Letters to the Editor | Jan. 8, 2024

I am a Jew. I visited Israel this past June. I was impressed with the integration in public spaces of Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel. The markets were integrated. The beaches were integrated. The parks were integrated. Fast-forward to the Israel-Hamas war. Hamas murdered 1,200 Israelis. Israel has responded by engaging in a war with a 7-3 death rate between civilians and Hamas fighters. There is moral outrage on both sides.

Hence, I find it disturbing to read in The Inquirer that two school board members were forced to resign for taking positions citing the inhumanity of Israel’s tactics in this war. While I might disagree with terming Israel’s actions “genocide” or “ethnic cleansing,” such speech is political speech, protected by the First Amendment. On the same day the resignations were reported, The Inquirer also ran an article in which Jewish Voice for Peace was protesting Israel’s tactics in this war and calling for a cease-fire. This article highlights the fact that condemning Israel’s tactics in this war does not equate with antisemitism.

Moral outrage is the enemy of free debate. It ignores nuance. For example, do those who claim pro-Palestinian chants of “From the river to the sea” are antisemitic ever think about how Palestinians feel when Jewish leaders call for the annexation of Judea and Samaria (the term Israeli hard-liners use for the West Bank)? When Russia sends one missile into one hospital in Ukraine, the press screams moral outrage. When Israel attacks numerous Palestinian hospitals, their actions are defended.

All of us have to pull back from myopic, one-sided moralistic views and stop punishing opponents with false labels of antisemitism for criticizing Israel’s tactics in the Israel-Hamas war. Both sides have committed war crimes. Thus, political speech criticizing the conduct of either side is valid. That is the only way we can achieve a political solution to a long-standing political problem.

Michael S. Rothmel, Mount Holly

It was encouraging to read Michael Kovach’s recent op-ed, which served as a reality check about farming in a changing climate. He employs practical solutions to mitigate changing climate problems, as well as his farm’s impact on the environment. His methods reflect those being taught to promote sustainable agriculture in Central America and globally by Catholic Relief Service workers and their partners, including the U.S. farmers’ volunteer program, Farmer-to-Farmer. This enables small farmers to support their families and eventually have a surplus to sell. Providing this knowledge allows people to stay in their home country, reducing the need to migrate. The Farm Bill provides less than 1% of the total budget to international poverty-focused humanitarian and development funding, but the cost-effectiveness is powerful. As Kovach points out, Congress has a simple choice: provide funding for sustainable farming. Congress must support a climate-smart Farm Bill.

Catherine Poynton, Catholic Relief Services, Philadelphia-area chapter, Havertown

Every time I hear Donald Trump speak, I’m reminded that when I joined the Navy, I took an oath to fight for a democracy, not a dictatorship. I wish more veterans would remember what the stars and the stripes stand for. It’s not a blanket for an individual to wrap himself in while throwing a chair through a U.S. Capitol window. It’s a fabric, now more threadbare than many thought possible, of an embracement: of an idea, of a diverse collective, of a unity. Two questions I would ask veterans who plan to vote for this man: Why would you support someone who deliberately wants to discard and replace American democracy with a program of revenge, of violence, of retribution for his own personal grievances? And to those veterans who have lost a leg, an arm, a loved one, a friend on or off the battlefield; to the millions of us who receive disability compensation and medical care through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: Why would you betray your country now?

Martin Desh, Easton

In 2010, the United Nations declared that applying painful electric shock devices to people with disabilities is torture. The Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) in Massachusetts continues this barbaric practice because it claims it is permitted in the United States.

Over the last decade, advocates have suggested congressional leadership pressure to ban this insidious form of “behavior modification.” During the Trump administration, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb announced regarding electric shock devices: “We believe these products present an unreasonable and substantial risk to public health that cannot be corrected or eliminated through changes to the labeling. The FDA takes the act of banning a device only on rare occasions when it is necessary to protect public health.”

In March 2020, disability advocates celebrated as the FDA issued a final rule to ban shocking people with disabilities. The JRC filed a lawsuit which resulted in an appeals court overturning the ruling in July 2021 based on a technicality. The court ruled the FDA did not have the authority to ban the device.

Last December, Congress intervened and gave the FDA the clear authority to ban the devices as part of an omnibus appropriations bill. The bill was signed by President Joe Biden on Dec. 29, 2022.

As we approach the one-year anniversary, the FDA has yet to act on the regulation and reissue the ban. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra has been noticeably silent on the issue.

What are they waiting for? Does the current administration and FDA Commissioner Robert Califf support electric torture? It is time for the FDA to issue this ban. People with disabilities should be able to live without the fear of being painfully shocked into submission.

Robert Stack, president and CEO, Community Options Inc., Philadelphia

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in the Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.