Connect with us

JV Editorial

Letters to the Editor

Published

on

Where Have All the Flowers Gone?

Dear Editor:

I marched for civil and women’s rights and against the Vietnam War. We were loud, relentless and brought about change. But now, at the Democratic debates, I do not hear any protests. Instead, I get to sit here and listen to CNN go on and on about whether or not Sanders insulted Warren after their debate. I do not hear even a mention of Sanders’ bringing virulent anti-semites, Linda Sarsour and Amer Zahr into his campaign, or hiring Faiz Shakir, who co-chaired a Hamas fundraiser. Sanders accepts the endorsements of Tlaib and Omar, who support the boycott and end to Israel, and he flew to London, to endorse the UK’s neo-Nazi Jeremy Corbyn.

This alone should be more than enough cause for mass protests outside the debates, but Sanders sinks even lower by naming the co-founder (Joel Rubin) of an anti Israel group, J Street, as his campaign liaison to the Jewish community. The ZOA reports, “J Street misleadingly labels itself as “pro-Israel” and “pro-peace” but J Street speakers have called for the end of the Jewish State. J Street’s Co-Founder condemned Israel’s creation as “Wrong”, repeatedly delegitimizes Israel by falsely accusing Israel of being an “Oppressor”.

Now for Elizabeth Warren, Democratic candidate for President, who appointed Max Berger as her “Director of Progressive Partnerships.” Berger co-founded IfNotNow who’s openly stated goal is to end Israel’s existence, and calls the Jewish state, “violent, deadly, a nightmare, and morally indefensible”.

If either of these slimy candidates appointed a Klansman as part of their organization, you can bet mainstream media and thousands would be protesting and screaming. Were these two louts out the day France, and even the Pope declared Anti-Zionism is just another form of anti-semitism? Singling out and denying only the Jewish people their right to self determination, support of those who call for the Jewish state’s end is… genocidal Jew hate.

If you think it’s dangerous to be a Zionist, to wear your Star of David or kippah now, can you imagine what’s in store for Jews in America should these two be in any positions of power? They, and their party, have already poisoned the well, empowered the Jew and Israel haters who won’t rest until they see the destruction of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state. Then they will go after us wherever we reside. If this deadly duo are what America is putting forth for popular candidates, I’d sooner wait for a one-way bus to Mars.

Sincerely

Ginette Weiner

 

No Cash Bail Law

Dear Editor:

Let’s be honest in this debate over the sudden rise in crime following 20-plus years of decline. NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea just stated, “With a 30% increase in robberies over the same period last year, you assume one of two things: either the NYPD has become suddenly incompetent in fighting crime, or the “No Cash Bail law” is responsible.”

What he did not say is that the Democrats in both houses see this law as some kind of perverse “affirmative action” for criminals.

Sincerely

Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld

 

Roosevelt & the Bombing of Auschwitz

Dear Editor:

Andrew Hollinger of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum (Letters, Jan. 24) suggests that the Roosevelt administration’s refusal to bomb Auschwitz or the railways and bridges leading to it was understandable since “the War Department viewed the bombing of Auschwitz in military rather than moral terms.”

Hollinger’s argument would seem to exonerate both the War Department and the commander in chief, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, regarding their indifference to Auschwitz—since they were focused on the war effort and naturally had to look at things in “military terms.” Who, after all, could expect the military to look at things in any other way than “in military terms”…?

But in reality, the Roosevelt administration didn’t reject the bombing proposals on “moral” grounds (i.e. the possibility that inmates would be harmed). When Jewish organizations, in June 1944, began requesting bombing, they weren’t talking about striking the camp itself; they were asking the U.S. to bomb specific railway routes and bridges, which they named. Those who were the routes over which hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being transported to Auschwitz. The War Department replied by disingenuously claiming such bombing was “impracticable” because it would require the “diversion” of U.S. planes from elsewhere in Europe. In reality, American planes were already flying in the vicinity of Auschwitz as they prepared to bomb German oil factories in the camp’s industrial zone.

Hollinger’s entire premise is erroneous. He presents it as a conflict between the “military” goal of advancing the war effort, and a “moral” goal of interrupting genocide. But bombing the railways and bridges leading to Auschwitz in fact did have military value, because the Germans used the railroads to transport troops and armaments—which is why the Allies frequently targeted railroad lines and bridges throughout Europe.

Indeed, some of the bombing requests that were made in 1944 specifically pointed out that obvious fact. For example, on August 9, 1944, A. Leon Kubowitzki, head of the Rescue Department of the World Jewish Congress, sent the War Department a request to bomb the railways, which had originated with the Czech government-in-exile. “Bombing of railway communications in this same area [Auschwitz] would also age of importance and of military interest,” he wrote.

Similarly, the leaders of the Bergson Group (the Emergency COmmittee to Save the Jewish People of Europe) wrote directly to President Roosevelt on July 24, 1944, urging: “Railways and bridges leading from Nazi-occupied territory to extermination centers in Poland can be destroyed by bombing….These railways also serve military purposes and their destruction will be of great benefit to our ally, Soviet Russia.” The president did not reply.

Nobody had any illusions that bombing the railways and bridges would have completely stopped the killing at Auschwitz. But it would, as Kubowitzki, put it, “slow down the tempo of the slaughter.” Railroad tracks took time to repair—and bridges took even longer. When 12,000 Jews were being gassed in Auschwitz every day, even a brief interruption could have saved lives.

How strange that officials of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum are now spending their time conjuring up excuses for the Roosevelt administration’s refusal to bomb Auschwitz or the railways and bridges leading to it—excuses that the administration itself did not make at the time. Is this the best use of the taxpayer dollars which fund the Museum?

Sincerely,

Dr. Rafael Medoff–Director
The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies
Washington, D.C.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement --

Trending

Daily Newsletter

Get all the breaking news delivered right to your inbox as it happens

Sign Up Now!

ONE MONTH FREE

At Your Doorstep

No more hassles running to the newsstand, as each week for a month, you can now sit back, relax and enjoy the Jewish Voice in the comfort of your own home!