Open Letter To "The Jewish Week (New York)"

The Jewish community that contributes to the UJA is being poorly served by New York's Jewish Week (JW).  It needs an alternative newspaper.  If JW were an evenly balanced paper, that probably wouldn't be necessary.  But, it's not.  The UJA needs to support an alternative newspaper -- not abandon JW but rather to provide another option for its contributors.

This idea is, for me, not a new one.  But the JW issue of January 13, 2017 brought it to a head.  Here we find two items.  First is the article by Gary Rosenblatt, editor and publisher, titled "Pray For The President? A Divine Dilemma."  Clearly this article is based on the presumption that -- now that Trump has become our president -- Jews are torn between praying for our head of state and choosing not to pray for Trump.  Rosenblatt then offers information that will help the Jewish community resolve this dilemma.

We now see where Rosenblatt and, by extension, JW, is coming from.  The idea that the Jewish community is facing a dilemma is sheer arrogance.  Sure, for some Jews, especially those who abhor Trump, they may well find themselves with a dilemma.  But, that's hardly the feeling in all corners of the Jewish community.  Many contributors to the UJA have been active supporters of  Trump.

Regrettably, JW serves as a mouthpiece for only one segment of the Jewish community and, for me, that's a problem.

In this same issue of JW, we find a letter to the editor by Edith Everett.  (Confession: I'm jealous of Ms. Everett.  As a member of the board of JW, she is unlikely to have any of her letters-to-the editor get rejected.)  Since she's on the board of JW, it can be safely assumed that her views reflect the views of JW; namely, that Israelis must decide if they want to be Jewish or democratic.  They can retain their Jewishness only if they opt for a two state solution.  A single state implies occupation and that in turn defines a nation lacking in democratic values.  Nonsense!

Why is it assumed that there must be two equal states, one Jewish and one Palestinian?  By "equal," I am speaking of two states with the same air rights, the same right to militarize, the same right to make agreements with other nations, including nations hostile to Israel, the same rights to territory  . . . .  If Israel is to survive and have peace and tend to its affairs this can not be.

There are other miniature states such as Monaco, Liechtenstein, and Singapore.  The Palestinians currently administer Area A (Oslo Agreement).  That, plus a few more square miles from Area B, should be quite adequate.  Would they accept that?  Of course not.  But, as it happens, there's no deal acceptable to Israel that the Palestinians would also accept.  We know this, not through hypothetical reasoning, but by how they've responded to earlier, and to far more generous, offers.  Also instructive was the response by the people of Gaza when Israel gave them absolutely everything.

My purpose in setting forth this last proposition is not to argue here for its validity, but to point out that the ways forward for Israel are multiple.  It's not simply this way or that way, as apparently one member of the JW board believes.  JW's views in this matter narrow considerably Israel's options.

If Jews don't like Fox News they can go to MSNBC and vice versa.  Clearly, Jews also need an alternative to JW.