HAARETZ CORRESPONDENT TELLS DR. DAN PIPES, 'KEEP OUT OF ISRAEL DIALOGUE."

Submitted by JERRY BORIS (United States), Jul 30, 2008 at 17:39

RE: DANIEL PIPES: A RESPONSE TO YORAM SCHWEITZER CRITICISM IN JERUSALEM POST

SIR,
Yoram Schweitzer, Leftist Haarets journalist, as published in the JERUSALEM POST, has seen fit, in typical Leftist fashion, to chastise American Scholar, Dr. Daniel Pipes, on Pipes' views aiming to help Israel extricate from her perennial problems, (many of these problems self-imposed by the leftists associated with SCHWEIZER and his home Publication, . HAARETZ.

Yoram expresses the view, anathema to American Constitutionalists, although widely accepted in Socialist-oriented Israel, that American Pipes, without Israeli citizenhip, has NO RIGHT to add his voice to help alleviate Israels' problems. That the entire world seems at some point or other, to intrude into Israel's affairs, without objection, mostly to assist the Arabs, appears not to disturb this Haaretz correspondent: it is only advocates FOR ISRAEL who bother him.

In actuality, the differences between Pipes and Schweitzer's views, are symbolic of a broader and deeper gulf between American traditiion of openly competitive views, and Israel's European-derived socialist restrictive views. One of the many broad differences between Israeli and American values, Custom and Law, is that American Law and tradition customarily values different opinions, however wide the gap, while Israel is much less democratic and far more restrictive of challenging opinions , whatever the current self-promotion. This restrictive view motivates Schweizer.

Hence, America has a Constitution, the BASIC American Law, granting full and equal rights to ANY and ALL sources of opinion, whatever the pedigree, where Israel, flowing from its far more restrictive laws and European backward-looking tradition, granting much fewer rights to the People, is more intolerant of "unauthorized" opinion, a form of European-derived restrictions.

The currently perilous status of Israel's existence, with the Arab world intractably committed to its ultimate destruction, (whatever the official spin, whatever the Condoleezza Rice lamentations) under constant threat from its permanent enemies, (FATAH, HAMAS, SAUDI ARABIA, European hostility), compels that it welcome constructive opinions, (if it is to survive) particularly from concerned scholars like the world-renowned, Dr. DANIEL PIPES.

An American song recites, "You can't have one without the other."
Israel cannot have the money (donations, grants, loans) and the bodies (ALIYAH) of American citizens, simultaneous with rejecting opinions of concerned American scholars like the eminent, Dr. Daniel Pipes. Schweitzer makes no mention of these other considerations.

YORAM SCHWEITZER'S boomerang, originating in old European tradition, has struck only himself. It seems considerably late for this critic, to lament that writers like Dr. Pipes should be excluded from Israeli dialogue, given the history of Israel, beginning in 1948. Without help reaching back even before the 1948 U.N. typically lopsided PARTITION PLAN, and help from concerned people like American Officer, Mickey Marcus, et al, (many of whom, like Marcus, gave their lives), Israel would not exist today. Even Israel's Founding Fathers, like David Ben Gurion and Golda Meir, et al, silently refute FROM THE GRAVE, the Schweitze lament. seeing that Israel at heart, depends on Jews, mainly, the world over, unrestricted by the ELITIST Left, of which Schweitzer is symbolic but, alas, not alone. .

Schweitzer shows not only that he is no democrat, but that he , like many of Israel's Leftists, is also an ingrate, more concerned with protecting his own status than in broadening Israel's appeal to those who wish her well.

JERRY BORIS
PHILA PENNA USA

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".