Is It Enough Yet? Part I

I ask this question in regards to two different Op-Eds in the New York Times.  On October 6, 2024, we have Bret Stephens piece:  "The Year American Jews Woke Up."  Stephens had been a conservative writer at the Wall Street Journal, but as an anti-Trumper he left and went to the Times.  Then, on October 13, 2024, we have the article by Dr. Feroze Sidhwa:  "What 65 Doctors, Nurses and Paramedics Saw in Gaza."  Dr. Sidhwa worked as a trauma surgeon for approximately two weeks in Gaza.  Both articles merit discussion.

After recounting various antisemitic incidents across America over this past year, Stephens makes a very important assessment of what it means to be a Jew in America.  "At some point, an awakening of sorts occurred.  Perhaps not for every American Jew, but for many.  I've called them the Oct. 8 Jews - those who woke up a day after our greatest tragedy since the Holocaust to see how little empathy there was for us in many of the spaces and communities and institutions we thought we comfortably inhabited.  It was an awakening that often came with a deeper set of realizations.  One realization:  American Jews should not expect reciprocity."

Stephens discusses the history of American Jews supporting many progressive causes, only to see those same progressive individuals and organizations turning on us after October 7, 2023.  A second realization:  "'Zionist' has become just another word for Jew."  "Anti-Zionists" claim that they have nothing against Jews, but rather the political idea of Zionism, reflecting a return to the land of Israel for the Jewish people.  Stephens makes it clear that the attacks on "Zionists" have become indistinguishable from attacks on individual Jews.  At that point, "the distinctions between anti-Zionist and antisemite blur to the point of invisibility."

A third realization:  "This isn't going to end anytime soon."  In part because American politics has moved "towards forms of illiberalism."  Stephens is referring to a move away from classical liberalism; something this writer has discussed many times, and particularly in the July 17, 2016 post "Classical Liberalism."  Stephens:  "Unless this changes, the American Jewish community is on its way to living how the European Jewish community has for decades:  apprehensive, suspected and under ever increasing layers of private and state protection."  

Stephens then discusses the current "grand theory of "settler colonialism," a label which the antisemites place on the Jews (settler colonialists).  Stephens:  "Zionism, which since the days of the Maccabees has been the most enduring anticolonial struggle in history, is now the epitome of what college activists seem to think is colonialism, the only solution to which is its eradication."

Noting that the college educated are often the worst offenders, Stephens tells us:  "When people argue that education is the answer to bigotry, they often forget that bigotry is a moral failing, not an intellectual one - and few people are more dangerous than educated bigots."  Where Stephens and I diverge is on his apparent emphasis on the right-wing, and the unnamed Trump, moving us away from classical liberalism - towards illiberalism.  But that has been going on for some time, well before Trump came on the scene.  

Citing a book discussing where German Jews had gone wrong politically, we are told:  "They had, in tolerant Prussia, lost their instinct for danger, which had preserved them through the ages."  That is a discussion which my conservative friends and I have frequently had.  When will American Jews wake up?  Many are so consumed by their hatred of Donald Trump, that they have remained blind to all the dangers of the radical left, and of radical Islam.  

Stephens:  "Are we going to be proud Jews or (mostly) indifferent ones?  And if proud, what does that entail?  It's an open question that each of us will have to answer for ourself."  For Stephens:  "To be a Jew obliges us to many things, particularly our duty to be our brother's, and sister's, keeper.  That means never to forsake one another, much less to join in the vilification of our own people."  Finally, it means "to embrace - often as a thoughtful critic, but never as a hateful scold - the great, complicated, essential project of a Jewish state.  To imagine we can do without it is to forget how close we came to extinction before it was born." 

So, is it enough yet?  Have my fellow Jews seen enough antisemitism and outright Jew hatred to awaken from their slumber?  Have they seen enough to realize that, no matter how much they may detest Donald Trump, the problem is far wider and deeper than Trump.  I don't expect them to recognize Trump as the best President for Israel and the Jewish people.  But maybe they will awaken to the fact that the these college protesters, and their anti-Israel professors and administrators, are on the Left.  That most of the mainstream media is on the Left.  The same applies to Hollywood.  It is a mistake to assume that these Leftists are on our side.

I have said in the blog that antisemitism, whether from the Right, the Left or Radical Islam - is all bad.  I made it a point of criticizing Tucker Carlson twice, for his apparent antisemitism, because he is such a prominent voice on the Right.  It's past time for my fellow Jews on the Left to criticize those on the Left, such as Bernie Sanders and members of the Squad, for their anti-Israel and anti-Jewish/antisemitic comments. 

