Legitimate freedom of speech
Regarding “Learning liberties” (editorial, April 8): Although I’m no great fan of former US president Barack Obama and agree with the overall ideas expressed in your editorial, some restraint might be in order.
You use, a number of times, phrases such as “seemed to be referencing” and “seemed to be suggesting” in describing Obama’s speech at Hamilton College. He did not, in other words, specifically encourage the limitation of Jewish or pro-Israel voices or indicate that restricting their right to expression is acceptable. His remarks could very well have been addressed to victims such as Shai Davidai, could they not?
The issue, as you rightly infer, is complicated. The former president’s remarks regarding academic freedom are, for the most part, unchallengeable, and I do believe there is a distinction between being anti-Israel and antisemitic. The two are too often regarded as interchangeable, which they are not.
This does not by any means suggest that vile antisemites can safely hide behind an artificial facade of sentiment related to Israel’s activities or policies, but it does suggest that caution must be exercised to ensure that the legitimate freedom of speech is not compromised.
As author Evelyn Beatrice Hall put it early in the 20th century: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
AMI SHIMON BEN-BARUCH
Be’er Ya’acov
Beginning to mellow?
Regarding “US to begin direct talks with Tehran on Saturday” (April 8): Could it be that President Donald Trump is beginning to mellow? How else to explain his apparent readiness to sit down with officials from Tehran to discuss Iran’s nuclear program and future capabilities? In most cases, and with most of the world’s nations, a deal of some sort would most certainly be the preferable option; nobody really wants military action if it can be avoided. However, Trump’s election campaign all but guaranteed that Iran – a regime that has vowed to destroy Israel and seriously threatens the viable stability of the entire region – would never again benefit from anything like that disastrous mistake of the Obama administration; right!
What makes the situation even worse is the president’s warning that it would be a “very bad day for Iran” if negotiations do not go well. Here in Israel, we’ve learned that his bark is louder than his bite, and that his threats are, for the most part, empty.
Don’t, though, misunderstand. I am not in favor of warmongering, and the last thing I want is to see a worsening of the already tense situation with Iran. Still, from that country’s perspective, bringing a cowed Trump to the negotiation table is in and of itself a victory. Considering that Iran will likely respond only to demands and not negotiated agreements and conditions, they are probably right.
Trump, again, has miscalculated; negotiations with Iran are doomed even before they get underway.
BARRY NEWMAN
Ginot Shomron
I was dismayed, frankly, at the announcement of upcoming negotiations between Iran and the US on the former’s illicit nuclear weapons program. Haven’t we been down this unproductive road before? What, precisely, is there to negotiate about at this point?
Iran has violated every nuclear-related agreement it has entered. The Iranian nuclear weapons program needs to be eliminated, not continued in the background as the Iranian masters of prevarication and Taqiyya dissemble endlessly in the foreground.
Yet there could be some reasons for optimism. The surge of US military assets into the region along with President Trump’s strength may convince the ayatollahs to negotiate more productively, and could indicate that the US has a better understanding of just who it is dealing with than previously.
Here are some negotiating positions for the US which I believe could help bring matters to an acceptable conclusion.
Iran should be required to completely disassemble and surrender all nuclear program components. This should be done under strict supervision of the US and IAEA. Iran should be required to cease development of ICBMs, cease threatening its neighbors, cease funding terrorism around the world, and finally, Iran should be required to conclude a non-aggression pact or peace treaty with Israel.
The US should make it clear that any attack on Israel by any current or prior Iranian proxy will be regarded as a direct attack on the US by Iran, which will then bear the consequences. Iran should be given a time limit to agree to all provisions, no more than a couple of months.
If Iran agrees and follows through, sanctions can be lifted, aid programs as needed can be discussed, and the country can rejoin the respectable international community. If Iran does not agree or violates the agreement, its nuclear and missile assets should be destroyed promptly.
Iran has more than earned this draconian approach. I hope that President Trump and his administration understand that the time for allowing Iran to feign negotiations while continuing to develop nuclear weapons needs to end immediately.
DANIEL H. TRIGOBOFF
Williamsville, NY
Calm and resilience
Regarding “A free journalist in our land” (April 4): I would like to express my respect and admiration for your editor-in-chief, Zvika Klein. The calm and resilience with which he endured this ordeal must be highlighted and given to his credit. Others would have played the victim and denounced the impudence of the police force, which seems to have some curious practices.
On the contrary, he remained calm and dignified, a behavior which contrasts with the violence of others. May Heaven grant that all our Israeli brothers behave like this.
Moreover, learning that Klein is a former member of Bnei Akiva allows us to better appreciate him and situate him within an authentically Jewish tradition.
MICKAEL LAUSTRIAT
Karmiel