‘Kerry’s Silence On Israel’

David Twersky correctly identifies the fact that “the importance of the Israel-Arab dispute has been elevated in the post-September 11 world” and therefore should certainly have been given mention in Senator Kerry’s speech to the Democratic National Convention [“Kerry’s Silence on Israel,” Opinion, August 11, 2004].

However, Mr. Twersky’s analysis of the reasons for this obvious omission overlooks one very important and basic truth: One cannot speak about the future of America without discussing the war on terror.

Such a war cannot support the creation of a “Palestinian” state. Mr. Twersky rightly states, “The pathologies afflicting the Palestinians have destroyed hopes for a negotiated peace.”

How then can we explain that Democrats and Republicans both support the “Road Map” and the creation within Israel of a “Palestinian” terrorist state that is dedicated to Israel’s destruction?

We know that the global Islamic war now being waged in the Sudan, in Europe, in Asia and the Middle East is one that thrives on deception, lies, manipulation and deceit.

The Arab mentality scoffs at “negotiations” and “cease-fires” with infidels. These are simply a means to weaken the Western nations that insist on applying their standards of moral and ethical codes to that of the Arab world. It just doesn’t work.

Any American trying to determine which candidate is best for the Jews and Israel, must under stand that it cannot be our purpose to woo the anti-Semitic Europeans or the Michael Moores of the world.

We want America to be strong and come out a winner in the war against terror.

There must, therefore, be no hesitation or wavering in our policy on Israel.

There can be no concessions to terrorism in Israel. There can be no “Palestinian” state, and both candidates – Mr. Kerry and President Bush – must understand the necessity of taking that position for the sake of clarity, morality, Israel, and the future of America.

HELEN FREEDMAN
Executive Director, Americans for a Safe Israel
Manhattan

---

A Social Worker Writes

I was out of America for two weeks and upon returning was deeply saddened by the news that our governor sat in his comfy cushioned chair and once again denied the people of the state of New York the opportunity to make a livable wage [“Governor Vetoes Minimum Wage Hike,” William F. Hammond Jr., Page 1, July 30, 2004].

These are the people who bring Governor Pataki his coffee, shine his shoes, and care for his family when they are sick.

It is an outrage. There are few other words for such a disgraceful veto.

As I spent two weeks in various other parts of the world, I would combat the jabs at America.

However, I can no longer feel the strength of my defenses.

What cost freedom? As a social worker who stands to make barely the minimum wage myself, I am ashamed of our state politics.

The careless attitude that informs this decision is shameful at best.

We all know the state of politics in Albany; simply showing up for work is a novelty, and politicians raise their own pay with regularity.

Perhaps a new survivor reality-show is in order: “Governor Lives for One Year on Minimum Wage.”

Supply-side, trickle down economics does not depend on deprivation economics.

Forget about walking a mile in another man’s shoes; the governor should try walking in them for just one day.

The state and city claim a desire to create jobs.

Well, what good are these so-called jobs if they leave a person who works hard for 40 to 60 hours a week still hungry?

Please, Senator Bruno, override Mr. Pataki’s veto to raise the minimum wage.

Give the citizens of this great state a chance to live with dignity.

DEBORAH GOLDSTEIN
Brooklyn

---

‘A Better Housing Reform’

Howard Husock’s op-ed on the disaster of Section 8 housing should make The New York Sun rethink its stand on school vouchers [“A Better Housing Reform,” Opinion, July 22, 2004]. In both cases, the misguided focus on “competition” obscures the essential issue: Seeking unearned benefits via government coercion destroys the production of those benefits, whether done “competitively” or not.

If we must have publicly funded competition with the public school system, let it be through charter schools.

Vouchers would only serve to co-opt and corrupt the private schools, eliminating the last remnant of freedom in education. With those schools no longer providing a contrast, a constant reproach, and a means of escape, the system’s stranglehold on the intellect would be complete.

It would be one big, inescapable, government-funded system of health maintenance organizations for the mind.

PAUL BLAIR
Manhattan