Judge and jury
In “Rule of law or rule by one?” (April 27), Anat Thon Ashkenazy, director of the Israel Democracy Institute’s Center for Democratic Values and Institutions, eloquently sets out the dangers of the prime minister’s alleged issuing of illegal instructions and her concern surrounding Shin Bet head Ronen Bar‘s response.
But she fails to address the elephant in the room; namely, Bar’s anointing himself as judge and jury over whether to obey instructions from his superior.
Surely as a defender of democracy, Anat should be just as, or maybe more, worried about an unelected official setting his own policy for the country and defying the government’s position.
Of course, if your main motivation is to bring down the prime minister, I suppose any means are acceptable.
DANIEL BAUM
Zichron Ya’acov
Weak and unconvincing
In “Five crucial differences” (April 24), Michael Freilich tries to justify imposing sanctions on Russia, while not imposing sanctions on Israel. Unfortunately, his arguments are weak and unconvincing.
Freilich claims that because Russia started the war against Ukraine, it follows that Russia is the bad guy and Ukraine is the good guy. In 1967, Israel started the Six Day War by attacking Egypt. Nevertheless, Egypt was the bad guy.
Freilich claims that because Russia is an authoritarian, repressive regime, whereas Israel is a liberal democracy, it follows that Russia is the bad guy, whereas Israel is the good guy. During the Second World War, Soviet Union was led by the cruel dictator Joseph Stalin, who was hated by most of the Soviet people, whereas Nazi Germany was led by the democratically elected Adolf Hitler, who was loved by most Germans. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union was the good guy, whereas Nazi Germany was the bad guy.
Freilich claims that because Hamas is viewed as a terrorist organization by the European Union, the United States and many others, it follows that Israel must be the good guy in the war in Gaza. However, it is not Hamas, rather Israel that has been widely condemned as war criminals by the secretary-general of the United Nations, by the late pope Francis, by the International Criminal Court, by thousands of students at America’s most prestigious universities, and in the endless pro-Palestinian protests worldwide. Criticism of Hamas has been quite mild, compared to the unbridled hatred displayed toward Israel.
The fact is that Israel is completely justified in its conduct during its war against Hamas, but not for the reasons presented by Freilich.
NATHAN AVIEZER
Petah Tikva
Attacking the root cause
In “Hmm… maybe anti-Zionism really is antisemitic” (April 23), Gil Troy admits that US President Trump has gotten universities “to do more against Jew-hatred in a few weeks than [liberals] did for years,” but decries Trump’s “sledgehammer approach,” against which “universities are justifiably mobilizing to… protect critical scientific research from governmental blackmail.”
Jew-hatred does not occur in a vacuum. For example, Harvard has a history of antisemitism. In 1922, Harvard president A. Lawrence Lowell proposed accepting a quota of only 15% Jewish students. He argued absurdly that the quota would prevent further antisemitism.
Harvard adopted a series of admissions policies limiting the percentage of Jewish students in each incoming class. “Legacy admissions” preserved the white, Protestant demographics of “Old Harvard” by admitting the white, Protestant sons of “Old Harvard” graduates.
Harvard warmly welcomed Nazi leaders to its campus in the 1930s, inviting them to prestigious, high-profile social events, and strove to build friendly relations with thoroughly Nazified German universities.
Today, hate speech on campus is a hanging offense unless it calls for the murder of Jews. In that case it is “constitutionally protected.”
If threats and harassment targeting Jewish students were directed against any other student minorities, the perpetrators would be expelled forthwith and likely prosecuted criminally.
The failure of Harvard and other prestigious universities to protect their Jewish students to the same degree evinces a double standard that is itself antisemitic.
As a Harvard Law School alumnus, and a former assistant US special envoy to combat antisemitism under the first Trump administration, I believe that there is a much deeper question: Why are US taxpayers funding anything at Ivy League schools with huge tax-exempt endowments? (Some describe Harvard as a hedge fund posing as an educational institution.)
If the scientific research is truly valuable and educational, the schools are fully capable of funding it themselves. Perhaps it is pursued primarily to feed at the government trough. Even if some research is valuable, it does not justify undermining Trump’s bold efforts to eliminate campus antisemitism.
Consider the parallel between October 7 and antisemitism at universities: Total destruction of Hamas will be only a temporary victory unless Hamas’s patron – Iran – is dealt with directly.
Similarly, university antisemitism can be eradicated only by attacking the root cause – rampant faculty antisemitism masquerading as anti-Zionism and countenanced by feckless administrators.
EFRAIM COHEN
Zichron Ya’acov
Fortitude and resilience
Regarding “Yad Vashem ceremony begins day marking 80 years since Holocaust” (April 24): Never a Holocaust Remembrance Day goes by that one is not amazed at the fortitude and resilience shown by the survivors.
From their often and necessarily repeated stories, it’s truly difficult to fully understand how they in fact survived such horrors, especially that the persons now recalling such events were at the time mere children.
As this year’s ceremonies have the added criteria of including the atrocities of October 7 and the fate of the hostages, we owe it to all who suffered many years ago, and currently – that everyone of us now stand together tall and proud of what our nation has achieved, but still all the while proclaiming “never forget.”
STEPHEN VISHNICK
Tel Aviv