Featured Comments

I'm a Jew, and while I think my co-religionists can sometimes overreact, I don't think this is such a case.

Mr. Gandhi's comments about Israel, Jews and the Holocaust may be the saddest I have ever read, considering the source. Like most bigots, he is blithely unaware of his prejudice. What he wrote is simply anti-Semitic. Period.

I think Jon Meacham, who so often cloaks himself in the spirit of religion, should be particularly ashamed to be associated with this web site.

For someone whose credibility is presumably grounded in his grrandfather's status as a historical figure, Mr. Gandhi is remarkably historically ignorant. He suggests that the Israelis "reach out" to the Palestinians in friendship. The Israeli's have attempted this numerous times over the years (e.g. Camp David; Ehud Barak's proposal; and others). The Palestinians' response in each case has ultimately been "We want you dead." It is hard to reason with, negotiate with, or create a working relationship with, forces who insist on your ultimate demise.

The brutal assaults on Mr. Ghandi's character and integrity in these pages because he dared to write some truths about Israel is an example of what happens to any journalist, newspaper, magazine, or television program that dares to publish even so much of a hint that Israel is not totally a benevolent, innocent, peace loving country under assault from all sides by hordes of high tech armies of Arabs. It follows that the media can't or won't stand up to such assaults, and visits by prominent Jewish authorities and customers, so they revert to constant repetition of the ADL/AIPAC propaganda lines about a peaceful, helpless Israel, our only ally in the Middle East, which is about to be driven into the sea by godless Arabs intent on conquering the world.

There are a few canards that run through the posts in defense of Israel and attacks on Mr. Ghandi and the Washington Post. One is that Israel only wants peace with its ungrateful and untrustworthy neighbors, another is that the Arabs always attacked Israel first, and a third is that Israel does not have to give back land it conquered in its "defensive" wars.

Israel wants peace to be sure but only on terms that make peace impossible and that is the complete surrender, subservience, and ghettoization of the Palestinians and the surrender of all the territory Israel wants....at this time. Israel and its partner, the United States, believe they can force those terms on the Palestinians but it hasn't worked so far and it is unlikely to work in the future.

Israel was the aggressor in the 1967 war, a fact that was admitted to by Prime Minister and former terrorist war criminal Menachim Begin who was quoted on the pages of the New York Times. No quote was really necessary, the no warning Pearl Harbor-style surprise attack, "A day that will live in infamy" in another context, on Egypt, Jordan and Syria are facts that only AIPAC/ADL could deny. Israel's attack was planned long before the actual invasion.

Finally, Israel is a member of the United Nations as are all countries on the planet and a protocol in the United Nations Charter that Israel accepted is that no nation can acquire territory by conquest. So that canard won't stand up unless Talmudic rules that affirm that it is ok, even required, to swear falsely for the benefit of Jews, is invoked, i.e., we really didn't mean it.

There are legitimate arguments to be made for and against Israel but let's keep out the propaganda such as that cited above, even though most Americans now believe such propaganda to be true, out of the discussion, shall we.

Creating a snake pit? You call that logic? Why don't you first explain why your grandfather's country has nuclear weapons? And then tell me when was the last time the Jews threatened the Hindus?

Your grandfather told the Jews that "satyagragha" is the way to fight Hitler. He threatened to fast till death when Nehru refused to hand over to Pakistan a portion of the treasury that the British wanted him to give to Pakistan at partition. Your grandfather forgot that the same money will be used to finance and arm the tribals and Pakistani regulars who were marching towards Kashmir.
Its a great shame that your grandfather thought that Hitler would behave just like the British. The British didn't shoot the non-violence demonstrators. Nazis would and did. Jews of todays world want to live in peace but the Arabs don't want to allow them that luxury. Your grandfather's non violence would not have worked with Imperial Japan either. Yep, he had all praise for Muhammad too but strangely he didn't become a Muhamedan.
Why didn't you ask your idiotic question to the Arabs? They are the ones who are behaving like snakes.
May be the Jews are using the Holocaust too much but one thing is certain. You are using your grandfather's name way too much. Your opinion is idiotic. It's a shame that you are using that name to sell such a virulent idea.

This is an incorrect summary of the MidEast conflict. Ghandi ignores the many attacks and constant propaganda from the Palestinian terrorists. This is from a group of Ismalists stuck in the past, not Israelis. Israel has built a forward-looking progressive society. The Palestinians have built rockets to aim at Israel.

Perhaps Mr.Gandhi should focus his energies on India's own "snake pit" as he's defined it. Has he forgotten the 340+ mile fence protecting Indian nationals at the DISPUTED Kashmir border? (Washington Post, July 30, 2003) Or, more likely, he's expressing his own prejudice: What he's really saying is 'it's okay to protect people as long as they're not Jews.'

Bigotry, even when written by someone credentialed by riding the coattails of his esteemed grandfather, is still nothing more than bigotry. Correcting the rest of his erroneous statement, a fatuous concoction of misstatements designed to justify his bias, is a waste of time.

The Washington Post should be embarrassed to condone and perpetuate such blatant bias.

Like many committed to the idea that it is sufficient for one side to want peace for peace to prevail, Mr. Gandhi suggests this route for Jews.

I wonder whether he suggests the same for Muslims in their dealings with Hindus, as well as with Christians and Jews. Members of all three of these groups have been targets of Muslim violence for some fourteen centuries, since long before there was a security barrier, checkpoints, refugees, or any of the other issues offered up as excuses for denigrating Israel.

Rational policy, and peace, can follow only when one is prepared to think clearly about who is doing what, and why, and respond accordingly. In the conflict between Israel and its neighbors, the problem has always been that Muslims believe that Israel's very existence is contrary to their religion. If Mr. Gandhi really wants peace, he should focus on how Muslims could abandon this belief.

Arun Gandhi is NOT an anti-semite. He's a truth teller. Right now, Jews and israelis need a heavy dose of the truth serum.

Mr. Gandhi's comments are anti-semitic, in my opinion.

After reading some of the commentary in here supporting Mr. Gandhi's ignorant and reprehensible statements, it becomes easier to understand how the German people allowed themselves to lulled by Hitler and become participants in mass murder.

It's like the 1930's all over again. Only this time around the excuse is called Palestine.

On this topic, some of you keep repeating 'facts' without bothering to check the sources, or perhaps seek additional ones to obtain a better-balanced understanding of region and the current conflict. Almost as a rule, you choose to parrot the pro-Palestinian byline, a narrative that is based largely on myths and outright lies. If some of you took the time to actually study the history of the region, you might not jump to conclusions so easily. Such ignorance allows you to be manipulated--pushing you from feeling indignation towards hatred, and finally to condoning murder.

No, maybe some of you aren't anti-Semites. But what gets me is that so many of you are willing to sacrifice the Jews and Israel in the name of 'peace.' What makes you think you can appease evil?

The Holocaust wasn't the first pogrom against the Jews, and I'm coming to the realization that it won't be the last.

I am not a Jew, but I for one, will not stand by and see it happen again without a fight.

Mr. Gandhi's piece had nothing to say about the proposed topic, and I quote:

Next week PBS will air a series on "the Jewish Americans." We know
what "Jewish identity" has meant in the past. What will it mean in the
future? How does a minority religion retain its roots and embrace
change?

Mr. Gandhi instead has made a gratuitous slam at a country whose policies he disagrees with. His piece should not have been included. Bad call, Washington Post.