|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Ceasefire Pressure Is Premature and Dangerous
Dear Editor:
It is deeply troubling to witness the mounting pressure from President Donald Trump and his administration for Israel to accept a ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza—pressure that is both premature and perilously misguided.
Israel did not choose this war. It was thrust into it on October 7, 2023, when Hamas unleashed one of the most horrific terror attacks in modern memory—slaughtering over 1,200 innocent men, women, and children, many in their own homes. The massacre was not just a breach of security; it was an unmasking of Hamas’s true genocidal intent. Israel has a moral, strategic, and existential obligation to ensure that such a horror is never repeated.
Yet the Trump administration, despite strong initial support for Israel’s defensive operations, now appears to be prioritizing political optics and global diplomacy over the hard reality on the ground. The IDF has made significant strides in degrading Hamas’s infrastructure, killing hundreds of senior terrorists, dismantling weapons caches, and reclaiming vast swaths of the Gaza Strip. But the job is far from done. Hamas command centers remain active, tunnel networks persist, and leadership figures are still at large.
Calling for a ceasefire now is akin to halting surgery before the tumor is removed. It preserves the threat. It invites a second October 7. And it undermines the sacrifices made by Israeli soldiers and civilians who have endured months of terror and heartbreak to protect their homeland.
Ceasefires must be earned through the dismantling of Hamas—not negotiated as lifelines for it. The only sustainable peace in Gaza is one in which Hamas no longer exists as a military or governing force. Anything less is a recipe for recurrence and bloodshed.
President Trump has long prided himself on standing with Israel. He must now prove that solidarity means more than soundbites. Let Israel finish the mission. Let the IDF protect its people without interference. And let us remember that true peace can only take root when terrorism has been uprooted completely.
Sincerely,
Melissa Feingold
Franklin Square, NY
Islamists Have Turned History on its Head
Dear Editor:
Israel’s borders were defined in 1920 at San Remo, when the British Mandate for Palestine was created as the reconstituted homeland of the Jews. In 1922, the League of Nations ratified the San Remo accords. In 1923, Britain severed 78% of the mandate to create Transjordan. In 1945, article 80 of the UN charter solidified that what was promised the Jews could not be over-ridden.
The 1947 UN partition plan (resolution 181) was a recommendation to split the mandate between Jews and Arabs. The Zionists agreed, but the Arabs, under the leadership of Nazi War criminal, Haj Amin al-Husseini, refused and launched a war to ‘drive the Jews into the sea.’ Five Arab armies joined in. They failed. Their humiliation was a “Nakba” – a catastrophe.
The advancing armies had demanded the Arab residents leave so they could blast the Jews away. The leaders promised they would soon return and take over. The armies spread the story of a Jewish massacre at Deir Yassin, which never happened, but it struck terror into the population and 700,000 residents fled into neighboring countries.
Islamists have turned history on its head. They claim the Zionists forced out the 700,000 Arabs, precipitating the war, when in truth, it was the war that created the refugee migration.
Fighting lasted from 1947 to 1949, ending with an armistice. Jordan and Egypt illegally occupied Judea, Samaria and Gaza. 30,000 Jew were killed or forced out of these areas, their synagogues destroyed and their properties turned over to Arab squatters.
Israel recaptured the area in 1967 and offered to make peace, but Arab leaders in Khartoum vowed ‘no peace, no negotiations and no recognition of Israel’.
Sincerely
Len Bennett, Author of ‘Unfinished Work;
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
The UN & Its “Special Rapporteur”
Dear Editor:
The United Nations is the epicenter of radical Islam’s onslaught on the Jewish people and on Israel.
Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, has just signed on for another three years of Jew-bashing.
Is the UN racist? Is the post of special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories racist?
Is there a special rapporteur on state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran and Qatar?
Is there a special rapporteur on the Palestinian Authority?
Is there a special rapporteur on UNRWA/Hamas?
Is there a special rapporteur on Hezbollah in Lebanon?
If you answered ‘no’ to the last 4 questions, you must challenge the motives of the United Nations.
The title, “special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinians Territories” is dishonest to begin with. It predetermines that there are Palestinian Territories, which is a false claim under international law, and that they are occupied.
As per the San Remo Accords, ratified by the League of Nations, and cast in stone by Article 80 of the UN Charter, Israel includes Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
If there are Palestinian territories, where are they? They are not in Israel, though the Oslo Accords allowed the PLO temporary access, assuming there would be peaceful co-existence, a hope dashed to smithereens on Oct. 7, 2023. Are they in Jordan, which was originally part of the British Mandate for Palestine, the reconstituted Jewish homeland? That’s for King Abdullah II to figure out.
Or, is the whole exercise a masquerade. Is the intent really to ‘drive the Jews into the sea’ and destroy the state of Israel as the next step towards overturning Western Christian democracies and replacing them with a Caliphate?
Sincerely
Len Bennett, Author of ‘Unfinished Work’
Deerfield Beach, Fl
Regime Change Without War Is Possible—and Necessary
Dear Editor:
The American people are right to be skeptical of traditional regime change. The catastrophic costs—both human and financial—of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya stand as painful reminders of failed U.S. interventions. As The New York Post and countless others have reported over the past two decades, trillions were spent, thousands of American lives were lost or shattered, and the resulting chaos left entire regions vulnerable to new terror regimes.
Yet it would be dangerously naive to believe that all regime change is inherently doomed or unwise. History proves otherwise. President Ronald Reagan’s brilliant strategy to collapse the Soviet Union did not involve a single American soldier storming Red Square. It was achieved through ideological, economic, and cultural pressure—regime change through strength without bloodshed.
Today, the United States faces a new set of existential threats: from Iran’s genocidal regime and China’s techno-totalitarianism to the creeping Islamist agenda funded by Qatar and Turkey. The world’s democracies are under siege—not from uniformed armies, but from cyberwarfare, propaganda, demographic infiltration, and legal subversion. If we fail to respond, we risk waking up in a world where Western values have been eclipsed by authoritarianism.
It is right to call for regime or entity changes—but not through reckless military invasions. Instead, we must wield the tools of the 21st century: information warfare, economic sanctions, cultural influence, and support for dissident movements. Iran’s oppressed majority deserves our backing. So do the Christians of Nigeria, the besieged white minority in South Africa, and the victims of political persecution in Western “democracies” that have abandoned their foundational Judeo-Christian principles.
It is time to treat sanctuary cities, corrupted universities, and globalist institutions like the UN with the same strategic scrutiny we once reserved for enemy states. Change must come—and it can come peacefully, with moral clarity and resolve.
The alternative is a slow cultural suicide. America was not built on appeasement. It was built on courage. The time to act is now.
Sincerely,
David Asherowitz
Toms River, NJ