Fear About Iran Won't Change Political Equation
Jonathan S. Tobin is right about one thing: The overwhelming majority of Jews will vote for the Democrats next year (A Matter of Opinion: "Pandering Won't Be Enough," July 5).
The reason is that they want a president and a Congress that will pull us out of a disastrous war in Iraq and avoid another unnecessary conflict with Iran. They also want a government that is not beholden to radical Christian conservatives.
The fear-mongering about terrorism and Iranian nukes that writers like Tobin put forward will not change this.
A Big Difference Exists Between the Two Parties
Concerning Jonathan S. Tobin's remarks about former Sen. Fred Thompson's support for Israel, his radio commentary actually called for Israel to make a stronger response to Hamas' attacks (A Matter of Opinion: "Pandering Won't Be Enough," July 5).
Thompson has also attacked the Council on American-Islamic Relations in print, as well as Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Contrary to Tobin's claim that there is little daylight between the mainstreams of the two parties on Israel, no Democratic candidate would have written either of these columns.
Let's also remember that Rudy Giuliani threw Yasser Arafat out of Lincoln Center at the same time that Hillary was kissing and embracing Mrs. Suha Arafat after she gave a speech accusing Israeli doctors of poisoning Arab children with AIDS.
If Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama or John Edwards are elected president, America will neither co-operate with nor allow an effective Israeli (let alone American) attack against Iran or Syria before it's too late. They will insist until it is too late that there is time left for diplomacy and sanctions.
If the Democrats win, Israel's window of opportunity to attack -- or even effectively defend itself with American resupply -- will close.
Iran will get the bomb, and the self-righteous, self-satisfied, majority of American Jews in the Democratic Party will sentimentally shake their heads and cluck their tongues over the fate of the second 6 million.
You can bank on it!
Jewish Groups Should Stick to Jewish Issues
Did the Jewish Telegraphic Agency misprint the full names of the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League in its analysis of reactions to recent Supreme Court rulings (Nation & World: "Court Rulings Leave Groups Pondering New Strategies," July 5)? Do they stand for the American Jewish Democratic Committee and the Anti-Defamation Democratic League?
Is there so little work for lawyers at these two prominent general Jewish organizations that their legal team has time to deal with such nationally controversial -- yet non-Jewish -- issues as abortion and trying to force a child to spend several hours on a bus each day going to school instead of walking to the one nearby?
The timing of these stories is very unfortunate, as my wife and I were just discussing significantly increasing our charitable contributions, especially to Jewish organizations. Now, we have to do more homework to differentiate actual Jewish organizations from deceptively named partisan organizations whose members are Jews.
I beg of the partisan Jews who run general Jewish organizations to differentiate being a Jew from having a certain partisan viewpoint, and to have the decency to do their partisan fighting via issue-related or partisan groups.
Don't Throw Out NPR Baby With the Bathwater!
Although I don't disagree with Andrea Levin's thesis that National Public Radio is not balanced in its reporting and commentary on Israel and the Six-Day War, I do not agree with her last paragraph (Opinion: "Anniversary of '67 Brings Out the Worst in NPR," July 5).
She requests that we withhold funds from local affiliates like WHYY until NPR becomes more fair and accurate. This is tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Local public television and radio provide essential and valuable services to communities. And they won't survive without support from the listening and viewing public.
How much input the local public stations have in shaping the commentary content and reportage of NPR is beyond my ability to gauge, but I'm willing to bet that it's minimal.
Let's not punish the children for the sins of the parents.
Immigration-Bill Failure Shows the System Works
Samuel G. Freedman's opinion piece was fraught with non-sequiturs (Opinions: "Specter of Immigration Debate Comes Back to Haunt Bush," July 5).
Freedman reasons that President Bush held a state dinner for Vicente Fox before Sept. 11, 2001, and had warm relations with Mexicans; therefore, the citizens of the United States should approve any immigration bill that the president sponsors. If the bill that Bush proposes fails, then we're all guilty of the vilest bigotry.
Freedman feels that nothing should have changed after 9/11.
The fact is, we have rightly been preoccupied with national security, and the events of that day drastically changed our social and political landscape.
The immigration bill failed because Americans told their lawmakers in a unified voice that they didn't want it.
This failure was due to intrinsic flaws of the legislation and to the responsiveness of our lawmakers to their bosses, the American people. It was an example of democracy in action.
Furthermore, it's insulting to Americans to liken us to Nazi collaborators or proponents of eugenics. Mexicans are not dying because they are being asked to apply for legal status here. We are entitled to know who is in the country and to properly seal our borders.
We haven't betrayed George W. Bush, nor has he betrayed us.
The lawmakers have simply listened to the people who elected them.
And in a rare burst of energy, the system actually worked.
Edythe G. Victor