I searched, and I don't think this is a repost.
I neither agree or disagree with the opinion stated in the letter.
-------------------------
The following supposedly is a letter to the Editor of the NY Times
written
by a Rabbi. Although it was never published, it's worth distributing.
It's a
concise description of the hypocricy and double standards that are taking
place these days.
>
> Dear Sir:
>
> Let's see. I want to make certain that I have this correct. It is very
> confusing.
>
> If Israel pinpoints and executes terrorist leaders who have aided in
> planning attacks on innocent civilians, that is bad.
>
> If the United States declares war on terrorist leaders who aided in
> planning attacks in New York and Washington, that is good.
>
> If Israel has to compromise some civilian rights of Arabs in order to
> protect its citizens from murderous assault, that is bad.
>
> If the United States must take cautionary steps that limit immigration
and
> other freedoms in order to protect its citizens from murderous assault,
that
> is good.
>
> If Israel will not negotiate with terrorists or their governmental
> supporters until all acts of terrorism stop, that is bad.
>
> If the United States will not consider any deals that do not include
the
> surrender of Bin Laden and his thugs, that is good.
>
> If Israel, with its international isolation, must work with less than
> pure regimes, then that is bad.
>
> If the United States works with terrorist sponsors as Iran, Pakistan
and
> Syria to win its own security, then that is good.
>
> If Israel tries to become part of the coalition against terrorism, it
is
> bad. (Could offend some Moslem States).
>
> If the United States counts on Israel, in spite of the rejection, to
> provide it with major information about terrorists, then that is good.
>
> If Israel protests the wanton destruction of Jewish artifacts and
shrines
in
> Nablus and the Temple Mount, it is annoying, seemingly petty
> and,therefore, quite bad.
>
> If the United States reacts with justifiable anger at the wanton
destruction
> of symbols of America's achievements and power, it is right,
> moral and good.
>
> When Israel's civilian population was attacked by murderous scud
missiles
> from Iraq, it was warned not to retaliate by the United States, that
would
> be bad.
>
> When the United States' civilian population was attacked by murderous
> missiles, commanded by immoral automatons and vowed massive
retaliation,
> that was very very good.
>
> You must admit; it is confusing.
I neither agree or disagree with the opinion stated in the letter.
-------------------------
The following supposedly is a letter to the Editor of the NY Times
written
by a Rabbi. Although it was never published, it's worth distributing.
It's a
concise description of the hypocricy and double standards that are taking
place these days.
>
> Dear Sir:
>
> Let's see. I want to make certain that I have this correct. It is very
> confusing.
>
> If Israel pinpoints and executes terrorist leaders who have aided in
> planning attacks on innocent civilians, that is bad.
>
> If the United States declares war on terrorist leaders who aided in
> planning attacks in New York and Washington, that is good.
>
> If Israel has to compromise some civilian rights of Arabs in order to
> protect its citizens from murderous assault, that is bad.
>
> If the United States must take cautionary steps that limit immigration
and
> other freedoms in order to protect its citizens from murderous assault,
that
> is good.
>
> If Israel will not negotiate with terrorists or their governmental
> supporters until all acts of terrorism stop, that is bad.
>
> If the United States will not consider any deals that do not include
the
> surrender of Bin Laden and his thugs, that is good.
>
> If Israel, with its international isolation, must work with less than
> pure regimes, then that is bad.
>
> If the United States works with terrorist sponsors as Iran, Pakistan
and
> Syria to win its own security, then that is good.
>
> If Israel tries to become part of the coalition against terrorism, it
is
> bad. (Could offend some Moslem States).
>
> If the United States counts on Israel, in spite of the rejection, to
> provide it with major information about terrorists, then that is good.
>
> If Israel protests the wanton destruction of Jewish artifacts and
shrines
in
> Nablus and the Temple Mount, it is annoying, seemingly petty
> and,therefore, quite bad.
>
> If the United States reacts with justifiable anger at the wanton
destruction
> of symbols of America's achievements and power, it is right,
> moral and good.
>
> When Israel's civilian population was attacked by murderous scud
missiles
> from Iraq, it was warned not to retaliate by the United States, that
would
> be bad.
>
> When the United States' civilian population was attacked by murderous
> missiles, commanded by immoral automatons and vowed massive
retaliation,
> that was very very good.
>
> You must admit; it is confusing.
Facebook
Twitter