Letters
A letter that appeared in the J'sam Post (24/10/5), and my reply (26/10/5)":
It's Zionism, stupid
Sir, - Nothing alienates people like me, who would like to find sympathetic aspects in Israel's situation, more than columns like Michael Freund's "Forgotten at the White House" (October 19). When he writes that more than 50 Americans have been killed by Palestinian terrorists since Oslo he attempts to fan American anger at the Palestinians, ignoring the fact that these Americans were killed only because they happened to be caught up in the middle of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Freund seems to think Israel had nothing to do with the onset or continuation of this conflict.
The Palestinians share in the responsibility for the conflict. But if the Zionist movement to Palestine had never taken place there would never have been a Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Instead the Palestinians would be peaceably enjoying the land, of which they had been the basic inhabitants for centuries, from the coast to the Jordan river, in pleasant, deep and richly-deserved quiet, and no one would be criticizing them about anything.
JAMES ADLER
Cambridge, Massachusetts
__________________________________
Prior claim vs power
Sir, - James Adler unknowingly wields a double-edged sword when he argues that it was the Zionists who invaded the land of Palestine and disturbed the equanimity of the Palestinians ("It's Zionism, stupid," Letters, October 24). It was the Arabs who conquered the whole of the Middle East, including Palestine, and massacred all the Jews they could find there, making it more or less Judenrein. That occurred in the 700s, quite a long time ago, but the principle seems to hold.
Take the US: Many native tribes lived in perfect equanimity in places like Massachusetts until the British and others came along and declared them better off dead. Maybe Mr. Adler's forebears were responsible for some of their suffering. Certainly the US stands on the delegitimization and massacre of its native inhabitants. Canada, too, conquered the "first peoples," while Australia did the same to the Aborigines, New Zealand to the Maoris, etc. Does your correspondent think the history of conquest in these countries should be reversed to obtain the "peaceable enjoying of their land" by the original inhabitants?
But there is one major difference between the Jews in "Palestine" and the Americans, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders. We have a legitimate prior claim to the land, while all they had was power.
JACK COHEN
Netanya
It's Zionism, stupid
Sir, - Nothing alienates people like me, who would like to find sympathetic aspects in Israel's situation, more than columns like Michael Freund's "Forgotten at the White House" (October 19). When he writes that more than 50 Americans have been killed by Palestinian terrorists since Oslo he attempts to fan American anger at the Palestinians, ignoring the fact that these Americans were killed only because they happened to be caught up in the middle of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Freund seems to think Israel had nothing to do with the onset or continuation of this conflict.
The Palestinians share in the responsibility for the conflict. But if the Zionist movement to Palestine had never taken place there would never have been a Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Instead the Palestinians would be peaceably enjoying the land, of which they had been the basic inhabitants for centuries, from the coast to the Jordan river, in pleasant, deep and richly-deserved quiet, and no one would be criticizing them about anything.
JAMES ADLER
Cambridge, Massachusetts
__________________________________
Prior claim vs power
Sir, - James Adler unknowingly wields a double-edged sword when he argues that it was the Zionists who invaded the land of Palestine and disturbed the equanimity of the Palestinians ("It's Zionism, stupid," Letters, October 24). It was the Arabs who conquered the whole of the Middle East, including Palestine, and massacred all the Jews they could find there, making it more or less Judenrein. That occurred in the 700s, quite a long time ago, but the principle seems to hold.
Take the US: Many native tribes lived in perfect equanimity in places like Massachusetts until the British and others came along and declared them better off dead. Maybe Mr. Adler's forebears were responsible for some of their suffering. Certainly the US stands on the delegitimization and massacre of its native inhabitants. Canada, too, conquered the "first peoples," while Australia did the same to the Aborigines, New Zealand to the Maoris, etc. Does your correspondent think the history of conquest in these countries should be reversed to obtain the "peaceable enjoying of their land" by the original inhabitants?
But there is one major difference between the Jews in "Palestine" and the Americans, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders. We have a legitimate prior claim to the land, while all they had was power.
JACK COHEN
Netanya
posted by Jack Cohen at 2:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home