Two can play at apartheid
Regarding Hadar Susskind’s “The issue is the occupation, not our feelings about the word ‘apartheid’” (Opinion, May 13): Beyond its lack of logic, Susskind’s argument is disingenuously harmful in its weaponization of propagandistic anti-Israel canards such as “apartheid” and “occupation.”
Trading on his purported love of Israel and service in the IDF, Susskind arrogates to himself a virtuous high ground and asks that we share his moral clarity in assessing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For me, his high ground is neither moral nor clear. Susskind says that he is “not interested in arguing about semantics” and instead wants to “talk about the facts on the ground.” So do I.
Might apartheid be the Palestinian insistence that Judea and Samaria be Judenrein? Might apartheid be an Israel cleansed of Jews as expressed by Students for Justice in Palestine when they chant, “From the river to the sea” as the resolution to the conflict?
Might what Susskind terms occupation be Israel’s need to withstand unrelenting wars, intifadas and terroristic assaults from 1948 to this day? Is there even a shred of equivalency between a defensive military checkpoint that causes delays and rockets fired into bedrooms that murder Jewish children?
The student loan conspiracy
It’s outrageous that the real benefactors of the triple digit billions of dollars of at-risk student loans are allowed to escape scot-free from the “crippling financial challenge to some 43 million Americans” as stated in your editorial “Student Loan Relief v Loan Forgiveness” (May 13). Instead, the taxpayers may possibly be burdened with their rescue. The colleges and universities that were the benefactors of these loans are not held accountable for results or even managing this money appropriately. Instead, they are allowed to get fat, lazy and happy with billion-dollar endowments, unchecked tuition cost hikes, excessive spending and rewarding longevity with tenure (rather than rewarding results), among other incongruent uses of the excessive tuition money they receive. Wasn’t the tuition to college a payment toward preparing young Americans for being productive members of society and being able to easily repay these loans?
So why are progressives so willing to make the American taxpayer fund these colleges and not hold the colleges accountable? Here’s one possible explanation: These same universities and colleges are helping to spread the progressive agenda of anti-America and socialism (as opposed to, say, professional skills). Why bite the hands that feed you (with brainwashed graduates)?