Letters to the editor: Aug. 27

0

Divorce can be a good thing

In 2015, my life was falling apart. My entire family unit was imploding before my eyes. I received divorce papers in March 2015. I was married in 1995. We met in college in 1990 and I thought marriage was forever (“On divorce and Jewish wisdom,” Aug. 20).


I grew up with parents who stayed married, despite their anger at one another, many sorrows and long-standing resentments. Divorce was not an option. You stayed married no matter how miserable you were. I went through many stages during my divorce: shock and awe, negotiation, anger, guilt, pain, depression, sorrow, resentment, acceptance and finally forgiveness. It takes two people for a marriage to dissolve into a divorce. While actively engaged in a divorce you cannot see out of the box. You are in a gray zone where you do not know where you belong. You see your life flashing before you eye: of what was, what is and what maybe. The unknown is very scary and change is uncomfortable.

Change can also be a new beginning. I have learned over time that my divorce was a blessing in disguise. Who would have thought a divorce could have a positive healthy effect on one’s soul? I look back now and realize everything happens as it should when it is supposed to happen. The only way to grow and get to the other side is through all the messy stuff. Along the way, I was lucky enough to meet a man who genuinely complements me and makes me want to be a better woman, a better human being.


Roni Dinkes

Millersville

The context of Nakba

Peter Beinart and others should study mideast history to learn the truth about the derivation of “Nakba” (“Beinart is wrong, again,” July 30). Syrian professor and intellectual Constantine Zureiq first used the term “Nakba” in his book, “The Meaning of the Disaster” (1948). Noa Tishby in her new book, “Israel: A Simple Guide to the Most Misunderstood Country On Earth” (2021), writes that Zureiq’s context when he used the word had only to do with the humiliation the Arabs suffered because of their own bad decisions. She writes on page 114: “Zureiq does not refer to the Nakba as something the Israelis did to the Arabs but as a self inflicted and humiliating wound caused by the Arabs themselves.”

Richard Sherman

Margate, Fla.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here