Six-Day War and its aftermath

1967-2047

I’m writing about the tone of Rob Eshman’s editorial, not its substance (“1967-2047,” June 1).

It just sounds so omniscient, so all seeing, so lacking in humility, so “I’m the editor and you’re not.”

In my humble opinion (and it is just an opinion), that is especially dangerous when dealing with the Middle East. Just ask some other people who thought they knew all the answers. Try George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, et. al. Or if you want to go back in history a bit, try Bill Clinton and his crew.

Rob, how did I miss it? I know your wife is a rabbi (and a very fine one), but who elected you pope?

Michael Klein
Los Angeles

In his article, “1967-2047,” Rob Eshman mentioned three optional scenarios facing Israel in the future: (1) Become a fortress state bereft of international support, (2) become a state of chaos when Palestinians opt for one [binational] democratic state, (3) smaller boundaries with productive relations with its Arab neighbors .

Most Israelis would have gladly settled for the third option, except for their fear of another, much more probable scenario: Israel in smaller boundaries, with a Jewish majority and its major population centers terrorized by unsophisticated rockets, surrounded by an ocean of dysfunctional societies, many of whom are subscribed to a jihadist ideology.

It is unfortunate that Eshman is allowing his political views to taint his historical perspective. His position is supported by quoting Gidi Grinstein from the Reut Institute. This is the same fellow who, at the University of Judaism, just a few months before the disengagement from Gaza, had presented a peachy vision in support of the disengagement. The future scenario he portrayed collapsed in just a few minutes after the withdrawal of the last Israeli soldier.

In return for giving up the land and uprooting thriving Jewish settlements, Israel has been rewarded with a daily barrage of Qassam rockets and an abducted soldier.

Avi Zirler
La Canada-Flintridge

I really wonder what gives Rob Eshman the courage to say there are but three options left for Israel in next 40 years. Obviously it must be the lack of experience due to his age. Anyone who has been following Middle East developments for longer time knows that at any given point there are always many more alternatives, and that most often the one that eventually prevails is the one nobody had thought of.

Richard Prager
Los Angeles

Thank you, Rob Eshman, for your cogent editorial in the June 1 Jewish Journal. Yes, the 1967 war is still continuing, and it often seems that American Jews are more reluctant than Israelis to face the need to negotiate a peace settlement with their neighbors.

Today, “a state with smaller boundaries, with a democratic Jewish majority and productive relations with its Arab neighbors” sounds like a true victory.

Claire Gorfinkel
Altadena

Your terrible piece questioning the blessing of Israel’s victory in 1967 (“1967-2047,” June 1) calls to mind this scenario:

Forty years after receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai, your editor writes that, well, maybe the giving of the Torah was not all for the good. Now the nations hate us, after all, “Sinai” means hatred, they’re so jealous of us. And, how can we be expected to keep 613 mitzvot? We’ve already had the golden calf and the spies. Listen, maybe we just should’ve stayed in Egypt or declined the Torah.

This is what happens when a lack of Torah knowledge and history combine with human intellectual arrogance. But, since you’re arrogant, who could tell you that you lack accurate information?

Meanwhile, those who look to you for the truth are sadly, tragically misled.
May Heaven help you to really see the negative effects of your distorted views.

Joshua Spiegelman
Los Angeles

Bittersweet Legacy

Had Israel removed the Palestinians from Gaza, Judea and Samaria immediately after those six days [Six-Day War], there might have been more understanding from the international community (“Bittersweet Legacy,” June 1).

But if not, so what? There would be some finger wagging from the United States, moral outrage from the media and, of course, a few nasty resolutions passed by the United Nations.

Israel could rightly counter by pointing out her absorption of all the Jews thrown out of Arab countries, thereby pressuring those nations to absorb their Palestinian Arab brethren. Eventually, as always, the world’s attention would have been diverted to other issues: Vietnam, the Cold War, the Beatles’ “Sgt. Pepper” album, etc.

What would have been the results of such actions by Israel? She wouldn’t be viewed by the world today as evil occupiers, there would be no threat to her maintenance of a Jewish majority and, most important, the thousands of Jews who were murdered and maimed by the children and grandchildren of those 1.2 million Palestinians would still be alive.

Daniel Iltis
Los Angeles

With respect to the outbreak of the Six-Day War, Martin Van Creveld’s statement that “Israel opened the war on June 5, 1967, with a devastating air attack on the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian air forces” requires clarification, as does Tom Tugend’s (same issue) reference to “the opening air strike by the Israeli air force, which gambled every available plane to wipe out the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian air forces” (“Israel’s ’67 Army: A Model of Motivation,” June 1).

In fact, while Israel launched a preemptive strike against the Egyptian air force early in the morning of June 5, the Jordanian and Syrian air forces were only targeted later that day, after those countries had initiated combat operations against Israel.

Henry D. Fetter
Los Angeles

JCC Blues

I appreciate the information that The Jewish Journal is providing about The Federation and the possible demolition of the pool at the JCC (“Federation Files for Permit to Demolish Milken Pool,” May 4). You are providing the only information to JCC members about what might or might not be going on at the Milken center.