Terror threat
Stephen Pollard is right, that despite 9/11, we still don’t take the threat of Islamist terrorism seriously enough (Twenty-five years on, we have learnt nothing from 9/11 JC September 11). The writing was on the page and then on the wall in 1989, after Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie following the publication of Satanic Verses. Melanie Phillips warned us of the danger in her 2006 book Londonistan: How Britain is Creating a Terror State Within. Loving each other and singing Kumbaya, no matter how well intentioned, would not have stopped the Manchester Arena suicide bomber blowing himself up and murdering 22 innocent concert goers in 2017. Better intelligence and greater urgency, would. The biggest impediment to a more proactive response remains fear: Fear of upsetting the law-abiding Muslim community. Fear of being labelled a racist.
Stan Labovitch
Windsor
Self determination
We are repeatedly assured that the Foreign Office is immovably wedded to the “two state solution.” Curious, then, that when it comes to the Falkland Islands, the very same Foreign Office is equally immovably wedded to the principle of “self determination”, the idea that people, not diplomats in London, get to decide their own political arrangements.
Perhaps the Foreign Office could enlighten us as to precisely which Palestinians have exercised this self-determination and decided, of their own free will, on a two-state outcome. Was it Fatah, presiding in the West Bank? Or Hamas, ruling Gaza? One assumes the Foreign Office wouldn’t presume to prescribe a political settlement to a people without first asking them. That would rather undermine the whole principle, wouldn’t it?
Shimon Cohen
London N2
Get questions
We refer to the article published on July 23rd, concerning the Liberal and Reform announcement regarding making the Get process easier.
We believe it is extremely important to alert all Jewish couples who are married, or who are living together as husband and wife, to the profound halachic implications of the Get process.
There is, of course, a strong principle within Orthodox Jewish law of facilitating a Jewish divorce wherever possible and of ensuring that the process is conducted with sensitivity and without unnecessary stress or hardship. However, it is equally essential that a Get be arranged and written in strict accordance with the requirements of Halachah, without any deviation whatsoever.
Furthermore, the Dayanim overseeing the Get must be exceptionally knowledgeable and experienced in the complex laws relating to Gittin. This is not an area in which shortcuts or compromises can be taken.
The reason for this is of the utmost seriousness. If a Get is not valid according to Halachah, God forbid, the woman remains married to her first husband. Any subsequent marriage or relationship may therefore give rise to extremely serious halachic consequences, including the possibility of mamzerus. The status of mamzerus can, according to Jewish law, have consequences for future generations.
For this reason, we strongly recommend that anyone contemplating a Get should ensure that the process is conducted under the guidance and supervision of highly qualified and experienced Orthodox Dayanim, and that every detail is handled in accordance with Halachah.
The Manchester Beth Din endeavours to make the Get process as accessible, sensitive and user-friendly as possible, while ensuring that all necessary halachic requirements are fully observed. Sensitivity and efficiency are important, but they must never come at the expense of halachic validity.
It is worth remembering that decisions made today can have consequences far beyond the present generation. A grandchild or great-grandchild may one day wish to embrace an Orthodox Jewish way of life, and the validity of a Get today could potentially affect their halachic status in the future.
We therefore urge anyone considering a Get to take the matter with the utmost seriousness and to seek proper Orthodox halachic guidance.
Please consider not only the circumstances of today, but also the potential impact on your children, grandchildren and future generations.
Rabbi Y. O Steiner
Senior Rabbi of the Manchester Beth Din (on behalf of the Rabbonim and Dayanim of the Beth Din)
Cyprus context
Gary Cohen’s article, (Western hypocrisy ignores Turkey’s occupation of northern Cyprus and Syria while condemning Israel, thejc.com August 17), presents an account of the Cyprus conflict that, in my view, omits essential historical context and gives readers a seriously incomplete picture of what happened. The most troubling sentence is the assertion that Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 “under the pretext of protecting Turkish Cypriots”. For Turkish Cypriots, the suggestion that their protection was merely a “pretext” is particularly difficult to accept. Whatever view one takes of the events of 1974, the continuing division of the island, or the political and legal disputes that have followed, Cyprus did not simply exist peacefully until Turkey intervened. The Republic of Cyprus was established in 1960 as a constitutional partnership between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. That partnership broke down only a few years later amid serious intercommunal violence. From 1963 onwards, Turkish Cypriots experienced killings, displacement, insecurity and increasing separation into enclaves.
These events form an essential part of the history of the Cyprus conflict and cannot reasonably be omitted when explaining why 1974 occurred.
There is also the immediate context of July 1974. President Makarios was overthrown in a coup backed by the Greek military junta, and Nikos Sampson was installed as president. The coup took place against the background of the campaign for Enosis — the union of Cyprus with Greece. Turkey’s military intervention followed.
None of this requires us to disregard what subsequently happened to Greek Cypriots. Approximately 170,000 Greek Cypriots were displaced from the north following the events of 1974. Families lost homes, communities and land. Their suffering was real, profound and deserves recognition.
But Turkish Cypriot suffering deserves recognition too. Turkish Cypriots were also killed and displaced during the Cyprus conflict. Families lost homes and communities, and for years many lived in conditions of considerable insecurity. Acknowledging this does not diminish the suffering of Greek Cypriots.
History should be capable of recognising both. This is why the article’s description of Turkey as having “ethnically cleansed more than a third of Cyprus” is also troubling. “Ethnic cleansing” is an exceptionally serious term. Used without explaining the wider history of intercommunal violence and displacement affecting both communities, it reduces an extraordinarily complicated conflict to a simple narrative in which one community appears solely as victim and the experiences of the other largely disappear.
Perhaps the greatest omission from the article is therefore not an event, but a people. Turkish Cypriots are not simply a footnote to the dispute between Greece, Cyprus and Turkey. They are one of the two principal Cypriot communities, with their own history, identity, institutions and political views. Their history did not begin in 1974. Nor should recognising Turkish Cypriot history require anyone to adopt a particular position on the present political status of northern Cyprus. It should simply require acknowledgement that the events of 1974 occurred within a much longer conflict and that fear, violence, displacement and loss were experienced on both sides of the island’s communal divide.
There are profoundly different interpretations of Cyprus’s modern history, and those disagreements are unlikely to disappear. But there should be room for one basic principle: the suffering of one community should not have to be erased in order for the suffering of another to be recognised. Greek Cypriot families who lost their homes deserve to have their experiences remembered. So do Turkish Cypriot families who experienced violence, displacement and insecurity before 1974. A balanced discussion of Cyprus should acknowledge both. If there is ever to be lasting reconciliation between the island’s two communities, surely that is where the conversation must begin.
Onur Saliah
Sawbridgeworth
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.