Letters to the editor

Looking beyond ‘Fauda’
The Sept. 18 edition of the Chronicle featured an article written by Fiamma Nirenstein, a guest columnist (“Two screens, one choice: The lie of ‘NAZA’ and the truth of ‘Fauda’”). She is an Italian-Israeli who is described as an adviser to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Her article was a harsh critique of a new documentary by two Israeli filmmakers entitled “NAZA.” The title is the word the Israeli Defense Forces use for civilians killed because of military action. The American military refers to such deaths as collateral damage. The film is based on two dozen interviews with Israeli soldiers and intelligence officers whose identities were not revealed in order to avoid retribution.

The two filmmakers have already received deaths threats and Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to strip them of their Israeli citizenship. The film describes how the Israeli military selects targets for attack in Gaza. The decision is made in part based on how many civilians are likely to be killed. A ratio of 20 NAZA to one member of Hamas eliminated was said to be acceptable, though there were claims that in at least one case a ratio of 500 was used.

Get The Jewish Chronicle Weekly Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

The international standards governing military conduct during war include proportionality and discrimination. Civilians are not supposed to suffer inordinately by armies retaliating for their losses. And when attacking, armies should attempt to avoid harming civilians instead of targeting them.

Those rules were developed for more conventional conflicts like World War II. Those wars were between opposing armies and did not have terrorists on one side. The best defense the latter have is to be indistinguishable from the noncombatants. The results can be catastrophic for civilians. In Gaza, almost a quarter of a million Palestinians have been killed or wounded, and over 80% of the buildings damaged or destroyed completely.

Some think that is excessive to the point of being war crimes. Not Ms. Nirenstein. She asserts the opposite, writing, “Never in the history of warfare has an army done so much to protect the civilian population.” She cites her interviews with Israeli military officers and several victims of the Oct. 7 terrorism to make her case. She acknowledges there has been suffering in Gaza but asserts it “does not prove an Israeli policy of deliberately killing civilians.”

She urges everyone to reject the NAZA version of events and says that “Fauda,” the Netflix series about a fictional Shin Bet hit squad, is more accurate. In other words, she argues there is more truth in fiction than in facts.

What to believe about Gaza is something anyone who cares about Israel should contemplate instead of simply listening to the cartoon characters of Fauda. When it comes to civilian casualties, there is a difference between a deliberate policy of causing them and deliberate indifference, even though that distinction does not matter to the dead.

The problem in this very polarizing war is that many on both sides are unwilling to look past their grievances and see the humanity of those on the other side. And until they do, there will never be peace in the Middle East.

Ambassador Dennis C. Jett (Ret.)
University Park, Pennsylvania

Ed Sheeran weaponized anti-Jewish stereotypes during Philly concert
Derek Caney’s report “Ed Sheeran expresses sympathy for both Jews and Palestinians at first tour stop since Macklemore was dropped” (online, Sept. 21) misses the point. That Sheeran “expressed sympathy for ‘centuries of Jewish pain’ while” talking about Gaza is not as important as the fact that this episode revealed Sheeran’s fundamental misunderstanding of Israel’s strategic and moral imperatives. Delivering what was clearly a prepared statement while attempting to pass it off as an off-the-cuff moment of reflection, Sheeran instead weaponized a deeply flawed anti-Jewish, anti-Israel narrative.
When Sheeran condemned Israel’s military operations as “catastrophic and unjustifiable and disproportionate,” he echoed the highly dangerous accusation that Israel is driven by a need for revenge. This premise is entirely false. Israel’s objective since the atrocities of Oct. 7 has never been retribution; it has always been the complete removal of an existential terrorist threat to Israeli families and the securing of its borders so that its citizens can live without the constant danger of Arab terrorist attacks.

Worse still, Sheeran’s framing echoes some of the darkest periods of anti-Jewish sentiment in British cultural history. By painting the Jewish state as an unreasoning, bloodthirsty aggressor, his rhetoric eerily mimics the worst classic antisemitic caricatures of British literature — from Shakespeare’s Shylock to Dickens’ Fagin.

Pop stars reading prepared statements from a stadium stage may garner headlines, but they obscure the realities of a nation defending its people against Arab terrorism.

Moshe Phillips
National chairman of Americans For A Safe Israel
New York, New York

Why I support J Street
In response to the Chronicle’s recent poll question —“Which of these two lobbying groups — AIPAC and J Street — do you support or mostly agree with?” (Sept. 18) — my response was J Street.

Many years ago Meir Kahane, the founder of the Kach party, who had just written “They Must Go,” appeared in Pittsburgh. He wrote the book while in prison in Israel for planning armed attacks against Palestinians. Kahane spoke at the Hebrew Institute, a place for secondary Jewish education as well as a meeting place for the Jewish community; and many in the community were upset.

I made a sign and stood outside the Hebrew Institute when he was scheduled to speak. It said, “Never again. Not to us and not by us.” It happened that the car carrying Kahane passed by. He rolled down the window and asked me what it meant. I said “It means I’m afraid for the nefesh Yehudi” – for the Jewish soul. And I’m even more afraid for the Jewish soul now, after what I think is a terribly disproportionate response to the Oct. 7 attack, when violent settlers in the West Bank operate with impunity if not cooperation from the IDF, and when settlements are expanded into areas designated for Palestinians.

I have to admit: I’m older than the state of Israel. As for many Jews of my age (and older), its coming into being seemed a miracle to me. That Hebrew, the language of the prayerbook, became a living language, seemed miraculous. A rebirth.

We heard then, “A land without a people for a people without a land.” But we know now that British Palestine was not “without a people” and that the establishment of Israel and its growth made many of the people living there refugees.

I was too young to be aware of the War for Independence, but felt horror many times when Israel was attacked or experienced terrorism: in the Six-Day War, when the Israeli Olympians were killed, when an Air France plane from Tel Aviv was hijacked to Entebbe and its Israeli passengers held hostage. I understand the need for security, for self-defense. But “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind,” as well as Judaism’s ethical teachings, mean that we must also consider the lives and suffering of others.

I support J Street — which is pro-Israel without being anti-Palestinian (or anti-Arab, as some would say) — because J Street seeks solutions that promote peace and security for Israelis and their neighbors.

Arlene Weiner
Pittsburgh