Letters, the Week of June 23, 2016

0

Readers discuss presidential candidates, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the British Mandate.

When Lack of Objectivity Leads to Willful Blindness
In its June 9 editorial, “When Not to Act Against Anti-Semites,” the Jewish Exponent asserts, “The fact that many far-right anti-Semites are supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump further complicates matters.” But the existence, by any measure, of infinitely more prevalent and violent anti-Semitism from the left, of course, does not present any complications from the standpoint of the editorial board.
That very left comes out in droves in support of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, an enthusiastic cheerleader of the Iran nuclear deal and President Obama’s policies toward Israel. That very left supports Bernie Sanders, who libeled Israel on many occasions and appointed two Israel-haters to help draft the 2016 Democratic national platform.
This unwillingness to recognize the objective reality is another example of Jewish willful blindness.
Isaac Svartsman | Philadelphia
Inquirer Editor Still Gets it Wrong
Thank you Philadelphia Inquirer editor Bill Marimow for unwittingly validating Lee Bender and Jerry Verlin’s point that mainstream mass media reporting on Israel is imbalanced, inaccurate and skewed against Israel by his ironic quote in the article, “Website Aims to Expose Distortions in Reporting About Israel” (June 16). Marimow states, “In covering Israel and Palestine, we strive to be accurate and fair on issues that are of great importance to our readers and supporters of the two sides.”
By the use of the term “Palestine,” he is accepting the Arab narrative that an entity called Palestine exists. The fact is that no such entity exists. The area he is referring to is governed by the Palestinian Authority that rules over 98 percent of the Palestinian Arabs. By using the term Palestine, he bestows a false status on the Palestinian Authority.
Leonard Getz | Merion
U.N.’s Post-Mandate Partition Was Illegal
Bennett Aaron states that Bernie Sanders “should know that the United Nations decision in 1947 to end the British Mandate established after World War I that divided the region into two sections was absolutely correct” (“Why Bernie Sanders Is Wrong on Israel,” June 16).
To the contrary, said partition was incorrect. When the League of Nations approved the British Mandate for Palestine in 1922, it adopted the language set forth therein, as confirmed by the Allied Powers after World War I, “in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”
Howard Grief opined on this subject in an article reprinted in the Algemeiner on Jan. 29. Grief, referring to Article 80, noted that under “this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory.” Such action never occurred, and therefore, all rights included in the British Mandate, as approved and adopted by the League of Nations, accrued to the “Jewish people.”
Arthur Solomon Safir | Retired N.J. Deputy Attorney General

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here