Amine Ayoub’s “Terror aid vs US aid” (February 18) argues that the US government should reform USAID instead of eliminating it completely. This argument underscores the essential conflict facing all foreign aid by all nations. How does one ensure that the foreign aid goes to the right organization and is used for its purposes?
The writer correctly acknowledges that USAID funds have been misused in many instances. It is clear that USAID was riddled with corruption in Gaza. So why should the US keep throwing good money after bad?
The writer argues that eliminating USAID will cause a vacuum which many players like Qatar, Russia and China will fill. I say, let them in; let them throw their money into the bottomless pit of Arab extremism. Surely their results would logically not differ from how USAID has performed.
When you have a rotten house like USAID is presently, it is always better to start fresh and rebuild the organizational structure, rather than simply renovate it.
ROD MCLEOD
Timrat
Blind loyalty
Regarding “The difference between the current admin and its predecessor is dramatic” (February 14): Yes, and several more differences can be added.
While Biden made cabinet and ambassadorial appointments based on competence and experience, Trump’s main concern was blind loyalty to him. For example, for the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), he chose Lee Zeldin, who has an environmental rating of only 14% from the League of Conservation Voters.
While Biden made reducing climate threats a primary concern and passed legislation to reduce them, Trump pulled the US out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
This is consistent with his climate denial and his pledge to roll back legislation designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
While many jobs were created and inflation was reduced during the Biden administration, economic experts believe that Trump’s plans to add high tariffs will increase inflation, reduce economic growth, and have other adverse economic effects.
While Biden emphasized positive health measures, Trump’s pulling the US out of the World Health Organization (WHO) will have negative health effects worldwide.
RICHARD H. SCHWARTZ
Shoresh
Far more theoretical
In “Expanding the Abrahamic vision” (February 17), Ben Mollov points out the significance of having the Abraham Accords so named as a reminder of the common ancestry of both the Jewish and Muslim people. Maybe, but in the past four-and-a-half years, other than having Dubai available to Israelis as an exotic vacation destination, the cooperation among the signatories has been far more theoretical than practical. The mutuality that Mollov speaks of is not overly apparent, at least not to me.
More importantly, the nations which signed the pact with Israel exuberantly expressed concern over the “carnage” in Gaza due to Israel’s response to the October 7 massacre and kidnapping. They encouraged and endorsed ceasefire agreements to free the hostages that were altogether one-sided. They are, moreover, prepared to benefit from a partnership of sorts with Israel but less than eager to speak out against the anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiments which are ablaze throughout the world. Our back they do not quite have, do they?
As for Saudi Arabia, well, the Saudi cabinet’s recently-released statement that a “lasting peace in the region can only be achieved through a two-state solution” says it all. The potential of the Abraham Accords is, admittedly, enormous; providing, that is, that the Arab participants keep in mind that it takes two to tango.
BARRY NEWMAN
Ginot Shomron
Assorted celebrities
Regarding “Opting out of antisemitism” (February 17): What this article clearly spells out, despite its title, is that these Jew-hating Jews among assorted celebrities are in fact opting in, not out, of antisemitism. They no doubt feel with great conviction that their assimilation in the US would be truly complete if only the volume in support of Israel could be muted.
STEPHEN VISHNICK
Tel Aviv
No evidence whatsoever
The Jerusalem Post still seems to have not accepted that the Democrats lost the recent US election, and lost heavily. The article by Akiva Lamm, “Engaging with the Democratic Party” (February 17), uses the words “settler” and “settlement” numerous times, in a piece that tries to fool readers into thinking that the Democratic Party “is undergoing a period of introspection” when there has been no evidence whatsoever of that happening.
The use of those words is very much reflective of the Obama/Biden/Harris administration’s negative, indeed hostile, attitude toward Israelis living in Israeli towns and villages in Judea and Samaria, targeting them with various sanctions for daring to live in the area that the Democrats fantasized could have been handed over to a Palestinian Hamas-ruled terrorist state, had the Democrats won.
Fortunately, the Democrats didn’t win.
JOSEPH BERGER
Netanya