Let’s bridge our differences
Regarding “Democrats, Arise” (Letters, March 26):
If you believe that the Republican Party is on the right side of addressing climate change, access to health care, women’s rights, voting rights, taxation and income distribution, immigration policy (and separating kids from their parents), untenable Puerto Rico hurricane relief and an incongruous response to the present coronavirus pandemic, sign on to the GOP. If you embrace President Trump as the greatest of pro-Israel presidents, I understand your sentiments, but am uncertain that his statements and limited actions make Israel safer and more secure.
Painting Democrats or Republicans with a broad brush stroke isn’t helpful: a handful of people may have espoused pro-Palestinian and potentially anti-Israel sentiments — hardly a pervasive movement in the Democratic Party. I am more concerned by the president’s stirring the cauldron of misogyny, xenophobia, and intolerance that emboldens whitesupremacists and misguided zealots. That’s where the anti-Semitism originates and is most dangerous.
In the end, hopefully, we all embrace our Judaism and strong support of the State of Israel. Hopefully we can bridge our differences as a community. We’re all in the same small boat.
Is this what World War III looks like?
During the Cold War and beyond, according to national security experts, World War III was predicted to be fought with nuclear weapons between countries that possessed them. However, the coronavirus epidemic, creating havoc throughout the globe that has not been seen since World War II, feels as if we are in the throes of a third world war.
However, as James Klutznick and Aviva Meyer point out in “Israelis and Palestinians can save each other’s lives” (Voices, March 26), certainly they can solve the conflict. This new war, one of natural causes, has brought about cooperation, instead of annihilation, between Israelis and Palestinians. Although the longer history between Jews and Muslims makes a long-term lasting peace extremely difficult to attain, the potential of a near future of substantially reduced tensions, if Israeli and Palestinian leaders takeactions that do just that, may be the most practical way to achieve a two-state solution.
This is not what nuance looks like
In “And then there were two” (Editorial, March 12), you wrote that “[Bernie] Sanders’ support for Israel is more nuanced.” The reality is quite different.
Bernie Sanders has advocated reducing foreign aid to Israel and devoting the money to humanitarian aid for Gaza, where the money and/or aid would simply help to further entrench the terrorist group Hamas.
In 2016 Sanders claimed that Israel killed over 10,000 innocent Palestinians during its 2014 war against Hamas terrorists in Gaza, when the actual number of Palestinians killed — terrorists and civilians — was 2,125. The democratic socialist online magazine Jacobin ran a column last year entitled “Bernie Is the Best Candidate on Palestine.” And prominent Muslims who I consider anti-Semities, including Linda Sarsour and Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), endorsed Sanders for president.
Clearly Sanders has much room to improve his stance on Israel, before it could be considered nuanced.
Think before you migrate
Anti-immigration activist Brad Botwin calls upon Democrats to “arise” and “migrate in mass to the GOP” (Letters, March 26). That would be the very same Republican Party under whose banner neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier Arthur Jones felt quite comfortable to run for public office in the 2020 Illinois primary, and in which he received 10 percent of the vote.