Disagreeing With the Professor, The Soviet Side

Disagreeing With the Professor
I found it ironic that while professor David N. Myers found time to schmooze with visiting scholars on the Hebrew University campus, he missed the opportunity to mix with actual students in the student lounge as I recently did (“Jerusalem 2009: A Tale of Two Cities,” Aug. 14). There he would have found many Arab students, the women dressed in both traditional dress and the more libertine clothes of college students throughout the western world, freely conversing in both Hebrew and Arabic. They were of course taking a break from their studies subsidized by the Israeli government. At Haifa University, I encountered an even larger contingent, including some being given special college preparatory summer courses (government subsidized, of course).

The actions by the Israeli government are far from perfect, but one has to wonder why certain contributors to your opinion pages always seem to concentrate on one view of things.

Eli Lewiskin, Santa Monica

After taking some serious hits for his blaming of the settlements in Israel for the failure of peace in the region, David Myers is back once again pointing out how the big bad Israelis have wronged the downtrodden and persecuted Arabs that live in their midst. Not knowing all the details, I will still grant that the treatment of the Hanoun family is another tragic story in the Arab-Israeli dispute. However, where is the cry by Myers when the Israeli courts overturn their own decisions and evict Jews from their legitimate homes in Hebron and Kiryat Arba and stop previously sanctioned Jewish building in the Har Homa area and others, not to mention Jewish eviction from Arab countries where we have lived for centuries?

Myers quotes a British commissioner, saying that “it is upon the Arab rock that the Zionist ship may be wrecked.” More frightening is that it’s upon the Jewish rock — Jews and teachers such as Myers that blame almost everything on Israel for the area’s problems — that could, God forbid, lead to the sinking of the Zionist dream.

Allan Kandel, Los Angeles

Jerusalem appears in the Jewish Bible (Torah), as either Jerusalem or Zion, 823 times. Jerusalem appears in the Quran zero times.

Now if you use the “broken” moral equivalence arguments of a college history professor such as David N. Myers, it means that both religions value the city with the same fervor and it should be divided equally. The professor needs a refresher course so that he doesn’t mislead his students.

Daniel Langbaum, Los Angeles

David Myers responds:

I fear that there is in the three letters a degree of moral blindness that will haunt us for many years to come. Unable to countenance mention of any of Israel’s blemishes, they resort to familiar defensive maneuvers to wipe the slate clean. One writer marvels at the presence of Arab citizens at Israeli universities, oblivious to the wide disparities between Arabs and Jews in Israel (as chronicled by the Orr Commission in 2003). Another wields the lachrymose card, suggesting that Jewish suffering (in today’s Hebron, Kiryat Arba, and Har Homa of all places) allows us to ignore the misfortune of others. And the third offers up the popular non sequitur of comparing the number of times Jerusalem appears in the Bible and the Koran — as if that proves anything about the plight of the Hanoun family. As a whole, the letters prompt us to ask the question: At what point, after all the deflection, do we confront the injustice before our eyes and seek to repair it?

The Soviet Side
The movie “A Woman in Berlin” and Tom Tugend’s article touches me personally, because my father, Ishua Blansky, was a Red Army officer in World War II (“The Rape of Berlin,” Aug. 7). He fought for four long bloody years on the front line, he received five medals, and one of them was for the Berlin Battle.

You describe very honestly the role and losses of Soviet people. I don’t know who came up with the “mass rapes of more than 100,000 women,” but I am quite positive that that number is much higher than in reality.

Boris Blansky, West Hollywood

Less Tearsfor Palestinians
As an editor of a Jewish paper representing and informing a diverse community, it is more than disappointing that the paper chooses to support views that are anti-Israeli.  Human life stories depicting the hard times of Palestinians (“2 Days in Bethlehem,” July 31) are featured daily in every newspaper and TV channel. What the world news is lacking is Israeli equivalents. Please try not to be holier than the pope, and give Israel a chance that most other papers do not.

