An absolute disgrace
Once again I have to congratulate Amotz Asa-El, this time on his brilliant analysis, “Cry, bedeviled Ukraine” (March 7), on the history of that country whose history is so tied to ours. I’m sure that Volodymyr Zelensky will, in the end, be victorious and hopefully able to rebuild his shattered country. He can certainly take us as an example.
That Russia, which has an enormous land mass of its own, would invade a neighbor to grab its assets is nothing short of an absolute disgrace. The sooner that Vladimir Putin realizes that the better, but don’t hold your breath.
BRENDA GOLDBLUM
Jerusalem
Almost indefensible
In “Palestinian state: Vision or illusion?” (February 28), David Ben-Basat mentions a number of reasons why the creation of a Palestinian state is a bad idea. However, he did not mention one of the most important reasons: every proposal for such a state would require an Israeli retreat to the pre-1967 armistice lines, which would leave Israel just nine miles wide at its vulnerable midsection.
If anybody doubts that those would be the borders, just take a look at the map. Palestinian Authority cities such as Tulkarm and Qalqilya are nine miles from the Mediterranean – and the PA is not going to give up those cities.
Nine miles wide means that Israel’s central coastal area would be almost indefensible. Major Israeli cities and Ben-Gurion Airport would be within easy rocket range of terrorists stationed on the “Palestine” side of the border. If Israeli forces chased those terrorists across the border, Israel would become the target of severe international condemnation. The United Nations would almost surely threaten sanctions, as would the European Union.
Israel would never be able to use its air power against terrorists across the border, because “Palestine” would employ its anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down the Israeli aircraft. After all, sending planes or drones into the air space of another country is a violation of that country’s sovereignty, and “Palestine” would therefore be able to claim it was acting in self-defense.
In the weeks leading up to the Six Day War, Israeli mothers living in the central coastal region kept their children home from school because they knew an Arab tank column would be able to slice the country in half in a matter of minutes at that narrow point, and they didn’t want their children to be trapped on the other side.
With good reason, Abba Eban once described the slim nine miles between the West Bank boundary and the sea as constituting “Auschwitz lines,” because they would make Israel so vulnerable that millions of Jewish lives would be in danger.
MOSHE PHILLIPS
Americans For A Safe Israel
New York
A little slack
Jonathan Lieberman makes an interesting application of the Chafetz Chaim‘s adjuration to watch one’s speech to modern day realpolitik (“Actions matter, but execution matters more,” March 9). Lieberman cites the very public blow-up between allies Trump and Zelensky and scolds the latter for not showing enough “deference and respect.”
Yes, the king of Jordan did manage to do just that, as Lieberman points out, but perhaps there is another side to the coin. Diplomatic finesse has always been the norm in international relations, but there has also been an expectation of cutting a little slack when it comes to dealing with allies and friends.
It is reminiscent of the time when victims of bullying relationships were blamed for their own abuse and were advised to act a little nicer and try to please the bully. Perhaps the most important foreign policy takeaway here is to evaluate the wisdom of relying solely on the whim of a powerful ally, whose support might hinge on the proper wording of gratitude or tactical astuteness.
MARION REISS
Beit Shemesh
Transparent deflection
In his speech to the Knesset last Monday, the prime minister changed the topic of the debate to his own victimhood (“Netanyahu alleges: ‘Deep state’ trying to oust me,” March 4). The prime minister said: “The people are not stupid. Most of the people see everything that is happening here, the cooperation between the bureaucracy, the deep state, [which] in the United States, did not succeed. And it will not succeed here, either.”
The people who “are not stupid” recognize this as a transparent deflection. These statements concerned the criminal cases pending against Netanyahu, but those cases were not the topic of the debate in which he made these statements. The topic, rather, was the government’s refusal to form a state commission of inquiry concerning October 7.
Netanyahu claimed that a commission whose members are appointed by the Supreme Court chief justice would not be politically objective, but if this is true it’s a reason to propose a modification of the appointment process, as Gideon Sa’ar did, not a valid excuse to stonewall the formation of a commission. More importantly, Netanyahu’s interest in what he considers “political objectivity,” which some might consider a euphemism for “support for Bibi,” does not override the nation’s interest in discovering the mistakes surrounding October 7, at all levels of the government, especially the very top.
It will not do for the prime minister to evade responsibility by blaming the October 7 disaster on the opposition whether in the Knesset or the street, or on subordinates, even if that blame is deserved. Every government in Israel’s history has had to contend with an opposition, and has had to depend on subordinates for information, advice, and the execution of policy.
Within these constraints, the most critical responsibility of the government, and especially the prime minister, is to avoid catastrophe. In this, the government failed like no previous government. On this government’s watch, Israel suffered the worst catastrophe in its history.
The nation needs to know why and how the government failed. Saying that Netanyahu’s opponents are out to get him doesn’t make this any less true.
SHALOM BRILLIANT
Ra’anana