|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
America & Israel–A Great Moment in History
Dear Editor:
The rebirth and rise of America under their anointed King, President Trump, could easily be compared to the great leaders in the Old Testament of the Bible. He faced a level of persecution like no other -the Russian Hoax, impeachments, mocked by the media & world leaders, unprecedented lawfare, and assassination attempts -and yet he came back from the wilderness and overcame. Likewise, the small Jewish nation defeated enemies on seven fronts, and withstood the UN, the ICC, anti-Semitism, and the Biden Administration -and yet against all natural military odds, and through courage, ingenuity, and defiance of the world; Israel overcame.
God never broke his covenant with Israel. We now witness Trump and PM Benjamin Netanyahu reunited at the White House in what was considered not possible. Their domestic and foreign enemies have been crushed. Perhaps what was once seen as the demise of Trump in 2020 and the River to the Sea moment for Israel was always God’s plan in the end to see Israel and America miraculously rise and become Great Again. There is a clear answer -a friend of Israel is a friend of God. Looking back, the world powers -Persians, Ottomans, Romans, and Nazi Germany are no longer following the persecution of the Jews. America escaped this fate under Trump. Israel, through the centuries, is protected under the covenant. Truly a great lesson and moment in history of Biblical proportion.
Sincerely
Rich Berdan
The NYT Misleads On Palestinian Statehood
Dear Editor:
The New York Times recently misled its readers about the history of the United States regarding a Palestinian state. In his February 6 article, Peter Baker wrote “for decades, successive presidents in Washington have favored some version of a two-state solution.” This is just untrue. American presidents have supported Palestinian statehood in twenty-one of the past 76 years since Israel was established. For the other 55 of those years, a Palestinian state was not part of US foreign policy. In 2002 George W. Bush was the first sitting president to endorse creating a Palestinian state. And what must be noted is that even then, Bush insisted on conditions such as the dismantling Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations and electing new leaders devoted to democracy and peace—conditions the Palestinian Arabs have refused to meet as October 7 demonstrated, so tragically.
What’s more Baker should have known this, after all, he started at the Washington Post in 1988 and as his NY Times bio page says “He is covering his sixth presidency.” The Times goes on to explain that the first president Baker covered as part of his White House assignment, at the Post, was Bill Clinton, who was president before George W. Bush. How could Baker, a veteran DC based reporter, not know the true history of presidential opinions regarding a a proposed Palestinian Arad state? Or was he on purpose misleading his audience? Why did the NY Times fact checkers miss this is another question.
Sincerely,
Moshe Phillips
National Chairman
Americans For A Safe Israel (AFSI)
New York, NY
afsi.org
Trump’s Stance on Hamas Hostages Is the Right One
Dear Editor,
President Donald Trump’s warning that Hamas must release all remaining hostages by noon on Saturday or face dire consequences is not just a necessary ultimatum—it is the only moral and strategic course of action. In the face of barbaric terrorism, half-measures and indefinite ceasefires only embolden those who hold innocent civilians as bargaining chips. Trump is absolutely right: if Hamas refuses to return every last hostage, Israel must abandon the ceasefire and take decisive action.
For weeks, Hamas has played a cynical game, dribbling out hostages in small numbers while manipulating global public opinion. Meanwhile, reports indicate that many hostages may not even be alive. This is not an organization negotiating in good faith—it is a terrorist group that revels in the suffering of both Israeli and Palestinian civilians alike. If Hamas truly intended to uphold any ceasefire agreement, every hostage would have been returned immediately, without delay, and without conditions. That this has not happened exposes Hamas’s true motives: to extend the suffering, maintain leverage, and ultimately dictate the terms of any future conflict.
Trump’s stance is one of moral clarity. For too long, the international community has pressured Israel into “measured responses” that only serve to prolong this nightmare. But what nation should tolerate its citizens being held in underground tunnels, subjected to abuse, and used as pawns for propaganda? Would the United States, or any other Western country, accept such an atrocity? The answer is obvious. And yet, time and again, Israel is expected to endure the unendurable.
Some will criticize Trump’s words as inflammatory, but they misunderstand the moment. Hamas only responds to strength, not appeasement. The message to Hamas must be unequivocal: release all hostages now or face the full wrath of military force. Anything less rewards terrorism and sets a dangerous precedent for future conflicts.
Israel has every right—indeed, an obligation—to defend its people. President Trump understands this. His leadership on this issue cuts through the diplomatic fog of weak-kneed negotiations and insists on a clear moral standard: the lives of innocent civilians matter more than the strategic calculations of terrorist groups.
If Hamas fails to comply by Saturday’s deadline, then, as Trump says, “all hell should break out.” And rightly so.
Sincerely,
David Avrushmi
Scarsdale, NY
Praising the DOJ in the Eric Adams Case
Dear Editor,
The decision by the Department of Justice to drop charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams is not only a vindication of his integrity but also a critical moment of accountability for those who sought to weaponize the legal system against him. From the very beginning, this case reeked of political retribution, an attempt to silence a mayor who had the courage to challenge Washington over the immigration crisis that has crippled New York City. The DOJ’s move to drop these baseless charges is a necessary correction to a blatant misuse of federal investigative power, and for that, they deserve credit.
Mayor Adams has been one of the few elected officials in the Democratic Party willing to speak truth to power when it comes to the consequences of failed immigration policies. He sounded the alarm when the federal government failed to provide meaningful assistance as tens of thousands of asylum seekers arrived in New York City with no resources, no housing, and no support. Instead of being met with solutions, Adams was met with resistance. His calls for aid were ignored, and worse, his outspoken advocacy made him a target for those who wanted to make an example of him. The baseless legal assault that followed was not just an attack on Adams—it was an attack on every leader who dares to challenge the status quo in Washington.
It is no coincidence that this investigation ramped up at the height of Adams’ efforts to demand action from the federal government. A vocal mayor calling out Washington’s failures on immigration made for an inconvenient political problem, and what better way to neutralize him than with an indictment? The previous administration’s Justice Department aggressively pursued Adams, manufacturing a cloud of suspicion that had no basis in fact. This was not about justice—it was about silencing dissent.
Sincerely,
Martha Calhoun
Newark, NJ