My Chabad Rabbis teach that this is not the time to shrink from one's Judaism.  This is the time to be a proud Jew.  Put a mezuzah on the entry to your home.  Wear your yarmulke (kippah) in public.  And go to services.  And, as I have advocated previously, speak out for Israel and against antisemitism everywhere - on social media, in print media and at every opportunity you have.  As a friend said to me, if we don't speak up now, Never Again will happen again.    

Just How Many Times Can Joe Biden Be Wrong? (Part II, Some Other Voices)

Gerard Baker, in the October 1, 2024 Wall Street Journal, made this observation:  "Israel has in 12 months done nothing less than redraw the balance of global security, not just in the region, but in the wider world."  But today's leaders in the Western world do not understand.  And, like Biden, they are fearful.  Baker:  "In Europe, they have gone even further, as usual, rewarding Hamas and Hezbollah by nominally recognizing a nonexistent Palestinian state and prosecuting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on bogus war-crime charges."  

In an Op-Ed in the September 17, 2024 WSJ, Walter Russell Mead discussed a report issued by the Commission on the National Defense Strategy.  The report was written by eight "experts" appointed by both parties from the House and Senate Armed Services committees.  With unanimous opinion, the Commission wrote that the US currently faces the "most serious and most challenging" threats since 1945, including a real risk of "near-term major war."  Said the Commission:  "...the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat."  

Mead does not lay all the blame on Biden, stating that there has been a generation of failed leadership.  Mead:  "Even more appalling than the report is the general indifference with which it has been received," citing Mitch McConnell as an exception.  But the WSJ title of their September 23, 2024 editorial observed:  "How Freedom Faded on Biden's Watch."  After citing numerous foreign policy failures by the Biden-Harris Administration, they conclude with this:  "All of this and more adds up to the worst decline in world order, and the largest decline in U.S. influence, since the 1930's."

But does our President even have a clue?  The WSJ:  "Yet Mr. Biden continues to speak and act as if he's presided over an era of spreading peace and prosperity."  Additionally, Biden "has proposed a cut in real defense spending each year of his Presidency, which may be his greatest abdication."    The Journal:  "The first task will be restoring U.S. deterrence, which will require more hard power and political will."  And that, my dear readers, will require a U.S. leader who does not fear the threat, and if necessary, the use of military power.

I am well aware that there is a segment of the Republican Party that wants nothing to do with "foreign" wars.  A fair number are even isolationists.  I am not of that mind.  But I am of the mind that believes in peace through strength.  Peace does not come about through weakness and trying to appease the evil actors in the world.  Such weakness and appeasement only increases the likelihood of war.  The other issue is whether we side with our allies, or defer to our enemies.  Biden's actions have mostly sided with our ally Israel, but his words have deferred to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.  

"Mr. Biden has undermined the U.S. ability to deter adversaries because he fears any escalation, ceding the advantage to Iran, Russia and China.  Israel can't afford such indulgence.  It's survival is at stake."  (From the 9/30/24 editorial in the WSJ.)  

At the very beginning of my blog, in 2009, I wrote a post called "Iranian Nukes."  (It was written on 9/26/09 and posted on 11/26/09 - the date my daughters set up the blog for me.)  That post was followed shortly thereafter with "Iranian Nukes, Part II," posted 2/21/10.  Then, on 3/11/2012, I posted "What To Do About Iran?"  That post gives the opinions of multiple commentators.  As you can see, the issue of how to deal with the nuclear program of the religious fanatics who rule Iran has been going on for quite some time.  

When George W. Bush was president, I advocated for a joint strike force of the U.S., France, the U.K. and Israel, conducting an aerial assault on Iran's then much less developed nuclear facilities.  I felt that such a unified force would send a message to Russia and China to stay out of it.  But, while many U.S. presidents have said they would not allow Iran to get nukes, the reality has been quite different.  

Which is why I agree with the 10/3/2024 editorial in the WSJ:  "If Mr. Biden won't take this opportunity to destroy Iran's nuclear program, the least he can do is not stop Israel from doing the job for its own self-preservation."  After all, says the Journal:  "Israel has made its biggest military and strategic gains when it has ignored such U.S. advice" to stand down.  Amen to that.   

Just How Many Times Can Joe Biden Be Wrong? (Part I, A Look At Some History)

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates famously said that "I think he's (Biden) been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades."  Let's take a look at a few past examples, before we get to today.

