|
|
|
June 27, 2003/Sivan 27 5763, Vol. 55, No. 44
Letters to the EditorJune 27, 2003
Israelis have right to trade land for peaceEditor:Jarred Elias, in his letter to the editor ("Israel is not ours to give away," Jewish News, June 20), states "The land of Israel is not ours to give away. God gave it to the entire Jewish nation." This is his basis for challenging the right of the Israeli government to make territorial concessions in an effort to achieve a peace agreement and to end the continuing loss of lives. Does Elias feel that the 13 million members of the worldwide Jewish community ("the entire Jewish nation") should determine whether or not territorial concessions should be made? Is it not enough that 70 percent of Israeli Jews have indicated their readiness to make such concessions to achieve peace and to end the bloodshed? Elias further claims "Any territorial concession of Jewish holy land is a direct violation of Jewish law." By what authority does he support that claim? Our esteemed teacher Yeshayahu Leibowitz, deeply committed to Halacha, wrote, "Israeli policy in the occupied territories is one of self-destruction of the Jewish State. ... The monstrosity known as 'the undivided land of Israel' is ruinous from the human, Jewish and Zionist perspectives." Ariel Sharon has seen the wisdom of Leibowitz's counsel. Elias should as well. Sherman Minkoff Phoenix Gellar should have known betterEditor:Murray Slone attacked my most recent column, ("Hope influences Jewish comedians," Jewish News, June 6) claiming that my item on Sarah Michelle Gellar had many "factual errors" and that "Howard Stern is ... not the person appointed by the ... Jewish community to interrogate. ... Bloom is suggesting that we revert back to the days when an employer asked ... a hiree's religious affiliation." (" 'Jews in the News' gets it wrong," Jewish News, June 13) There are no factual errors in the column, and while Mr. Slone's argument is grounded on the principle that most Americans adhere to - that religion is essentially a private matter - this is a special case. Stern is famous for asking the most personal questions, including religion. If you don't want to answer such questions, don't do the show. As I said, Gellar answered other, intimate questions, but the Jewish question drove her batty. I have never seen celebrities act as "put out" when asked whether they were Jewish as Gellar acted when Stern asked her faith. Likewise, any star named Gellar shouldn't be surprised if an Israeli TV interviewer asks if she is Jewish. Gellar markets herself through intimate interviews, including several Stern shows. In this context, asking about her faith is not "out-of-bounds." Gellar isn't applying to work for the phone company. Nate Bloom Editor, www.Jewhoo.com 'Road map' to disasterEditor:I find President George Bush's "road map" for peace in the Middle East most disturbing. When Mr. Bush visited Auschwitz during his European trip, he said that "evil must be opposed, even to the point of taking up arms against it." Hamas is synonymous with evil. Hamas has said that it intends to continue killing Israeli citizens regardless of any agreements. If Bush listens to his own tenet, why is he pressuring Ariel Sharon to not target Hamas leaders? If Sharon heeds this advice and lets his guard down, he will be following the road map - to disaster. Hy Rosenfeld Phoenix State Bar should honor First AmendmentEditor:In response to your front page story, "Anti-Israel seminar blocked," (Jewish News, June 13) my views on the seminar material which was going to be presented at the State Bar conference were accurately reported, but Mr. Cohen did not report that I was vigorously opposed to canceling the seminar. The American Civil Liberties Union believes that the answer to bad speech is more good speech, and I was encouraging people to attend the seminar to speak up, to refute and/or to respond to any perceived inaccuracies in a presentation that might have been offensive to some listeners. I had also urged that the seminar take place, but that it would be very clear that the views expressed were those of the speakers and did not reflect the views of the State Bar or the World Peace Through Law Section. Paul Eckstein is a superb and tenacious defender of the Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment, but he and I disagreed on this issue in part because it was unclear whether the State Bar is a private organization or a quasi-government organization. If quasi-governmental, the State Bar is obligated to follow the dictates of the Constitution. Regardless, I believe that the State Bar had an obligation to set an example of honoring the First Amendment and free speech. If all presentations were fair, balanced and pleasant, we wouldn't need the First Amendment. Eleanor Eisenberg Executive Director Arizona Civil Liberties Union
|
