July 10, 2009
Blaming the Victims Of the Mullahs’ Hate
Leonard Fein’s attempts to rationalize the hatred of the Islamic Republic of Iran toward Israel in “After the Uprising, Whither Iran?” is perplexing (July 3).
Fein mocks Prime Minister Netanyahu’s assertion that “there is no conflict between the Iranian people and the people of Israel.” But the prime minister is precisely right. Israel in no way seeks conflict with Iran except to safeguard its very existence against attacks from the Iranian-funded and trained Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as to counter the potential threat of a nuclear Iran.
Hatred of those “dirty Zionists,” as Ayatollah Khamenei recently put it, is ingrained into the Iranian regime’s perverse ideology, in which the Jewish state is an affront to Islam and has no right to exist.
Matan Shamir
New York, N.Y.
Call in the ‘Goyim’? What a Bad Idea
I was shocked beyond belief by columnist Yossi Alpher’s suggestion that “goyim” — his word — be asked to forcefully remove Jews from their homes in the settlements, if the Israeli government is unable or unwilling to do it (“To Remove Settlers, Call the Goyim,” June 26).
What goyim is he referring to? Does he mean the descendants of the Germans and their other willing European collaborators who forcefully removed Jews from their homes and threw them into concentration camps? If they tried it in the West Bank today, they would find to their great disappointment that it won’t be the cakewalk that their grandfathers and great-grandfathers experienced. The Jews these goyim would be dealing with would be armed and unafraid and ready, willing and able to defend their homes and families against anyone who would try to destroy them.
But I’m not worried. I know that no Israeli would agree to such nonsense.
Jan T. Steinberg
Houston, Texas
‘Poison Pills’ or Peace Prerequisites?
Leonard Fein’s strident criticism of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech was even more unreasonable than his columns usually are (“The Netanyahu Speech: A Primer,” June 26).
He accused Netanyahu of attaching “poison pills to his call for peace.” What are these “poison pills”? The condition that Israel be recognized as a Jewish state? The condition that the Palestinian state be demilitarized? The condition that Jerusalem remain undivided?
These are not poison pills; they are realistic prerequisites for an actual settlement of the conflict. Fein’s fidelity to the prevailing wisdom will only encourage another failed “peace process.”
Larry S. Pollak
Columbus, Ohio
In Abortion Debate, Our Middle Ground
The Forward’s June 12 editorial “Elusive Common Ground” seeks the middle ground in the abortion debate between the rhetorical extremes of the “pro-choice” and “pro-life” camps.
But the Forward is guilty of dereliction of duty in not identifying the middle ground that actually does exist: It is called Judaism! As patriots and good citizens, we Jews have the obligation to share what wisdom our tradition may possess with our fellow Americans.
The only cogent scriptural text on this issue is the one in Exodus 21, which recounts an incident in which a pregnant woman, caught in the middle of a fight between two men, is struck and miscarries. The culprit pays a monetary fine for his action: If the fetus were considered a full human being, he would have been charged with murder. (And since it would be viewed as involuntary, the culprit would be required to flee to a city of refuge.) If the fetus were worthless, he would get off with only punishment for striking the woman.
In short, the Torah takes a middle view on this matter, which is the position upheld by rabbinic tradition: The fetus is something, but not a full human being. It has property value and potential as life. But, in and of itself, is not life. And thus, abortion is not murder — it is, at best, a tort issue.
Indeed, in Jewish law, when the mother’s life is medically at stake, abortion is not merely allowed, but actually required.
I would argue that the majority of Americans, pragmatic as ever, prefer something more along the lines of such a nuanced middle view, and not the either-or dichotomy in which the debate is usually framed by extremists on both sides.
Stas Cohen
Newark, Del.
A message from our Publisher & CEO Rachel Fishman Feddersen
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.
We’ve set a goal to raise $260,000 by December 31. That’s an ambitious goal, but one that will give us the resources we need to invest in the high quality news, opinion, analysis and cultural coverage that isn’t available anywhere else.
If you feel inspired to make an impact, now is the time to give something back. Join us as a member at your most generous level.
— Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO
