Bibi betrays Israel’s future
In last week’s edition Sharren Haskel MK welcomed dialogue with the Diaspora while branding Mick Davis’s scathing assessment of Israeli politics as “inaccurate”.
As British olim who have spent years making Israel’s case, we are acutely aware of the reality, and share many of Davis’s concerns.
Indeed, we share the judgement of Israel’s majority, who rejected Netanyahu in March. We see a corrupt prime minister inciting not only against political opponents and minorities, but the legal system.
His rush to annex settlements, to serve his own and Donald Trump’s agendas, risks denying future generations the chance for negotiated peace.
We urge British Jews to tell Ms Haskel and all Israel’s representatives that while Diaspora commitment to Israel’s welfare is unconditional, they will vigorously oppose the erosion of values enshrined in Israel’s Declaration of Independence; values which are also critical to winning the argument against anti-Zionists.
We further urge British Jews to support Israeli political parties and NGOs committed to keeping Israel Jewish and democratic.
Toby Greene, Modi’in, Israel and Paul Gross, Jerusalem, Israel
Israel has right to take e unilateral steps to protect her own borders
Israel has a majority government after democratic elections so has the right to make decisions on its future.
The Palestinian Authority leadership continues to act against a negotiated settlement, choosing to attack and delegitimise Israel through international institutions and organisations. All past attempts at negotiated settlement have failed, owing to Palestinian intransigence, leaving Israel with little option other than to take unilateral steps to secure its borders.
Israel accepted Trump’s peace plan but the Palestinians rejected it. It played a key part in the Israeli elections and places no conditions on Israel with regard to proposals to “annex parts of the West Bank”. The Jordan Valley is largely unpopulated and other areas where annexation is proposed are mostly areas recognised as being part of future territorial swaps – had there been an opportunity for negotiations. It is likely in all proposed areas inhabitants will be offered full citizenship, much like they were in 1967 in Jerusalem, and in the Golan Heights.
Israel is a democratic state, led by a democratically elected government and annexation will not change this.
Paul Charney, Chair, Zionist Federation
Don’t take our money if we can’t have a say
Sir Mick Davis was right to castigate the current Israeli leadership. The notion that only those who make aliyah can criticise is long bankrupt. If this is the case, Israel should not turn to diaspora Jews for political support and money. The truth is that recent successive coalition governments are led by a corrupt prime minister who is doing his utmost to skip his forthcoming trial in which he is accused of bribe breach of trust and fraud.
The new ‘national unity’ coalition is nothing more than an unholy alliance between the Likud ruling party and the Blue & White Party that betrayed its voters. They are setting up a monster that would consist of almost 50 ministers and deputy ministers under the guise of corona. This partnership includes the Charedi parties, which receive public money to finance schools that refrain from teaching core subjects and thus condemn their students to a life of ignorance and dependence on state handouts.
Is it conceivable one single politician would drag the entire nation to three elections in one year just because he refuses to face the legal music even after 11 years in power? Is Anglo-Jewry supposed to accept his plan to annex the West Bank just because it suits his personal political needs, risking relations with the Arab Sunni world? Israel is too precious to be left to Israelis.
Dr Saul Zadka, By email
Envoy inconsistent on annexation
In his recent address to the Board of Deputies, the Israeli Ambassador defended his country’s proposed annexation of the Jordan Valley on the grounds that even Yitzchak Rabin had said the area would be ceded to Israel in any final status agreement. So why was Mark Regev adamant that no unilateral step be taken by the UK in recognising Palestine in the absence of peace? Is he implying Rabin never envisioned the creation of a Palestinian state?
David Chesler, Edgware