Nonviolent model
In her recent op-ed about suspending military aid to Israel, Rabbi Linda Holtzman recognizes the need for another model that is nonviolent to resolve the situation in the Middle East.
I think nearly everyone would support her view, but the threat of violence may be the only thing that works to bring lasting peace anywhere. Unfortunately, history has shown us that whenever there is a “nonviolent” model, without stipulations, it rarely works.
Since Israel was created in 1948, it has been repeatedly attacked. Whenever it prevails, and subsequently withdraws from Gaza (a nonviolent solution), Israel gets attacked — again and again. Ukraine gives up its nuclear weapons to Russia, what happens? A nonviolent model results in a weakened Ukraine being attacked. The threat of nuclear retaliation was removed and Russia made its move.
Munich 1938 — there was an agreement for “peace in our time” and what happened? One year later, on Sept. 1, 1939, Hitler invaded Poland. The United States stayed out of the war and “nonviolently” aided the United Kingdom in its fight against Germany. Then, the U.S. was attacked on Dec. 7, 1941 by Germany’s Axis partner Japan.
The only ”model” that works after a peace agreement is that there is the threat of a consequence for the aggressor if it resorts to violence. Post-World War II, a combination of the creation of NATO and President Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” initiatives kept the Soviet Union reasonably in check. When I served in the Navy, I made seven submarine Polaris patrols and we never fired a missile, but the U.S.S.R. knew we could do so at any time — and with devastating accuracy.
The rabbi is well intentioned in her thinking, but totally unrealistic.
Tom Elsasser, Capt. (ret.), United States Navy, elsasser64@aol.com
…
In response to Henry Maurer’s recent letter to the editor, the writer says the “real aim” of Rabbi Linda Holtzman’s organization, Jewish Voice for Peace is “the destruction of the state of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people.”
Jewish Voice for Peace, and its allies, are bent on creating in Israel-Palestine a state where all are treated equally, regardless of religion, ethnicity, nationality.
How this would result in, in his words, “the destruction of the state of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people” is beyond me.
Since when does a “homeland” require long-term residents to be treated in an abjectly discriminatory manner?
Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived in peace and harmony for many years before the refusal of the West to accept the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust resulted in the flood of Jewish refugees to Palestine at the end of World War II, and the routing of Palestinian families from their homes.
Why is Israel not the “homeland” of these Palestinians, while those of us Jews in the diaspora, who have no memory of life in Jerusalem, are afforded that claim?
Are we to forget “Love thy neighbor as Thyself” (Leviticus 19:18)? A shanda.
Barbara August Walker, Downingtown
Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.
