No Other Homeland

Baruch Shaw’s letter suggesting that 19th-century proposals that Uganda or other places, as opposed to what was then Palestine, should be a final home of the Jewish people is very disturbing (Your Say, March 21). Those proposals were brought up only as temporary solutions serving as a nachtasyl — a “night refuge” — for the persecuted Jews of Europe.

The present land of Israel remained the final objective. For every leader that Shaw has mentioned, we can bring up hundreds that disagreed with those proposals.

The proof is in the pudding. Those ideas did not work, while the existence of the magnificent State of Israel is here to stay, because in the hearts and minds of the Jewish people there are significant historical, religious and traditional ties that are undeniable.

Jews who think otherwise should go and see for themselves.

Ada Grodzinsky
Baltimore

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments

  1. B, Shaw says

    As Ronald Reagan might say, “there (s)he goes again.”

    I see where Ms. Grodzinsky is up to her old tricks: in this missive, she has done to me what she previously did to Mr Cohen: not merely tweaking or distorting, but lying outright about what we actually said.

    Might she be a student of Richard Vatz? (cf. John Wilcox JT letter of July 27, 2012.)

    Why does the JT allow her to get away with such deceitful behavior? As Daniel Moynihan famously observed, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.”

  2. Shaul says

    Ada Grodzinsky really should learn to read material closely, and forego putting words into other people’s mouths.

    This she has done twice, with regard to both Baruch Shaw (Your Say, March 21) and Stanleigh Cohen (Your Say, March 14), imputing value claims to what was a pure and simple recitation of accurate historical fact on both Shaw’s and Cohen’s part.

    For example, she characterizes ‘Baruch Shaw’s letter {as} suggesting that 19th-century proposals that Uganda or other places, as opposed to what was then Palestine, should be a final home of the Jewish people”. “Should”? Shaw’s letter made no such assertion.

    Further, she even proceeds to insult Mr. Shaw through gratuitous remarks such as “Jews who think otherwise should go and see for themselves.”

    Ideology is not facts (except, perhaps on FOX News). Jewish history is what it is, neither what revisionists would like it to be nor what dogmatists bellow that it should have been. And to replace the former with the latter, to confuse reality with fantasy, is nothing short of Hillul HaShem, since “God’s seal is truth” (Rashi comment, Sanhedrin 54b).

    As a Jewish publication, the JT has no business encouraging such deliberate misrepresentation and slander (lashon hara).

Leave a Reply

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