Letters to the Editor, October 28, 2024: The next targets

“Iran exposed” (editorial, October 27) has set out for your readers, very clearly and concisely, the messages which Israel has now sent to Iran and, indeed to all the very many Middle Eastern states for whom our existence in this region is anathema.

Still, I believe that there is yet another way in which this remarkable Israeli military achievement can be leveraged, and which neither your editorial nor the opinion pieces on the front page have mentioned. 

Since Hezbollah is a 100% proxy of Iran and is totally dependent on Iran for logistic and financial support, Israel may now leverage the naked exposure of Iran and demand that they immediately instruct Hezbollah to cease all rocket fire and all military activity against Israel and withdraw all its forces to 10 kilometers behind the Litani River.

Failure to do so will result in its economic and nuclear targets, now totally unprotected, becoming the next targets in any future ping-pong sequence.

LAURENCE BECKER

Jerusalem

The same word salad

“Military power can win battles, but it cannot end conflicts,” states Nadav Tamir of J Street (“Don’t wallow in victimhood,” October 27), but of course it can and it does.

The most terrible war in history, World War Two, was ended by military power when the evil that had infected much of the world was vanquished after the soft words and naive groveling of Neville Chamberlain were perceived as nothing more than that by the enemy.

Uri Pilichowski, in his article “There is no justifying terrorism,” on the same page of your October 27 opinion section, has it right when he states that “many people blame Israel... These are all misguided attempts to slander the Jewish state.”

J Street, in my eyes, is a well-meaning but dangerous NGO which peddles the same word salad as all those on the Left (US Vice President Kamala Harris, chief among them), which would have left Israel facing a worse massacre from the North than the bloodbath we already suffered in the South.

Before peace comes victory: total, absolute and unconditional.

DANIEL BAUM

Zichron Ya’acov

What she truly believes

Herb Keinon’s “Getting ‘real’” (October 25) is an insightful and well-written article. I agree with just about every point that Keinon makes about Kamala Harris’s recent slip-ups regarding the American-Israeli relationship. 

What I don’t agree with is the word “missteps” in the sub-headline of the article: “Might Israel-related missteps sway enough Jewish voters and cost Harris the election?”

When Harris agrees with a heckler in the audience about accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, that is not a misstep on her part.

She believes in her heart that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, even though all evidence proves the opposite; that this unfortunate war in Gaza has yielded the lowest per capita number of civilian deaths in the history of modern warfare.

The misstep that Harris committed was going off script and saying what she truly believes, revealing her deep anti-Israel bias for the world to see. 

Any American Jew voting for Kamala, as my saintly mother used to say, “needs to have their head examined.”

NORMAN DEROVAN

Ma’aleh Adumim

Very critical words

Regarding “Jewish vote in swing states may determine winner” (October 25): Jews should heed the very critical words of former Trump associates in deciding for whom to vote.

Trump’s longest-serving chief of staff, John Kelly, said that former president Trump fits “into the general definition of fascist,” commends the loyalty of Hitler’s Nazi generals, and “prefers the dictator approach to government.”

Kelly also said that working with Trump was difficult because the former president “didn’t respect the rule of law,” and that he “didn’t understand the concept of the Constitution.” Significantly, 13 ex-Trump aides signed a letter backing Kelly’s dictator warning, saying Trump seeks “absolute, unchecked power.”

Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, said he cannot “in good conscience” endorse Trump.

John Bolton, a Trump former national security advisor, has stated that Trump posed a “danger for the republic,” describing him as unfit for the presidency and often making decisions based on personal gain.

James Mattis, a Trump former defense secretary, said that Trump was “the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people,” and that he instead “tries to divide us.”

In view of the above and much more, one has to agree with Trump former attorney-general Bill Barr’s view that “Donald Trump shouldn’t be allowed near the Oval Office.”

RICHARD H. SCHWARTZShoresh