‘The Anti-Semitism of Things’

As always, I’m very grateful to The New York Sun for its fresh perspective and measured response to hypocrisy [“The Anti-Semitism of Things,” Editorial, July 20, 2004].

No doubt, France’s declaration of Prime Minister Sharon as persona non grata is the latest on the list.

One particularly striking point in the Sun’s editorial regarded President Chirac’s rapid decision to declare Mr. Sharon unwelcome on French soil – undesirable in French – before an explanation or apology could be tendered.

Although Mr. Sharon’s words may have been inappropriate, and were taken out of context, I would like to recall for readers a speech delivered by President Mohamad Mahathir of Malaysia before a gathering of leaders of Muslim nations in October 2003, in which he accused Jews of manipulating governments and thereby domi nating world events.

When the European Union moved officially to condemn Mr. Mahathir’s statement, strangely enough, the motion was blocked by France and Greece.

If, indeed, Mr. Chirac objects to speech he considers lacking in judgment, then why did he not repudiate Mr. Mahathir or at the very least add his voice to the E.U.’s response? As we know, Mr. Mahathir wound up thanking Mr. Chirac.

From this action alone, we may conclude that Mr. Chirac condones anti-Semitism, and that he is willing to allow the racist climate in France to worsen.

It may even be fair to assume that his indifference to anti-Semitism plays a significant role in molding France’s policy toward Israel. Perhaps Mr. Sharon’s speech was right on target.

DAVID KORAL
Manhattan

---

‘Owners Fret Over Cost of Lead Law’

Counter to the real estate industry’s spin, the new lead-paint law is less burdensome to landlords and generates less potential liability than the 1982 law that it replaced [“Owners Fret Over Cost of Lead Law,” Julie Satow, Real Estate, August 19, 2004). That is because instead of requiring the wholesale removal of all lead paint, the new law only requires the removal of the defined lead paint hazards that generate poisoned kids. Moreover, the much-debated “presumption” of lead paint on a given surface is identical to the presumption in the 1982 law.

But that was not enough for the industry, which wanted the new law to immunize irresponsible landlords against the possible financial consequences of negligently brain-damaging their youngest tenants. To its credit, the City Council rejected that ploy, and enacted a cutting-edge lead-paint law based on common sense and medical science.

PETE SIKORA
New York Public Interest Research Group
Manhattan