20 News Times Newspapers, Friday, January 13, 2017
READERS WRITE
Populism a response to economic stress
J
ohn O’Kelly makes some valid and highly important points in his rebuttal (issue of Dec. 30) to the letters from other readers critical of his initial contribution. It is incontrovertibly clear that his views are given Constitutional protection by the First Amendment, and that the Port Washington Times enjoys a similar right to publish those views — provided, of course, that the language is not obscene, scatological, or otherwise degrading. As O’Kelly suggested, demands for censorship of unpopular or even blatantly incorrect opinions, as well as a proposal to boycott a newspaper because it published such opinions, violate the Constitutional principles of free speech and freedom of the press and are inherently un-American. He is also on solid ground by stating that ad hominem remarks are both uncalled for and, more importantly, ineffective in the development of points in a debate. However, O’Kelly displays and even reinforces the biases that evoked the protests by other readers. He asserts his opinion as though it were fact that those who differ with him about the role of the U.S. are actually “fronts” for some insidious but unnamed forces bent on undermining their — and
our — country. He then adds that “the role of the media and of George Soros in assisting Clinton and opposing Trump is well documented,” as though they — and all other individuals — as well as the news media should not have every bit as much right to support the candidates of their choice as vigorously as he and his fellow conservatives do. That right of all citizens, regardless of race, color, creed, or country of origin, is the very essence of democracy; to suggest otherwise is a profound violation of American principles. O’Kelly is, in my opinion, also correct that war is bad for the country. Indeed, I consider it bad for the victors in wars as well as for the losers; even though the U.S. was fortunate to be sheltered by two great oceans from the devastation suffered by countries that were ravaged during the two world wars, too many American families lost fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, sisters and brothers, who died or were grievously wounded in the hostilities. Furthermore, O’Kelly seems to overlook in his assessment of the harm inflicted by war that Soros, who survived World War II and the Holocaust as a child in Hungary, has probably had more direct, personal experience with war and its consequences than O’Kelly and, thus,
has an understandable motivation to do his best to avoid or at least mitigate the conflicts that all too often lead to war. In his defense of “populism,” O’Kelly may have forgotten, overlooked, or chosen to ignore some lessons of history. In Germany in the 1930s, Adolph Hitler cultivated and intensified the populism that arose from the defeat in World War I and the subsequent economic misery compounded by the victors’ insistence on reparations; the very title of the national anthem, “Deutschland Ueber Alles” (Germany above all others) expresses that sentiment admirably. We all know how that turned out. In Italy, the Fascist government of Mussolini, as well as the more recent, albeit less painful, leadership under Silvio Berlusconi proved to be disheartening experiences with “populism.” In the U.S., it is virtually unanimously agreed upon by economists of just about every theoretical stripe that the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 — a classic example of economic populism — was a significant contributing factor to the intensification of the Great Depression that battered our country, as well as nearly all of the rest of the world. And, finally, because O’Kelly’s name indicates his Irish heritage, it’s pertinent to point out that, in much of the 19th century in the U.S., a potent expression
of populism was the anti-Irish hysteria on the part of the more populous residents of English and Scottish ancestry who decried the allegiance of Catholics to the Pope and considered them a threat to the new nation’s social and cultural stability. In sum, populism is not, contrary to O’Kelly’s conviction, a “natural” state. It is, instead, a sporadic occurrence in history that reflects what is hoped by many Americans to be a temporary response to periods of economic (and perhaps social) stress that is relieved when leadership — of whatever party and, in the context of democracy, of whatever political philosophy-- is able to restore in the nation a sense of common purpose. And an essential role in that process must be played by the news media, the role of which is to report fully and accurately — with due respect to the opinions of those reporters and their employers — on the conduct of government and the foibles of its elected leaders so that, in a true democracy, a well-informed informed public is able to reach reasonable conclusions about the political philosophies of the contending parties and the merits of the various candidates for office who run under their banners. Robert Adler Port Washington
U.S. hypocritical on Israeli settlements
A
fter years of enduring Karen Rubin’s myopic columns unconditionally supporting anything related to Obama/Clinton/Democrats, whether it be her lame defense of Obamacare, Hillary’s emails and private server, or the Clinton Foundation, I finally couldn’t take it anymore with her Dec. 30 piece “Why Obama Administration abstained.” If Rubin had any journalistic acumen, she would realize that, at best, Obama’s abstention was a personal vendetta of a lame duck president against the Netanyahu government of our democratic ally Israel, and Obama’s attempt to damage our country by sabotaging the foreign policy agenda of our incoming administration. Even worse, the abstention sets back the peace process and endangers Israeli and American lives. Fittingly, Obama, who abstained from his red line in Syria, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths, and abstained from action in Iraq, leading to the rise of ISIS, has once again defined his foreign policy with an abstention. It’s unprecedented that an American lame duck president makes substantial foreign policy decisions within the last month in office that run counter not only to the incoming president’s planned policies, but to the opinion of the overwhelming majority of our democratically elected Senate and Congress, including a substantial number of Democrats.
It perplexes me that in the same column Rubin makes some rational observations, including the fact that Israel’s dismantling of settlements and complete withdrawal from Gaza has led to an unrelenting terrorist barrage of rockets from Gaza, she then bizarrely concludes that Israel should follow the same withdrawal policy with regards to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Rubin prefaces her favor of UN Resolution 2442 with, “The way I understand the resolution.” Well, here is some text of the resolution to help clarify her understanding: 1. “Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace; 2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;” A rudimentary “understanding” of the resolution would make it clear that even the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem are considered illegal settlements. Does Rubin therefore believe, as the UN does, that the renovation of the Western Wall
plaza area, reconstruction of synagogues in the Jewish Quarter previously destroyed by Jordan in 1948-1967, or addition of a bedroom to a Jewish Quarter home, are illegal settlement activities? Does she agree with UNESCO, that the Western Wall isn’t even a Jewish site? If not, she should understand why for decades the United States has vetoed such UN resolutions and why Obama (and his cheerleader Karen Rubin) should have objected as well. But Obama, Kerry, and Rubin, from the comforts of their homes, are content to dictate the terms of their vision of a peace agreement to Israel with regards to settlements. The word settlement is even a misnomer, as the land at issue dates to being Jewish for 4000 years. Had the state of Israel not been attacked by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in 1967, it would have remained within the 1948 borders. But it was attacked, and in a defensive move, reclaimed these territories. Yet, despite Israel’s historical connection to this land, and despite Palestinian intransigence, it is still willing to negotiate land for peace. Speaking of actual settlements and occupation, perhaps Rubin should ponder the fact that her home, as well as the White House, are genuine settlements on land originally belonging to the Native Ameri-
cans. And this is very recent history, stretching only over the last few hundred years. However, through guns and germs, “America” has been quite successful in eradicating the Native Americans, and marginalizing the remaining handful to substandard living on reservations, where, out of sight and out of mind, they are occasionally thrown a bone of a casino. Perhaps we should return to the pre1492 border, when it was all Native American. Or the pre-1607 border, before there were North American European settlements. Or the pre-1803 border, before the Louisiana Purchase gained land from France that was unjustly taken from the Native Americans. Or the pre-1845 border, and return Texas, California, Arizona, and Nevada to Mexico. And what is America doing way out in the middle of the Pacific on land taken from the native Hawaiians? Perhaps the UN, Obama, and Rubin should consider these occupying settlements (never mind Tibet, Kurdistan, Kashmir, Northern Ireland, Crimea, Australia, New Zealand, and others) before lecturing Israel about their native land. Ron Weber Great Neck Letters Continued on Page 22