Recall his January, 2022 press conference, during which he suggested that a "minor incursion" by Russia into Ukraine might be acceptable.  Was that supposed to give comfort to the Ukrainian people, or any of our European allies.  Anyway, big surprise.  The next month - February, 2022 - Russia invaded Ukraine.  I trust I need not remind everyone of the disastrous withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, because Biden was determined to exit before 9/1/2021.  

In 2020 he criticized Saudi Arabia and sided with Yemen/the Houthis in their war.  After becoming President, Biden took the Houthis off the list of terror organizations, after which they promptly attacked Western shipping in the Red Sea.  Yes, he eventually put the Houthis back on the terror list, but after much damage had already been done.  And the Houthis continue to act with impunity.   

Remember the Abraham Accords?  I guess Biden did not, as he has been unable to expand on it.  However, he did restore funding to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, as well as to UNRWA in Gaza, a UN organization that has been shown to work hand in glove with Hamas.  What did Biden ask in return for this largesse?  You know, maybe commit to stop killing Jews.  Nope.  No such thing.  But Trump did all that - cut off funding to the PA and UNRWA, as long as they participated in, or assisted in, the killing of Jews.

But let's talk about Iran.  It was bad enough that Biden refused to enforce the sanctions on Iran.  This allowed Iran to sell oil (mostly to China) and make billions of dollars.  He even gave them six billion dollars.  Guess where Iran spent their billions?  Supplying Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.  Biden basically begged Iran to reenter the nuclear deal, which Trump realized was nothing other than a path to get nukes for Iran.  

So what about now?  What about after Iran attacked Israel for the second time in six months, with the latest attack resulting in over 180 ballistic missiles being fired at Israel by Iran.  Let's think about the current situation.  Iran's proxy in Gaza - Hamas - has been significantly degraded by Israel.  Iran's strongest proxy - Hezbollah in Lebanon - has also been significantly weakened.  Almost all of Iran's missiles fired at Israel were shot down, by Israel's multi-layered anti-ballistic missile system and with the help of the US.  The political head of Hamas, Haniyeh, has been taken out - when he was a guest in Tehran no less.  The head of Hezbollah, Nasrallah, has been taken out.  (Hezbollah, recall, was responsible for the deaths of 241 US Marines in Lebanon in 1983.)  

So, with Hamas and Hezbollah weakened, with Iran unsuccessful with their missile attack, what does Biden counsel the Israelis?  Might this be the time to take out Iran's developing nuke program?  Maybe even bring about regime change in Iran?  Not a chance.  Not when Biden fears our enemies more than they fear him.  Hence, his policy is one of appeasement.  Which does not work, and has never worked.  When Trump was in the White House, our enemies feared him.  Which would explain why Russia and Hamas did not try anything during his four years in office.  

Anyway, Biden made sure to get the leaders of the G7 on board when he was at the gathering of the UNGA.  What was the consensus pushed by Biden?  Israel should not attack any of Iran's nuclear sites.  And probably not their oil fields either.  Just as Russia got the message in early 2022 (see the top of this post), Iran has undoubtedly gotten the message now - you are free to develop nuclear weapons.  Would Iran use nukes against Israel?  The Ayatollahs have repeatedly said they want to destroy Israel.  Would Iran possibly attack the US - who they refer to as the Great Satan?  One thing is certain - it would be far more dangerous for Israel to attack Iran once it has nuclear weapons.  Yet that seems to be what Biden wants.  Biden's fear of a wider war makes that war all the more likely.    

Let's Talk Turkey - I Need To Talk About Some People, Part III

It's unclear if Tucker Carlson does not like Israel, and/or he does not like Jews, of if he is just another antisemite.  I previously discussed Carlson's problems with Jews in my 12/31/23 post "Year End Reflections, Part VI (My Beef With Tucker Carlson).  Now, we have another story about Carlson, reflecting very poor judgment at best, or antisemitism at the worst. 

Recently, Carlson conducted an interview with Darryl Cooper, an individual he referred to as "the best and most honest popular historian working in the United States today."  Carlson:  "I want people to know who you are and I want you to be widely recognized as the most important historian in the United States."  Really?

According to this "historian" (as reported in an editorial in the 9/11/24 WSJ), the Nazis had "launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners...they went in with no plan for that and just threw these people into camps."  

And then what happened?  "Millions of people ended up dead there."  They just ended up dead?  Anybody know how that happened?  I do.  It's called the Holocaust!  One of the most well documented events in history.  And the Jews did not just end up dead.  They were murdered - brutally slaughtered - by the Nazis.  This very impressive historian also blames Churchill, not Hitler, for WWII.  Trump and Vance need to stay away from Carlson.  Far away.

