|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Throwing Israel Under the Bus
Dear Editor:
Much as I admire these men and appreciate what they’ve achieved in supporting Israel and getting the hostages freed, I am surprised at how little they know regarding the international laws defining Israel’s borders.
By creating an equivalency between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, they are throwing the only democratic state in the Middle East and North Africa under the bus in favor of a terrorist entity with no legal, historical or ethical claim to the territory.
Israel declared it’s independence from Britain on May 14, 1948. 15,800,000 Jews now have the right to citizenship in Israel, the world’s only Jewish state and the one sworn to protect them.
On Nov. 2, 1917, the Balfour declaration expressed support for a national home for the Jewish People in their ancestral homeland, then part of southern Syria in the Ottoman Empire.
WWI ended on Nov. 1, 1918 and Turkey lost its empire.
In 1920, Britain, France, Italy and Japan created mandates for Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Palestine (the Jewish Homeland). Almost immediately, Churchill split Palestine, giving 78% of it to the Hashemites from Saudi Arabia. It became Transjordan.
In 1922, the League of Nations unanimously ratified the accords, recognizing the Jews to be the indigenous people, with a historical connection to the land.
The Anglo-American Convention, 1924, stipulated that America accepted the Mandate for Palestine, acknowledging that Gaza, Judea and Samaria were within its borders.
At this point, Britain double-crossed the Zionists, illegally restricting their immigration while encouraging greater Arab inflow.
In 1945, the United Nations was founded. Article 80 of its charter states what was promised the Jews cannot be taken away. This means no U.N. resolutions affecting Israel have the force of law. No other nation has this level of legitimacy.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler’s ally, rejected any Jewish sovereignty. He triggered pogroms against the Jews from 1920 in Jerusalem to 1942 in Iraq. He spent WW2 in Europe, creating Muslim Bosnian SS units and sent 4,000 Hungarian Jewish children to Auschwitz. He escaped French captivity, fleeing to Beirut.
In 1947, U.N. Resolution 181, sought to share the Jewish state with the Arabs. Husseini refused and started a war, with 5 Arab armies, to ‘drive the Jews into the sea’. The Arabs suffered a disaster, a Nakba. Egypt and Transjordan illegally occupied Gaza and the West Bank, areas Israel repossessed in 1967.
In 1964, to diminish U.S. influence, the Soviet KGB and Egypt formed the Palestine Liberation Organization. They gathered fighters from throughout MENA, calling them ‘Palestinians’. That was the origin of Palestinianism.
In 1993, the Oslo Accords allowed Yasser Arafat and 100,000 followers to enter Israel. Areas A and B are under PA or joint supervision. Area C, 60% of Judea and Samaria, is solely under Israeli control.
In 2005, Israel gave Gaza to the PA, free of all Jews, to allow them to establish their own society.
On Oct. 7, 2023, Gazans carried out savage war crimes against Israel.
The days of considering a 2-state solution are over. The Arabs may be given local self-administered cantons. They will have no opportunity to repeat Oct. 7. New Israeli towns and villages in Judea and Samaria will ensure security. Settlement of Gaza is to be determined.
Sincerely
Len Bennett, Author of ‘Unfinished Work’
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
US Pressure on Israel, Then and Now
Dear Editor:
News reports this week suggested the U.S. is pressuring Israel to refrain from responding to Hamas violations of the recent agreement.
Isn’t it funny how some things never change? Sixty years ago this week, the U.S. was doing the same thing. Different president, different border—but the same pressure to refrain from striking at Palestinian Arab terrorists.
On October 30, 1965, the Israeli ambassador to Washington, Avraham Harman, met with State Department officials to discuss Israel’s military action in response to recent Palestinian Arab terrorist attacks across the Israel-Lebanon border.
Assistant Secretary of State Raymond A. Hare informed the Israeli ambassador that the Johnson Administration regarded Israel’s actions as “disturbing” since “they disrupt armistice agreements.” (That is, the Israel-Lebanon armistice agreement following the 1948 war.)
Ambassador Hare claimed that Israel’s self-defense actions “amount to a triumph for Fatah,” the ruling faction of the PLO, which had been staging the attacks. Besides, Hare asserted, “there were only three incursions from Lebanon” in recent months.
Also, Hare said, the government of Lebanon was having “internal troubles,” and Israeli actions “could make things difficult for it.”
Assistant Secretary Hare even stooped to implying that Israel’s Labor government, headed by Levi Eshkol, had carried out its military response for political reasons, pointing out that Eshkol made a campaign speech earlier that day in which he “mentioned Fatah and Lebanon.”
Ambassador Harman was understandably outraged. He denied there was any connection between the Israeli self-defense actions and the upcoming elections. He pointed out that the Lebanese government previously gave Israel “assurances” that it would stop the Fatah attacks, but it hadn’t fulfilled that promise. “The Arabs must understand that border-crossing is a two-way business,” Harman declared.
His plea fell on deaf ears. According to the State Department’s transcript of the conversation, Assistant Secretary Hare “reiterated [the Johnson administration’s] strongly held belief that retaliatory raids are not the answer.” What was the answer, then? Apparently that Israel should just sit back and accept Arab terrorist attacks without responding.
Sincerely,
Prof. Rafael Medoff
Every New Yorker’s Vote Matters More Than Ever
Dear Editor:
As New York City approaches one of the most consequential mayoral elections in decades, I urge every registered voter to make their voice heard at the ballot box. The choice before us is not simply between candidates — Zohran Mamdani, Andrew Cuomo, and Curtis Sliwa — but between competing visions for the future of our city.
New York stands at a crossroads. We are still rebuilding from years of social unrest, economic strain, and public safety challenges. The next mayor will inherit a city grappling with housing shortages, rising antisemitism, crime concerns, and an affordability crisis that has driven too many families to the brink. Decisions made in the coming years — about policing, education, housing, and the economy — will define the character of New York for generations to come.
This election is not the moment for apathy. Voter turnout in local races has historically been dismal, with barely a fraction of registered New Yorkers participating. Yet the mayor’s office wields enormous influence over how our neighborhoods function and how our values are reflected in city policy. Whether one supports Cuomo’s experience, Sliwa’s populism, or Mamdani’s progressive activism, not voting is the only true loss for this city.
Democracy only works when we all show up. Each vote cast is a statement of faith in New York’s ability to renew itself, to recover its strength and unity, and to stand for the diverse, resilient spirit that defines us.
On November 4, let’s remind the nation that New York City still leads — not just in size or ambition, but in civic engagement.
Sincerely
Doris Elfenbein
New York City