Readers Write: Israel/Hamas war, presidential race, 2020 riots

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I would like to see a truce in Gaza. I would like to see Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu along with the leaders of Hamas charged with war crimes. I would not like to see the U.S. cut support for Israel’s defense to pressure Netanyahu or any Israeli leader to bring peace. Do not take this to mean I am opposed to peace in Gaza, or in the Middle East, but I understand that disarming Israel will not bring peace.

We saw that last Oct. 7; Israel’s enemies were quick to jump on weakness and slaughter those residing in Israel. We saw Iran’s missile and drone assault this past April along with Iranian support of Hezbollah’s constant rocket attacks on the country as evidence that any weakening of Israel’s defenses would be disastrous. Yes, disarming Israel seems like a quick and easy solution to the Gaza slaughter, but it really would only lead to more war and death.

There is no easy solution to the killing in Gaza and the surrounding region. To end this wholesale killing, Jews and Arabs of the two sides must recognize each other as neighbors and fellow human beings. They must realize that killing and destruction is helping no one. The United States must work with all sides to end the killing and work for humanity and peace for all inhabitants of the Middle East.

Jim Weygand, Carver

•••

At the end of the front-page Sept. 3 story “Israeli protests call for cease-fire,” a detail shocked me. In the article about hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the streets demanding Netanyahu stop the bloodshed in Gaza, a brief mention was made of murdered hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin, one of six whose bodies were just returned. This was the American-Israeli hostage whose parents spoke so movingly at the recent Democratic National Convention.

I had felt disturbed at a picture published in the Star Tribune Aug. 21, where counterprotesters at the DNC attempted to block a sign naming a dead Gazan, dismayed that nobody was equally able to speak with compassion about the over 40,000 Palestinian dead. But the death of this young man illustrates the evil that war does to all sides. Netanyahu’s ongoing genocide in Gaza not only kills tens of thousands of Palestinian innocents, but conflating this evil with Judaism is powering today’s increasing antisemitism, causing growing worldwide isolation of Israel, creating a recruitment tool for future terrorists among the survivors and (sadly) causing recent hostage deaths as well.

Most Israelis are desperate for a cease-fire, as are most Americans. Yet Congress recently approved another $20 billion arms contract, deepening our complicity. Palestinians are dying; Israelis are dying; the horror continues to spread through the region. Isn’t it time to end this horror? If Netanyahu won’t stop it, the U.S. should at least stop sending arms.

Charles Underwood, Minneapolis

I marvel at the press trying desperately to find something, anything, with which to criticize Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz, just as it did with Hillary Clinton in 2016, while Harris and Walz’s opponent is:

Any of these things would disqualify Harris or Walz from ever holding public office at any level. Why do they not disqualify Trump? That there would even be 10 people who would vote for such a man makes me fearful for the future of our country.

Stephen Lehman, St. Paul

•••

The descriptions of what Trump needs to do to turn around the momentum in his campaign make up a profile of a person who Trump never has been and who there’s no reason to suspect he ever will be (“Donald Trump is losing momentum. Here’s how he could turn it around,” Strib Voices, Sept. 3). If the individual described was actually running for president, I’d vote for them, but unfortunately, the Republicans didn’t nominate that person.

The cabinet and advisory staff that Trump chose for his first term made me almost hopeful that he was seriously setting up to govern. During this “wildly successful” term, however, turnover of those serious staffers and cabinet members was like a revolving door. Nearly all of these replaced Republican staffers are on record of either not supporting Trump for another term or outright stating he isn’t competent to govern. Trump has made it clear that fealty and nepotism are core values for his next administration, and with implementation of Schedule F, more than 500,000 new individuals could be replaced by those whose fealty to Trump is definitely more important than competence and loyalty to the Constitution. This “solution” to Trump’s problems with the deep state won’t result in fulfilling the Republican pipe dream of a smaller, more efficient federal government.

If Trump were to lean into a more policy-driven campaign, it would feed into the fallacy that any party or person has all the answers to American problems. These are clearly election promises that are rarely kept, in lieu of actual governing solutions developed by consensus once the elections are over. The other side of the coin is that the Democrats are just wrong on every issue. It seems to be a waste of time to outline these detailed policy solutions point by point, because the president can’t enact most of them without Congress anyway.

This idea that the “left” is ruining our country and that we won’t survive another four years is political tripe. We’ve had Democrats in power for at least half of the 250-year history of our country. Many administrations had more socialist or left-leaning policies than Joe Biden or Barack Obama. We seemed to not only survive but thrive. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson for instance, were in office during some of the most dramatic governmental interventions that steered Americans into the 21st century. The likes of Trump, on the other hand, has been way outside the normative leadership model, and he doesn’t fit the indisputably attractive leadership profile described by this author.

Connie Clabots, Brooklyn Center

According to the Sept. 2 article “Walz could go to the White House. So how does he perform in a crisis?” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey requested National Guard assistance “Wednesday night” but Gov. Tim Walz “didn’t activate the Guard until Thursday afternoon,” implying that Walz reacted too slowly in this crisis. However, the crisis timeline published in the Star Tribune on Aug. 11, 2020, reveals that the primary obstacle to promptly deploying the Guard was the absence of a joint command and control infrastructure. Minnesota National Guard Maj. Gen. Jon Jensen was in fact notified in just an hour of Frey’s request, but numerous phone calls and emails then flew back and forth over the next many hours trying to nail down exactly when, where and how the Guard should be deployed. The Minneapolis Police Department wanted Guard troops to report to “on-site MPD supervisors who would coordinate with the National Guard command structure,” but it appears that the MPD and the Guard were unable to coordinate on the necessary details for this supervised deployment until early Thursday evening.

In this context, the timing of Walz’s official “activation notice” did not cause or even contribute to delayed deployment, because the frustratingly difficult and uncoordinated efforts were by then already underway to carry out as quickly as possible what is acknowledged to have been the largest and most urgent deployment of the National Guard since World War II.

John Satorius, Minneapolis

The writer is a co-chair of the Plymouth Congregational Church Reimagining Community Safety Group.