And what about Jeremy Mayer?  Okay, I did not know who he is either, until I read a recent Op-Ed of his in the USA Today.  Turns out that he is a professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, in Arlington, Virginia.  In discussing the recent explosions of pagers and walkie talkies in Lebanon, the Professor tells us that 37 people were killed, including 2 children, and that thousands were wounded.  

Although Israel has not claimed credit, Mayer tells us that the operation "almost certainly originated in Tel Aviv."  That was the first clue as to his political leanings.  He did not say originated in Jerusalem, the capital city of Israel, because many on the Left do not accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital.  (Yes, I know, Israel's military headquarters are in Tel Aviv, but I'd bet the professor was not thinking that.)

Professor Mayer goes on to question both the "morality and legality" of sabotaging pagers, because of the high risk of collateral damage.  And, he asserts that some of the pagers did not go to Hezbollah fighters but to medical staff and others.  Mayer:  "As an American, I financially support Israel with my tax dollars.  If they are murdering Lebanese children, then to some extent, I did that."

And there it is - Israel is murdering children.  In a recent post, I expressed my displeasure with many on the Left saying that, of course, Israel has a right to defend itself.  There should be no need to say that.  It's obvious.  What these people are really saying is that Israel has a right to defend itself - as long as they don't kill anybody.  As usual, sympathy lies with Israel only when Jews are dead.  Not when they fight back. 

Here is my favorite part of his Op-Ed, after saying that a war between Hezbollah forces and the Lebanese army would end within one week, with Hezbollah as the victor.  "The long term hope for Israel in its relationship with Lebanon has to be that Hezbollah is eventually brought under control of the political authorities in Beirut, and that a coalition of Sunni, Druze, Christian and moderate Shiite leaders makes peace with Israel."  "That is the dream..."  The "hope" and the "dream."  Could there be any better proof of my oft stated truism that liberals let their beliefs (as reflected in his hopes and dreams) dictate their reality, whereas conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs.           

Let's Talk Turkey - I Need To Talk About Some People, Part II

President Biden has said that Trump is "dangerous."  He has said that Trump leads "an extremist movement that does not share the basic beliefs of our democracy."  I share those basic beliefs of our democracy.  But it has been my opinion that the reason for the extreme hostility between the two sides is that the Democrats are no longer the party of classical liberalism.  Rather, they are leftists.  And leftists everywhere oppose Western democracy.  

VP Kamala Harris has said that "Trump is a danger to our troops, our security, and our democracy."  She also said that Trump was behind "the worst attack on democracy since the Civil War."  Trump was not indicted for "insurrection."  He said the protesters on January 6 should march "peacefully and patriotically" over to the Capitol.  As I have said before, I did not approve of everything Trump said that day.  But Harris clearly has a different understanding of the threats to American democracy from my understanding.  

David Plouffe was Obama's first campaign manager.  Here's Plouffe:  "It is not enough to beat Trump.  He must be destroyed thoroughly.  His kind must not be allowed to rise again."  "Destroyed thoroughly."  Wow!  Not sure I want to ask him what he thinks should happen to Trump.  

Hillary Clinton wasted no time.  Only one day after the second assassination attempt on Trump, she called him a "danger to our country and the world."  How's that exactly?  The magazine The Economist agreed, saying "Donald Trump poses the greatest danger to the world in 2024."  This is all rather curious.  Trump started no wars.  Russia did not invade Ukraine, as they did with both Obama and Biden in office.  Hamas did not attack Israel, as they did with Obama and Biden in office.  Trump brought us the Abraham Accords.  But Trump is more dangerous than Putin, Xi, the Ayatollahs and various others?  I get it.  Some on the Left call Trump "Hitler."  So, as ridiculous as that comparison is, it's not a stretch for those who believe in that comparison to say that Trump is the biggest danger to the world.  

I would be remiss if I did not mention a critique of my 8/4/24 post ("I don't view the Dems with the same fear as I do Trump").  In that post, which started as an email to friend who is also a reader of the blog, I also said "As Rome is burning all around us, you will vote for the most radical presidential candidate in history, someone who just may help bring about the end of Israel, and the end of America as you and I have known it."  There was no risk of that email inducing my friend, whom I have known for 70 years, to cause harm to VP Harris.  I suppose the question is whether I should have removed that sentence when I put the email online as a blog post.  I'll allow my readers to opine on that, should they choose.  For now, I accept the criticism, and I shall think about if different phrasing would have made the same point in a less inflammatory manner.

