letter challenges the community to consider what might have happened if the effort had been larger in scale. Could 50,000 emails have led to a different outcome? It’s a compelling question that underscores the power of collective action and highlights the need for a more significant and coordinated effort in advocating for Israel.
To be proactive, the community must take a multifaceted approach. This includes organizing outdoor gatherings, countering anti-Israel protests, leveraging social media, and actively engaging with leaders to ensure that they remain steadfast in their support for Israel. The call to action is clear: It is time to step up efforts and be proactive on a larger scale.
The example of the Rutgers incident demonstrates that concerted efforts can yield tangible results. It is now up to the community to build on this momentum, engage in proactive advocacy, and ensure that support for Israel remains unwavering in the public opinion arena.
Mark Rosenberg
Via Email
Sen. Cotton Gets It
On Sunday night, January 21, Senator Tom Cotton appeared on the Mark Levin Show on Fox News. Listening to him was a real pleasure because he really understands what is going on with Gaza and Israel. He explained how President Biden’s “Two State Solution” is at best a wishful dream. At worst, it is a recipe for disaster. He pointed out that what the Palestinians want is a “One State Solution” – which means Israel is gone.
There is really no indication that an independent Gaza would be peaceful. The fact that the people of Gaza voted for Hamas and feel that the October 7th massacre was “correct” means that they would like another opportunity to murder, rape and torture their Israeli neighbors.
Charles Winfield
Princeton, N.J.
Bidenocracy
President Biden justifies his campaign for a second term based upon a possible return of former President Trump to the White House representing the greatest threat to democracy. At the same time, Biden’s political allies have initiated legal challenges in 31 states to deny Trump ballot access to both the 2024 Republican primary and the general election ballot. Doesn’t denial of citizen access to vote for the candidate of their choice for president represent a threat to the basic right of democracy? It should be the right of any eligible voter to cast their ballot for any presidential candidate on the ballot. This includes Biden, Trump (assuming he wins the Republican primary, which looks more and more likely) along with Green, Libertarian or other independent third-party candidates.
Why doesn’t President Biden condemn the actions of those who would deny millions of Americans the right to vote for Trump? Did he forget that in 2020 he ran as the candidate who would unite and not divide our nation? Will he use his upcoming annual State of the Union address to speak up and address this issue? It is Biden’s, not Trump’s actions that appear to be a threat to democracy.
Larry Penner
Great Neck, N.Y.
