Stop defending pedophiles
I am a fan of what Alan Dershowitz has done in defending Israel over the years (“Dershowitz on the defensive,” WJW, Jan. 8). However, why does he still take clients who behave so badly? I believe him when he says he didn’t commit any sexual improprieties himself. But he did act as lead lawyer for a seriously bad guy, getting him a light sentence. Not exactly his finest hour, or something we as Jews should feel proud of.
As someone who was the victim of rape when I was a child, I think there is a special place for people who defend pedophiles. Alan Dershowitz should not take such clients, and we should not whitewash such choices just because he happens to stand with Israel.
I grew up in North Carolina. Where I’m from, when you look at a situation like this, you simply have to say: When you sleep with enough dogs, you shouldn’t be shocked if you wake up with fleas.
JENNIFER LAZLO MIZRAHI
It’s always good to know when people have left no doubt about their anti-Semitism and hypocrisy. Jesper Vahr, Denmark’s ambassador to Israel, was clearly revealed in this regard in the editorial “European hypocrisy” (WJW, Jan. 1). Remarks of the sort he made at the Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Conference would get many diplomats declared persona non grata and sent home.
This individual has lost any credibility he may have had as a representative of his country. He’s a hypocrite because if a Palestinian with a knife approached him on a Jerusalem street and attempted to inflict bodily harm, would he really say “Give it to me in the gut because my proud Danish standards call for me to accept your antipathy toward Europeans and non-Muslims?”
“With two years left in office and a below-average approval rating,” President Obama may indeed be “looking for a legacy,” (“Is Cuba rapprochement a bellwether for Obama’s forthcoming Mideast policy?” WJW, Jan. 1). However, we need not look to Obama’s Cuba rapprochement to gauge the future direction of his Mideast policy.
“A willingness to partner with totalitarian Mideast regimes … at the expense of U.S.-Israel relations,” is not mere conjecture but, rather, is present administration policy. Case in point: Iran. For a number of years, the Obama administration has been reaching out to the Mideast’s most noxious totalitarian regime (and the world’s premier state-sponsor of terrorism) – the Islamic Republic of Iran.
According to Omri Ceren in Commentary magazine (“Enabling Iran’s Nukes.” January 2015), the president and his advisers are still clinging to hopes that negotiations will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, hopes that “they have every reason to know are, in truth, delusional.”
If President Obama is looking for a foreign policy legacy worthy of praise, he would do well to abandon his present course of appeasing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Instead of continuing down that delusional path, he should insist that Iran immediately comply with applicable U.N. Security Council resolutions, and he should start working seriously with Congress to bring Iran to its economic knees now by imposing ever-increasing sanctions on the recalcitrant Iranian regime.
President, Louis D. Brandeis Chapter, Zionist Organization of America
The Jan. 8 issue of WJW gives about 20 column inches to an article, the premise of which is that, 12 years ago, then Louisiana legislator, now Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), spoke before a meeting of a white supremacist group (“What Scalise scandal means for minority vote”). WJW should be aware that this premise may well be wrong.
There is only one piece of evidence that this happened. It is an anonymous post in which the writer says Scalise spoke on the issue of the misuse of slush funds. This piece of evidence does not assert that Scalise spoke at the white supremacist meeting, only that he spoke. That one piece of evidence, thin as it was, evidently convinced The Washington Post, Politico and various other media to report Scalise’s presence at that meeting as a fact. The media reports elicited the apology from Scalise who also says he doesn’t remember attending that meeting.
Since the media reports, evidence has arisen that he did not attend that meeting. One piece of such evidence is a newsletter, possibly written by David Duke, reporting on the meeting that does not report any Scalise presentation. Also, two eyewitnesses have said that Scalise was
attending a different meeting in the same hotel that day, which would seem to fit with the “misuse of slush funds” subject of his talk as reported by the first anonymous post. As I write this, several Louisiana media outlets are searching for eyewitnesses who can say that Scalise was at the white supremacist meeting but so far they haven’t been able to find any.
What about Obama?
Republican Scalise is being strongly criticized by the media and Democrats because he, some 12 years ago, attended an affair that was under the auspices of a white supremacist party (“What Scalise scandal means for minority vote,” WJW, Jan. 8). He, by the way, has strongly condemned its outlook and activities.
Where is the criticism in the liberal media of President Obama, who for 20 years, sat in the church of the Reverend Jerimiah Wright and who has recently taken Al Sharpton, race baiter extraordinary and class divider, into close friendship.
I would like to commend you on your excellent article on the tragic fatal aircraft accident that occurred in the vicinity of Montgomery County Airpark (“Plane crash in Gaithersburg kills six people,” WJW, Dec. 11). As an ex-USAF pilot, I was very interested in the circumstances of the event. It is worth noting that the pilot involved was a Jewish entrepreneur, medical doctor and corporate CEO.
Your article, which cited an obviously extremely well-qualified expert who incidentally was a rabbi, a commercially licensed pilot and flight instructor, presented the most plausible and scientifically accurate possible explanation of the tragedy.
It is very important to make such information available to the aviation community as soon as possible to avoid such situations. You are the publication and media source which presented the best explanation, and I thank you.
I am a longtime subscriber to WJW, and I am very happy with the new, wider coverage you are pursuing.
ERNEST R. FREEMAN
Your editorial of Jan. 8 (“Time to reconsider Iran sanctions) contains the following sentence “While we normally defer to the president on matters of foreign policy … .” While this bias has been painfully obvious (for example, your support of Obama’s do-nothing policy while tens
of thousands of Syrians were being slaughtered), your candid admission is surprising.
Why is it a role of a Jewish newspaper to support (or oppose) the president? If I wished to read articles supporting the president, I would be reading The New York Times. You should limit your reporting to matters of concern to the Jewish community