Speaking of Hillary Clinton.  She is apparently concerned with "Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda (referring to the Russians indicted by Mueller), and whether they should be civilly, or even in some cases criminally, charged is something that would be a better deterrence, because the Russians are unlikely, except in a very few cases, to ever stand trial in the United States."  Can you believe it?  She wants to criminally charge Americans for their speech?  As I said at the beginning of this post, the Left has no appreciation for the values of Western democracies.  But they very much do care about power, in order to gain ever greater control over our lives.

But lets think about it for a moment.  Can Clinton be prosecuted for pushing the phony Russian collusion story?  Can many in the media be prosecuted for the same thing?  Can Clinton be prosecuted for saying that Trump was an illegitimate president?  Can we prosecute the 51 then current and former intelligence officials who told us that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation - when, in fact, it was Biden's actual laptop?  Based on Clinton's approach, why can't they all be prosecuted?  

Let's Talk Turkey - I Need To Talk About Some People, Part I

First, I want to talk about "anonymous," and specifically his/her comment on my September 8, 2024 post, "Odds & Ends."  Here is the criticism of me:  "And because of some loud mouthed stupid students you are going to vote for Trump who is a convicted felon who only cares about himself and give away our country!!"  I have to assume that the "loud mouthed stupid students" the writer refers to are the pro-Hamas crowds on college campuses.  Does this writer really believe that those students constitute the full extent of the growing antisemitism, Jew hatred and Israel hatred?  Can you believe it?

Let's see.  Protests on college campuses around the country.  Professors and administrators siding with these Jew haters.  Protests on the streets in other countries around the world.  Elected officials in Congress and in localities across the country (virtually all Democrats) who speak against Israel and on behalf of Hamas.  Don't get me started on the UN.  Israel at war since October 7, 2023.  80,000 to 100,000 Israelis displaced from their homes in the North and the South.  Over 100 hostages still being held by Hamas.  

Iran funding Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis - thanks to Biden.  Yes, Biden!  Trump had sanctions on Iran.  Biden lifted those sanctions, allowing Iran to make billions from the sale of oil.  Biden released funds to Iran.  The question is not why would I vote for Trump.  Rather, the question is why any Jew would ever vote for these Democrats who are funding Iran with money used to kill their fellow Jews.  The writer of the ridiculous comment suggested I move to Russia.  I suggest that he/she moves to Gaza.  And let me ask:  is there another country being so demonized that there are calls from around the world for its destruction?  No, only Israel has calls for its destruction.

The writer also calls Trump a convicted felon.  I'm sure he/she means a "wrongly" convicted felon.  Not only was the prosecution purely political in nature.  What did Trump allegedly do?  He is said to have mischaracterized so-called "hush money" payments as legal expenses.  When Hillary Clinton was determined by the FEC to have mischaracterized payments for the phony Steele dossier as legal expenses, her campaign was fined $113,000.  She was not prosecuted.  But the double-standard political prosecution is only half the story.

The other half is that the Federal government determines violations of federal election laws, not some local Democrat DA hack.  The question is - why didn't Attorney General Garland step in to prevent this prosecution from going forward, and preserve what we lawyers refer to as "federal preemption."  When Congress passes a law, if it is determined that the law occupies the field, then federal supremacy over state law applies.  And, lo and behold, the Federal Election Campaign Act does indeed say that the federal law's provisions "supersede and preempt any provision of state law with respect to election to Federal office."

So why didn't AG Garland step in and seek an injunction against Manhattan DA Bragg?  Recall that Obama's AG, Eric Holder, had no hesitation in seeking to block Arizona from enforcing federal immigration law.  All Arizona wanted to do was enforce federal immigration law.  But Holder said they can't do that.  The Supreme Court ended up agreeing with Holder, for the most part.  Did anyone really expect Merrick Garland to protect federal supremacy of the law when there was a chance to get Trump?  This conviction will have to be overturned on appeal.

Speaking of Merrick Garland...we have now had a second assassination attempt on president Trump.  A mere two months apart.  July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania, and September 15 at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, only 5 minutes from Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach.  Garland told the country that "we are grateful he (Trump) is safe."  Excuse me if I do not believe that for one second.  Garland said they will "spare no resource," and "tirelessly work together" with federal and state and local law enforcement in order to do a thorough investigation of this latest attempt on Trump's life.  Sure.  