P.S. I am sure you know the word “occupation” is not correctly used in this article.

Ethan Teitler, via e-mail

Jerusalem Undivided
David Myers (“Jerusalem 2009: A Tale of Two Cities,” Aug. 14) seems to have lifted his criticism of some Israelis from a PLO/Hamas propaganda tract. He accused “religious nationalist settlers” of trying to “Judaize Jerusalem and rid it of its Arab residents.”

Jerusalem has been for 3,000 years the Jewish people’s holiest city and has had a Jewish majority for the past 150 years. Today it has a two-thirds Jewish majority—i.e., it has been a predominantly Jewish city for many generations. The Arab population has also grown and there is no plan or policy to “get rid of” these Arab residents. I guess we should be thankful that Myers did not throw in “Jews attempting to destroy Al Aksa” for good measure.

While it is unfortunate that two long-term Arab squatter families should be evicted by a new owner, that is the law in any country. But it is disturbingly ironic when a Jewish professor of Jewish history hypes up his criticism of religious Israeli Jews whose ideology he opposes with demonstrably false claims and is published in a Jewish paper to boot.

Bob Kirk, Los Angeles

Unpleasant Politics
I remember learning as a late teenager of then-President Ronald Reagan’s plan to destroy Nicaragua by funding a group of mercenaries known as the “Contras.” With CIA money, they killed, rampaged and blew things up. I remember noticing how easy it was, how little effort it took to destroy something, how undermining a small nation was like child’s play, when your only goal is to create havoc.

It’s very easy to tear things down, to kill an opportunity for honest change, to destroy a fragile alliance, to shut out the truth by telling dramatic lies for the cameras, and repeating them day in, day out. Even if people don’t believe your lies, they’ll be confused enough to not act on the truth you are trying to defeat.

It’s very easy to blast your way into the headlines and become the de facto winner of any argument, just by sheer firepower. The man who killed a handful of women at the gym the other day discovered this. His sick rant is now publicized all over the nation, thanks to his murderous rampage. Had he merely tried to argue his points, standing up in a discussion reasonably and making his case, he’d be a nothing. Now that he claimed the lives of other human beings in a fit of violence, he’s a national figure.

The tea-party town hall protesters have learned this lesson well. They’ve discovered that there is no need to put forth good arguments for their points, or to meaningfully debate their ideas at the congressional town hall meetings set up just for that purpose. Why should they do that, when they can go on a rampage, yell and scream, intimidate and threaten, even bring guns to the meetings? Such activity guarantees the presence of TV cameras. News organizations will report these activities as “passion” for a cause, and not as the lunacy that it really represents. The Republicans in charge of the town hall mayhem have learned a valuable truth. It’s very easy to destroy someone else’s effort, to denigrate the fragile progress of those sitting at the table trying to work out a common goal. Like Republicans everywhere have learned, all you have to do is shout and swear, wave guns and flags, threaten and rant, and they can get their way. Not by converting anyone to their cause, but by simply making politics so unpleasant that most people just go home and hide.

Permission granted to publish this letter in any form.

Thomas L. Creed, via e-mail

A Moral Army
Tom Tugend’s excellent article (“The Rape of Berlin,” Aug. 7) needed to cite an exception to the rule, “There is no noble army and no purity of arms.”

As a veteran of the IDF, I am sensitive to any implication that we, too, mistreat civilians. Our army takes care to limit civilian suffering, even to the point of taking unnecessary casualties ourselves. A case in point: the assault on the Jenin refugee camp. Any OTHER army would have obliterated those few blocks by artillery or air support, killing civilians. We went house to house, holding fire against civilians, while ambushes killed 13 of our people.

In 1967, I was stationed with occupying forces in three different villages. Never did we abuse civilians.

