Letters to the Editor: The Israeli right is to blame

Israeli right is to blame

Letter writer Malcolm Factor states that Israel controls the West Bank of the Jordan “because of the Palestinians’ refusal to accommodate a Jewish state anywhere” (Jewish News, 27 January).

This is strange logic. With the possible exception of Yitzhak Rabin, Israelis have never accepted the right of the Palestinians to a state anywhere.

So why would anyone expect the Palestinians to recognise Israel?

The more plausible explanation for control of the West Bank is that the Likud and its predecessor party have always demanded a policy of Greater Israel, in other words a policy of gaining and occupying maximum territory. Any suggestion of land for peace such as in the ill-fated Oslo Accords was anathema to them.

That’s why Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud destroyed the Oslo peace progress in its years in power after 1995. And also why a right-wing extremist assassinated Prime Minister Rabin in 1995.

Without land for peace can there be a two-state peace settlement? I doubt it. This is one reason why the Israeli right wants to hold onto the West Bank.

Fraser Michaelson, Southgate

Report becks belief

I’m at a loss to understand why Jewish News troubled itself to report the nonsense about the “Jewish” content planned for the upcoming Beckham-Peltz wedding.

Neither party is Jewish and the prospects of a kesubah for a gentile woman along with the envisioned participation of a rabbi are grotesque non-starters. Why bother to waste precious column inches on such tripe?

Abbott Katz, Edgware

Focus on the reality

Letter writer Jonathan Kay bemoans the small turnouts at rallies and demonstrations against antisemitism and how everyone seems to be trying to find ways to combat antisemitism (Jewish News, 27 January).

Since antisemitism is not a rational phenomenon it cannot be beaten or even reduced by demonstrations. We have to think about why things are as they are. Our efforts need to
be directed there, nowhere else.

Ann Cohen, Golders Green

IHRA adoption not essential

Education secretary Nadhim Zahawi may well regard the adoption by universities of the deeply flawed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as “essential”, but this is not the view taken within the English higher education (HE) sector.

Of the 419 HE providers registered with the independent regulator, the Office for Students, only slightly over half have to date adopted the definition. The institutional independence of English HE providers is protected by statute (the 2017 Higher Education Act). Does
Mr Zahawi intend to remove this protection and what would he put in its place?

Professor Geoffrey Alderman, NW9

Less doom and gloom

Your letters pages have been consumed with comments about Samuel Hayek’s opinion of diaspora Jews. Do we have a future here and is Muslim immigration a major issue? As Jews, we have suffered throughout history as scapegoats for society’s many ills. However I see a lifestyle here with a variety of choices for the Jew, whether religious or not, and although the numbers could be on the decline with many making aliyah there is plenty to be proud of in our community. We can all learn from a variety of comments but please not more doom and gloom.

Norma Neville, Hendon

Our guard must be up

Antisemitism raises its ugly head in the most untoward places, for example, a Briton sought out a community synagogue in a fairly remote part of Texas, and in circumstances that clearly show we must be on guard. It is also a wake-up call that the main antisemitic protagonist, Iran, brazenly announces its message of hatred, and with it the threat to carry out the complete annihilation of the Jewish state. It is imperative that we are fully aware and thoroughly prepared to be proactive when it comes to the protection of Jewish people around the world.

Stephen Vishnick, Tel Aviv