Edition Date: 12/21/07
Human rights shouldnot be based on race
I am a bit confused about this whole Zionism issue. Does any one group of people have the right to control a land that was already lived in by another group of people, deny them political rights, take their homes, then force them to live in walled-in ghettos? Am I a racist because I say no? I believe that human rights should not be determined on race or religion, and as such, reference to my objections to Israel’s policies as anti-semitic is offensive. Is the Jewish race a special case, or do other races have the right to subjugate people? Is it OK for Germans? Or the Afrikaners of South Africa? Maybe I’m wrong, and being a good person means believing that God prefers the Jewish people to the rest of humanity.
THOMAS MEISSNER, Boise
Six-Day War was not a defensive war
With little room to respond to all of the inaccuracies in the pro-Fink, pro-Israel letters (Dec. 8), I’ll focus on Robert Forrey’s intellectually dishonest attempt to distort the facts. He makes a seriously fallacious assertion that the Six-Day War in 1967 was a defensive war.
Here are a couple of quotes that may help enlighten Forrey and others who seem to be confused. From former Israeli General Peled, one of the architects of the attack: “To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers, and were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel, constitutes an insult, not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but it is an insult to the Israeli Army.” Another from former Israeli Prime Minister Begin: “The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” Historical evidence clearly shows that the vast majority of the wars between the Israelis, the Palestinians and their neighbors were instigated by the Israelis themselves, as they sought to acquire (or more correctly, plunder and steal) the lands they desired.
BLAINE CHANDLER, Boise
Newman’s view colored by naivete, self-hatred
In rebuttal to Marcy Newman’s Dec. 6 opinion (Reader’s View):
Marcy Newman’s angry tirades against Israel are so transparent that it is almost amusing.
Newman spews the very same hatred that the Arab countries teach in their children’s textbooks against Jews and any other culture that doesn’t agree with theirs.
She accuses Jews of not wanting Israel to be criticized … a ludicrous charge as Israel is a free society where free speech is not only tolerated but admired. In contrast free speech in most Arab countries can mean beheading.
Newman uses her venom against democracies, but looks the other way when human rights are denied in almost every terrorist Arab state whose causes she supports. Her “righteous causes” include accusing Israel of apartheid, because it builds a fence to protect its children from terror. But where is her outrage when Arab terror kills thousands of innocent Israelis?
Why has Newman, this solitary Jew, been invited to live in so many Arab states where Jews are so hated?
Could it be that Newman’s self-hatred and naivete are of great use to these terrorist states? Has she finally found the social acceptance that she has been seeking? You bet.
LINDA COOPER, Ketchum
As a democracy, Israel shares values with us
Though she claims Israel’s critics are being silenced, Marcy Newman manages to say plenty in her Reader’s View of Dec. 6. Once again Newman uses her academic credentials, one-sided trips to the region, and her own Jewishness as a megaphone for her anti-Israel rants.
The Zionists oppress the Palestinians? They dupe the public with their manipulation and control of the media? They silence their critics with unfair charges? Newman blasts Rabbi Fink for telling us that sometimes Israel-bashing is just a new version of anti-Semitism. Well Marcy, the truth may be inconvenient, but it’s the truth nevertheless.
People are free to criticize Israel, yet there seems to be a pattern of less significant people trying to become significant by claiming they are persecuted. These people hate the fact that America is supportive of Israel. This support is not because opponents fear to speak, or because the media is duped, or because politicians fear “the Jews.” It’s because Israel is a democracy sharing common values with us. It is a home for the Jewish people, one that Newman would deny them despite their historic and just claims. The average American seems to “get” something about Israel that Newman does not.
BOB GOLDSTEIN, Hailey
Shame on Statesman for publishing Newman’s rant
I am truly concerned about The Idaho Statesman’s reporting, editorial policy, integrity and authority. What’s happened to this paper’s editorial oversight and Code of Ethics?
The disingenuous, ad hominem attack on Rabbi Fink by Dr. Marcy Newman titled “Zionist use anti-Semitism label to silence critics of Israeli Policies” was a total capitulation of your editorial powers.
Marcy’s agenda-driven rant had numerous errors and false assumptions. It was peppered with many ‘inciting’ statements which should have been challenged! She also failed to rebut the rabbi’s opinion in that specific article. But that of course, wasn’t Marcy’s intent; and the Statesman allowed her an opportunity to propagandize her issue.
Dr. Newman, Dr. Orr and several others used this paper to spread their hate-filled propaganda, and in this process allowed them to defame Rabbi Fink.
The rabbi used his religious article space on Nov. 10 to share “his opinion” about two recent books and a current trend, which Dan felt borders on “classic anti-Semitism.” The rabbi also cited several other examples to back up his opinion. The definition of an “anti-Semite” is well-known.
Printing her letter was downright shameful, and obfuscates the truth!
DAVID GIBBS, Boise