Letters, the Week of Oct. 13, 2016

0

 

Defense of Trump Indefensible
As a patriotic American and a principled Jew, I strongly object to Richard Tems’ defense of Donald J. Trump’s buffet of moral and political failings (“Trump Is the Pro-America, Pro-Israel Candidate,” Sept. 1).
In the words of former Bush administration Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitrage, “What is dangerous about Trump is his ineptitude, his rudeness, his inability to focus on the intricacies of foreign policy.”
Not to mention, as one Washington Post columnist put it, Trump’s “coziness with Russia, his threatening of NATO, his openness to nuclear proliferation, his call for a ban on Muslims entering the country, his pledge to toss away the Geneva Convention, and his general rejection of America’s current [leadership] role in the world.”
And then there is his campaign’s penchant for repeatedly appropriating material from white supremacist, anti-Semitic websites.
This is the individual whom Tems extols as good for the Jews and a role model for our children?
Chob mir a break.
Stephen Arkan | Wilkes-Barre
Setting the Record Straight on Election Op-Ed
I was so offended by Mr. Tems’ article (“Trump Is the Pro-America, Pro-Israel Candidate,” Sept. 1). No, all of us cannot agree that Hillary Clinton is an utterly corrupt candidate. That is a total lie, and she has never acted in any way to damage the United States. Just because you repeat a lie does not make it true.
On the other hand, Donald Trump has proven himself to be a racist and a bigot. He has proven to be a constant embarrassment to himself and our country. I cannot understand how any Jew or anyone can consider voting for him.
By the way, President Obama is not and has never been anti-America. He has also lowered our national debt, a fact Mr. Tems has conveniently overlooked.
Susan Chernin | Philadelphia 
What Would McGovern Do?
I’m reaching out to the letter writer conflicted about voting in accordance with his lifelong identification as a liberal Democrat (“Today’s Democratic Party Doesn’t Feel Like Home,” Sept. 1). The conflict arises from his perception that “the champions of liberal causes” now support “the so-called Palestinian cause.”
I, too, am a liberal Democrat. I, too, love Israel, and I, too, recoil from and oppose the far-left pro-BDS anti-Zionists who proselytize on campuses and foster negativity toward Israel.
But few of those people are Democrats. Actual Democratic leaders, most saliently Hillary Clinton, reject what they stand for.
Yes, I know some Bernie Sanders supporters were strident BDS proponents, but we chose Clinton. It’s her position on Israel that appears in the Middle East section of the Democratic platform. It emphatically opposes BDS and affirms America’s commitment to Israel’s security, including American support for Israel’s retention of a “qualitative military edge.” It espouses a goal of two states.
I agree with the policy plank’s premise that an enduring, secure, peaceful Israel will only be possible when Palestinians have sovereignty and dignity.
Howard Dansky | Glenside

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here