Your Editorial “Call Hamas’ Bluff’ (June 6) defies all sensibilities. It states that “Benjamin Netanyahu could have simply said that his government is happy to meet and negotiate with the leaders of the new Palestinian government.” Then you added, “when Hamas announces its willingness to play by the rules.” Surely you jest.
Pope Francis came and he went. (“Wall To Wall Symbolism,” May 30) As for the warm relations between Jerusalem and the Vatican, his finding it necessary to pray at the security wall with its inferred condemnation of Israel and the reference to a nonexistent state of Palestine, is hardly in concert with fondness.
Re: “Israelis Debate Responses To PA’s Unity Government” (June 6). For many years a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians has been elusive because it required the approval of four parties: the secular and ultra-Orthodox on the Israeli side and the Palestinian Authority and Hamas on the Palestinian side. Since the two parties on each side did not agree with each other, suffice it to say there could be no agreement that would satisfy all the Israelis and the Palestinians.
In response to Yossi Prager’s Opinion piece, “Israel Education: One Size Does Not Fit All” (June 6), I believe that in order to give day school students a comprehensive knowledge of Israel we have to present a curriculum that leads students on a consistent journey throughout their education. Abrams Hebrew Academy uses a curriculum developed by the Lookstein Center, Bar Ilan University to help us do that.
The concept of the “Evil Eye,” discussed in Gary Rosenblatt’s column, “The Power And Pitfalls of Superstation” (May 16) is not a bubbe meise ITAL but founded in Biblical sources. For example, in parsha Vayechi (Bereishit /Genesis
48:16), Jacob bestows upon his grandsons Ephraim and Menassah the blessing: “May they proliferate abundantly like fish within the land.”
Stewart Ain’s disturbing cover story on the findings of the ADL global poll (“World Anti-Semitism Seen As ‘Pervasive’ And ‘Persistent,’” May 16) revealed that the most widely accepted stereotype was the canard of dual loyalty (acknowledged by 41 percent of those surveyed). Permit me to share with your readers my two favorite retorts to the dual loyalty charge:
Regarding Walter Ruby’s article, (“Civil War In Little Odessa,” May 30): The Russian American Foundation (RAF) promotes awareness and tolerance of New York City’s Russian-speaking communities, inclusive of all its diverse groups; Jewish, non-Jewish, Ukrainian, Russian, Bukharian and others.
Helen Chernikoff’s report about assisted reproductive technologies (“Their Foremothers’ Daughters,” HealthCare, May 9) was not only inaccurate, it was shameful. She opens her piece with concerns about eugenics — as if in vitro fertilization (IVF) today has anything to do with creating “enhanced human beings” — and quickly invokes the Holocaust, casting a pall on modern fertility treatments that continues throughout her article.
We are disheartened by the article headlined “The Shoah’s Lessons, Near and Far” (May 23). The article misstates facts about The Anne Frank Center, an organization devoted to preserving and promulgating Anne’s legacy and diary and its applicability in teaching not only the horrors of the Holocaust, but a broader message, as well.
Young Families, Singles Flocking to Upper East Side; ‘The Memory Is In Their Taste Buds’: The Lure of Sephardic Food; Safra Synagogue Rabbi’s Growing Empire; Sephardic And Egalitarian at B’nai Jeshurun; Giving Voice to Sephardic Music.