Regarding “Pro-Palestinian shift: Expanding the Trump plan to include 1948 refugees” (May 6): Possibly Gol Kalev’s colleagues at The Jerusalem Post could chip in and buy him a legitimate dictionary.
Once he read a legitimate dictionary, he would learn that a refugee is defined as a person who fled their home because of religious or political persecution. “Fled” is the operative word.
In May 1948, five Arab armies invaded the nascent State of Israel proclaiming their intention to pursue the genocide of the Jews who had accepted partition. The war ended in 1949; any refugee from this war who fled Israel has to be 75-years-old or older today. There are no more than 10,000 of these refugees still alive today. There may be fewer.
Because of an oppressive UNRWA dogma, millions of Arabs who did not flee their homes and are living right where they were born are called “refugees” so that UNRWA can have a multi-billion dollar UN budget employing tens of thousands of people, paying a dole to these able-bodied people so that they never have to work. Mr. Kalev wants his readers to feel sorry for these people, who accept UNRWA’s dole rather than dust themselves off and pursue gainful employment.
UNRWA’s oppressive dogma is as ludicrous as saying that a man born in Los Angeles in 1970 is a Polish refugee because his Polish grandparents fled political persecution in Poland in 1939.
Of course, Mr. Kalev and so many others buy into UNRWA’s oppressive dogma enabling an organization like UNRWA built on a mendacious definition of refugee to continue to exist.
RICHARD SHERMAN
Margate, Florida
Language of the law
The demarcation line separating constitutionally-protected freedom of speech – including what Micah Halpern refers to as deplorable antisemitism (“Not illegal to be an antisemite,” May 5) – and proactive support of a terrorist organization or its activities is tissue-thin. It is therefore hardly surprising that your columnist adds more confusion than clarity to the issue. I can’t help but be reminded of Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart’s famous 1964 definition of obscenity: “I know it when I see it.”
In some matters – including the support of Hamas – the language of the law can be interpreted in any number of ways, so Halpern’s demand to “deport those who can be deported; prosecute those who violate this law” will prove to be far easier said than done.
Nowhere does he argue that even an unabashed, pro-Hamas American citizen can be denied his or her rightful due process of law. The US Justice Department will undoubtedly think twice about incurring the costs of litigation in cases that are far from slam-dunk winners.
So, according to Halpern, it is unquestionably permitted to burn an Israel flag but flagrantly illegal to wave a Hamas banner. A bit foggy, no? President Trump, who is no great fan of civil rights, will more likely than not start nudging the Supreme Court to come up with a wider definition of “support,” one which, like obscenity, is not restrained strictly by language alone.
BARRY NEWMAN
Ginot Shomron
Micah Halpern explains that people deserve to be deported from the US not because they are antisemitic, but because they are providing support to a recognized terror organization in violation of US Code 2339B. He doesn’t go far enough.
While peaceful expression of antisemitism may not be illegal, violence is neither a protected nor acceptable form of expression. Many demonstrations have included property destruction, harassment, intimidation and even kidnapping. Jewish students have been threatened with physical harm, and are prevented from safely crossing their campus.
Lying or withholding relevant information on a visa application invalidates the visa. It is very possible that foreign demonstrators failed to reveal that they had either supported or worked for organizations associated with Hamas prior to coming to the US.
Despite the appalling assertion by then-Harvard president Claudine Gay that whether death threats directed at Jewish students violate the university’s code of conduct depends on “context,” we may be certain that anyone making similar threats or harassing students belonging to any other minority would be expelled forthwith. If this policy were applied consistently, expelled antisemitic students’ visas would be canceled, requiring immediate departure from the US.
The level of due process to which visa holders are entitled is far lower than that afforded to American citizens. Studying at a US university is a privilege, not a right. A foreign student granted this privilege implicitly commits that (s)he will do nothing to contravene the country’s values or the wellbeing of fellow students.
Overt antisemitism, especially when accompanied by violence, violates this commitment. It is a breach of the unspoken fundamental understanding involving the university, the student and the American people. Visa revocation and removal from the country is not just appropriate, it is mandatory.
EFRAIM COHEN
Zichron Ya’acov
Promises and threats
Kudos to David Brinn for “Is Trump Israel’s friend or foe?” (May 9), in which he points out that, unlike Teddy Roosevelt, Trump has been “speaking loudly while so far carrying a limp stick” since his grand promises and threats have not produced positive changes.
One area where Trump’s rhetoric and actions are unfortunately consistent is climate change. At a time when climate leaders are issuing increasingly strong warnings and there has been a significant increase in the frequency and severity of droughts, heatwaves, wildfires, storms and floods, Trump is still in denial about climate threats, has appointed other climate-deniers to key environmental posts and promised to roll back climate legislation as he did in his previous administration.
The world cannot afford such leadership at this crucial time.
RICHARD H SCHWARTZ
Shoresh