To the editor:
About “Darkness is Everywhere in Israel” by Megan K. Stack (opinion guest essay, May 18):
I appreciate Ms. Stack’s essay. In it, she makes several important observations about the current attitudes of Israelis. But she does not mention the tragic choices Palestinians themselves made in Gaza and the West Bank.
In particular, after Israel’s withdrawal in 2005, Gazans had the opportunity to take advantage of large amounts of international aid to build new residential communities and seaside commercial and tourist areas.
Instead, they essentially diverted all their investments to war preparations. This includes rocket and tunnel technology that proved so powerful in several subsequent wars with Israel. The radicalization of attitudes in this conflict is not limited to one side.
Stephen Hall
San Francisco
To the editor:
Thank you to the New York Times for publishing Megan K. Stack’s essay. We need more articles about what it’s really like on the ground in Israel. And as discouraging as it may be, we can all be better and more informed by reading it.
A more hopeful outcome will only come if American Jews (of which I am one) gain a deeper understanding of the plight of the Palestinians and what they have been subjected to for decades. will be able to influence government policy to produce. For the community.
Until then, this vicious cycle will continue. Because, as Ms. Stack so eloquently put it, “no wall is thick enough to permanently oppress a people who have nothing to lose.”
roy friedland
greensboro, north carolina
To the editor:
I am disappointed in Megan K. Stack’s one-sided analysis of Israeli policy towards Palestinians. Although I am a lifelong supporter of Israel, I share Mr. Stack’s concerns about Israel’s far-right government. But it is disingenuous to shift all or most of the blame onto Israeli Jews.
Consider a counterfactual history in which Arab and Palestinian leaders said yes to every opportunity to live peacefully next to their Jewish neighbors. A simple “yes” from an Arab could result in two separate nations, two separate indigenous peoples living side by side.
There might not have been the rise of Hamas or Hezbollah, the suicide bombings, or the defensive walls. Both sides could have lived in peace, dignity and prosperity.
Perhaps the next time an olive branch is offered, if there is a next time, Palestinians will say yes. What do they have to lose?
Stephen E. Green
San Jose, California
Trump, oil, and big money in politics
To the editor:
Regarding “Trump asks for billions of dollars for oil dinner” (front page of May 10th):
It’s a clarion call to get huge amounts of money out of politics.
Did you know that Donald Trump told a group of oil executives and lobbyists gathered at a dinner at his Mar-a-Lago resort last month that they should donate $1 billion to the presidential campaign because he “If elected, he said he would roll back environmental regulations.” He said it was holding back their industry. ”
Fossil fuel interests have already poured tens of millions of dollars into political campaigns, mostly against Republicans, urging that party’s congressional delegation and presidential candidates to oppose climate action.
This pursuit of donations and profits flies in the face of the virtual consensus among climate scientists that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming.
Large donations from firearms, pharmaceuticals, insurance, finance, and other wealthy individuals also influence our system to their advantage and usually to the disadvantage of ordinary people. When one or a few big donors can buy more political speech than tens of millions of ordinary citizens combined, the system is already rigged in favor of those with the most money. That will happen.
Public funding of political campaigns works well at the state, county, and city levels. It increases merit and public interest in government decision-making and builds trust in our systems.
Richard Barsanti
Western Springs, Illinois
“Journey” as a metaphor
To the editor:
Re: “Since when did everything become a ‘journey’?” (front page of May 16th):
Infertility, breast cancer, weight loss, motherhood, or a cathartic vacation, you name it. I’ve been working on it.
“Journey” has become a euphemism for struggle, often denoting a long and winding road with ups and downs. Some may reach the finish line and celebrate triumphantly. Others may never get there, leaving loved ones wondering how their “choose your own adventure” was able to last into another chapter. Masu. The journey is never truly complete.
Infertility may be a thing of the past, but its aftermath will stay with me for the rest of my life: a stillborn son, a ruptured uterus, a C-section scar, and a new family member from the surrogate who carried my daughter. Dew.
Many people will be facing infertility for the first time today, tomorrow or in the future. I always make time for those who contact me and hope that my experience will be of use to them, or at least give them a chance to talk to someone on the figurative “other side.”
Travel can destroy us, or it can transform us into new people. Whatever euphemism you use, the important thing is not to let that be your end when you get to the other side. Make a fresh start to help those who follow in your footsteps.
Ria Buffa de Feo
new york
To the editor:
When it comes to cancer, let’s let patients and their families and all those who are discouraged by what linguists call “semantic drift” agree to call cancer a “situation.” This is not a sentimental self-help journey. It’s not a tough battle or a frenzied battle. It is definitely difficult and serious. A situation that forces maximum attention and action over time, time makes no promises.
karin halverson hillhouse
Washington
Providing support to the homeless and mentally ill
To the editor:
Regarding “New York state moves mentally ill people off subways for safety reasons” (News article, May 11):
As New Yorkers board our transportation systems every day, the sight of men and women sleeping on station benches and subway cars evokes a mix of emotions, from disappointment to fear to disgust. The riders’ mantra, whether muttered or said aloud, is: “Why can’t the mayor clean this up?”
And this has motivated mayors for decades to feign compassion and take aggressive action to remove poor, often homeless, and desperately struggling people with mental health issues from the subways. This is the mantra that has led me to take this approach.
Of course, the cynics among us understand the current politics and the need for mayors to show strength and determination, even if that action only results in short-term solutions.
Yes, these are difficult and seemingly intractable problems. But unless we begin to understand and address the underlying problem, we will never find a lasting solution.
For starters, we need to understand how these people were allowed to fall deeper and deeper into the cracks. Before we let go of community-based health and mental health systems, which are often non-existent or minimal at best in poor communities, we must explain how they have failed to provide real and meaningful support. I will explain.
But the city should urgently work with high-quality mental health teams to staff the subways and provide options beyond stays in dilapidated shelters or involuntary admissions to psychiatric facilities. It is. And we should study the efforts of other cities that are using programs like Housing First to address the mental health issues of people living on the street by providing permanent housing.
Arnold S. Cohen
new york
The author is an adjunct professor at Fordham Law School and past president of the Partnership for the Homeless.