Let me understand this.  The Democrats tried to keep Trump off the ballot is several states.  That failed, as the Supreme Court nixed that by a 9-0 vote.  They have tried to imprison Trump for the rest of his life.  So far, at least, that has not been successful either.  They clearly do not want to risk losing to him at the ballot box.  So what's left?  Could it be assassination?  

 

"Harris, Gaza and the Voters She Leaves Behind"

Such was the headline of an Op-Ed in the Sunday, September 1, 2024, New York Times.  A mere six days before the 11 month anniversary of the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust.  It is safe to assume that when an Op-Ed appears in the NY Times, the paper agrees with the contents.  This particular Op-Ed was written by Hala Alyan, who describes herself as a Palestinian American.  Ms. Alyan tells us that she was "raised on stories of the nakba (Arabic for catastrophe, and used to describe the founding of Israel), land theft, a boy burned alive, a young American woman mangled by an Israeli bulldozer (see Rachel Corrie), the searing image of a man trying to protect his son from flying bullets."  She then adds:  "Palestinian Americans and their allies are bringing a context to this election."  

Unfortunately, she gives no context to the events she described.  And one, the nakba, can explain everything that has happened between and the Arabs since Israel's founding in 1948.  It can explain all the attacks on Israel. the intifadas, the suicide bombers, the nonstop rockets and missiles sent into Israel.  The nakba.  The refusal to accept the existence of the State of Israel.  76 years later still living in denial. 

Ms. Alyan expressed her appreciation for Kamala Harris at the DNC, when Harris spoke of Palestinians right to "freedom" and "self-determination," and saying "the scale of suffering is heartbreaking."  But she wanted more.  She wanted Harris to give a "direct naming of who is killing and starving Palestinians."  She wanted Harris to name the perpetrator.  If she did not, allow me:  Hamas!  Along with every Arab who refuses to accept the existence, on a tiny strip of land, of the one Jewish country in the world.  Those are your perpetrators, Ms. Alyan.

However, in her Op-Ed, Ms. Alyan never mentions Hamas.  She never mentions October 7.  She does manage to throw in the usual falsehoods, such as Israel being an apartheid state, and Israel committing genocide.  And she speaks favorably of those who voted "uncommitted" during the Democratic primary, hoping to send a message to party leaders to reverse course on their support for Israel.  Ms. Alyan not only seeks to have a ceasefire, she wants sanctions placed on Israel, and she wants an arms embargo.

I would love to ask Ms. Alyan if she would like to see the United States supply arms to Hamas.  The same Hamas that our country has defined as a terrorist organization.  I would like to ask her why she did not mention the October 7 massacre.  And, if she didn't care about the brutal murder of so many innocents, including children, and the rape and mutilation of women.  I would like to ask her why she did not mention Hamas.  Does she think Hamas bears any responsibility for the events that occurred on October 7 and thereafter?  

As she continues to refer to the "nakba," does that mean Ms. Alyan does not believe Israel has the right to exist?  I'd like to ask her.  Does she support all the wars against Israel?  Does she want to see the Jewish people eliminated?  What does she stand for?  I'd like to ask her.  If she was to ask me my opinion on the killing of innocents in Gaza, I would refer her to my 11/26/23 post about an Op-Ed written by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.  Mr. Kristof repeatedly asked "how many dead Gazan children are too many?"  

My reply was:  "Here is the answer, Mr. Kristof - one is too many.  But that cannot deter Israel from doing what it must to defeat Hamas.  Were it otherwise, Israel would have to sit back and just accept attack after attack after attack."  

Ms. Alyan writes:  "Ultimately, nobody is owed constituents.  Nobody is owed votes.  They must be earned."  Her conclusion:  "A democratic system that doesn't represent the wishes of its constituents is either malfunctioning or misnamed."  If that is truly what Ms. Alyan believes, then she does not understand what a democracy is.  I'd like her to explain how her policy towards Israel would represent  Jewish American constituents, and the majority of Americans, who believe the United States should support Israel.  It appears that. for Ms. Alyan. the United States can only be called a democracy, when and if it supports Hamas.

I have so many questions for Ms. Alyan.  Does she think that Hamas, as the governing body of Gaza, operates as a democracy?  Does she support the taking of hostages, including babies?  Does she support Hamas using the people of Gaza as human shields, placing their weapons and arms in people's homes, in hospitals and in mosques?  And, of course, I'd like to ask her what she thinks about the harassment of Jewish students in this country?  And, what place does she see for the Jewish people in America, and in the world?