Best for the campaign
Regarding “Harris picks Minnesota’s Walz as vice presidential running mate” (August 7): We need to stop being so paranoid and be more realistic. Kamala Harris, first and foremost, needs to win the presidency of the US, and as such needs to do what is best for the campaign.
Had she picked Josh Shapiro, it would have caused huge strife within the party and probably ugly demonstrations during the campaign rallies. It would have damaged the campaign and detracted from the momentum that Harris’s nomination has so far generated. Her choice of Tim Walz, the all-American boy, who incidentally has a good pro-Israel record, is a good one, and she can reward Shapiro after the election by giving him a senior post in her government. First, though, she needs to get there.
URI THEMAL
Kiryat Tivon
Sober debate
Any analysis of momentous events undoubtedly yields immediate, primary, and secondary causes. In Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Time magazine interview (“PM: ‘Deeply sorry’ for Oct. 7, but not resigning,” August 9), among these potential causes, he chose to cite “the refusal to serve because of an internal political debate” as having an effect.
Perhaps this is so. However, I can only hope he doesn’t overlook how this “internal debate” managed to generate unprecedented dissent and unprecedented responses by most sectors of Israel’s population, including the military, generating local and international ramifications. Without taking a stand on the merits of the proposed judicial reform, it seems clear that much of Israeli society was fearful, even terrified, by how the reforms were to be steamrollered through the Knesset.
After achieving a 64-member right-wing coalition, the Likud party gave new meaning to “tyranny of the majority.” Its legislative exuberance can be likened to a child given free rein in a candy shop about to close. If and when judicial reform is reintroduced, I can only hope that the legislative process will indeed be a judicious one, in which societal problems are aired in broad forums that enable sober debate that can advance the good of the country, not just that of the ruling coalition.
BENNY A. BENJAMIN
Jerusalem
Altogether unacceptable
Regarding “‘Kamala Harris didn’t express interest in Israeli arms embargo’” (August 9): I’m only vaguely familiar with the Uncommitted National Movement (UNM) and its efforts to get fence-sitting Democrats fired up in support of Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign for the presidency.
Yet, while the organization is certainly permitted to lobby on her behalf, cobbling together fake news or making reference to statements or positions without providing the proper context is altogether unacceptable. So, though all may be fair in love and war, there are still, thankfully, professional constraints in politics, something about which UNM needs to be made aware. Let’s, then, give the vice president the benefit of the doubt and accept that she never expressed a willingness to discuss with UNM – or anyone else, for that matter – an arms embargo on Israel. This is not to say that the official statement released by her campaign is in any way reassuring. On the contrary, her conditions for ending the war make no mention of Hamas. Until and unless that hornet’s nest is destroyed, everything else is, for the most part, meaningless.
How sad that my vote for Donald Trump will be because he is the lesser of two evils. That he views himself as a demigod of sorts and is an undeniable danger to the values of democracy is bad enough. My concern is that he may not be as good for Israel as everybody seems to be expecting. Believe me, I hope I’m wrong.
BARRY NEWMAN
Ginot Shomron
Foreign miscreants
In principle, Finance Minister Smotrich is correct to oppose the release of convicted Palestinian terrorist murderers in exchange for Israeli hostages (“Washington slams Smotrich for criticism of hostage proposal,” August 11). There is no moral equivalence between the two groups, and the awful consequences of the previous Schalit deal, in which Yahya Sinwar was one of the prisoners released, have been terrible for Israel.
Still, it can also be argued that trading imprisoned foreign miscreants for one’s own unjustly imprisoned people has long been a part of international diplomacy, including what was practiced during the Cold War by the world’s superpowers. Perhaps the distaste over releasing Palestinian terrorist murderers can be counterbalanced by the joy of the liberation of the Israeli hostages.
No doubt it would have been preferable for our hostages to have been liberated through a military victory, and no deal which endangers a military victory should be entertained by Israel. However, the passage of time reduces the chances of any of the hostages to return alive, given their mistreatment by Hamas.
It’s a terrible dilemma which admits of no ideal solution, especially given Israel’s dependence on the US for diplomatic and military support. Ultimately, I trust Prime Minister Netanyahu to balance priorities properly, and to make the right decisions in the upcoming negotiations.
DANIEL H. TRIGOBOFF
Williamsville, NY
No hatred of Israel
Hillel Frisch is accurate in his assessment of the Iranian people; their opinions do not align with those of the dictatorial reign of the ayatollahs (“Do not target the Iranian people,” August 8).
He brings evidence to show that they have no hatred of Israel. In fact, one doesn’t need to search the Internet to conclude that their hatred is reserved for the harsh regime under which they live. They have tried to rebel twice, unfortunately to no avail.
The Obama administration was particularly bad in its Iranian policy, primarily sucking up to the dictators and ignoring the people. The current Left-leaning US administration is no better.
However, Frisch’s conclusion is wrong. Crippling Iran’s oil industry would hurt the regime, not the people, because the oil revenues are used to support the regime and the terrorism it is promoting against Israel and the West in general; little is left for the long-suffering people of Iran.
Given our recent successes in assassinating leaders of our enemies, it is appropriate to continue on the offensive, regardless of the objections which may arise from our frenemies. In the Middle East, in fact in international relations in general, it’s the strong horse that earns respect.
STEPHEN COHEN
Ma’aleh Adumim
More Israeli deaths
Regarding “‘59% of Israelis support hostage deal to end war’” (August 8): Who says they are right? Letting Sinwar live to save the hostages may result in more Israeli deaths similar to those on October 7.
EDMUND JONAH
Rishon Lezion