Louis Richter, Encino

Elaborating on Maccabiah Mission
It’s possible that the original article (“Soboroff Raises Bar for 18th Maccabiah,” July 31) was a bit misleading, but the response letter writer (Letters, Aug. 14), certainly didn’t seem to fully grasp the “mission” of the Committee of 18 (beyond raising close to $2 million to help bring additional athletes to the games). Our mission was (and is):

1)To raise the level of awareness of the incredible Maccabiah Games that all of the Maccabi organizations (including the great work of Maccabi USA Sports for Israel) have been working on for so many decades. Our mission is to celebrate (not change) “what is” and what so many have worked on for all these years. I have never heard a critical word uttered by any of the Committee or its advisors (more than 120 of us attended in Israel last month).

2)Use No. 1 above to gain sponsorships and naming rights and television rights so additional funds could be used to further the wonderful work of the Maccabiah and to bring additional athletes from countries that would otherwise not be able to participate.

We always wanted to “do for the Maccabiah, a small portion of what the ‘84 group did for the Olympics.” The idea of the Maccabiah competing with the Olympics has never been a goal (nor should it be). The idea of using “best practices” to help raise the level of awareness, in the USA and worldwide, to the incredible work of all of the Maccabi organizations, is the one to which the Committee of 18 was (and will continue to be) dedicated to. We have been asked to continue our work and furtherance of the goals for the 19th Games in 2013; hopefully Ms. Monosson will join us to continue to raise the level of awareness of the world to this incredible Jewish event and experience.

Steve Soboroff, Los Angeles

Obstacles to Peace
So Debra DeLee (Letters, Aug. 14) knows everything about what it means to be the ever-so intelligent neo-liberal? So, Debra, here is a scenario you tend to ignore:

If 20 percent of the Arab minority in Israel is not an obstacle to peace, then why is 13 percent of a Jewish minority in the Palestinian areas an obstacle? By a two-state solution, do you mean one Jewish state in which Arabs are citizens and one Arab state where no Jews may set foot?

Would you agree to a peace treaty with Mexico barring Americans from living there? (Or is it a double standard because they are Jews?) Do Mexicans have the right to live in America? Is there any people on Earth whom you forbid to live somewhere (other than Jews?). Is there any place you would forbid Jews other than Judea and Samaria, the heart of the Jewish homeland? I just want people to realize that Debra, who works for Americans for Peace Now, is an Israel-bashing entity who despises Israel’s right to defend herself.

Greg Taft, Westlake Village

Name Calling
I just finished reading Marty Kaplan’s column, “The Marty Show” (Aug. 14). In it he claims that Rush Limbaugh called President Obama a Nazi. That is a lie. Where was he when the leftists were calling President Bush and Vice President Cheney Nazis for years? That is the truth. I have seen many billboards with their pictures and Nazi swastikas behind them. Did Mr. Kaplan ever write an article condemning that? He also writes that Glenn Beck called Obama a racist. That was true. But what do you expect, considering that the president attended a racist, America/Jew-hating church for more than 20 years?

John Gable, via e-mail

Sixties Blunders
In his disquisition “What Survives From the Sixties” (Aug. 14), Tom Teicholz made two errors and one whopper. First: “[T]he revolutions of 1969 [in the U.S.] were followed by the election of Richard Nixon.” (Nixon was elected in November 1968.)

The second was a quote attributed to Lenin: “one step forward, two steps back.” (It was actually “two steps forward, one step back”.)

The whopper is Teicholz’s statement, “Lenin described the struggle for progress …” Lenin was one of the great monsters of the 20th century, laying the groundwork for the crimes of Stalin, Mao, Ceaucescu and the Khmer Rouge, not to mention frightening enough people in Europe to pave Mussolini and Hitler’s path to power. I suppose it depends on one’s definition of progress.
 
Chaim Sisman, Los Angeles

Correction
An article on mealtime at area camps (“Camp Food Fills More Than Bellies,” July 31) incorrectly referred to Rabbi David Eshel as camp director of Gindling Hilltop Camp. He is not the director, but serves as a rabbi at the camp.