Letters to the Editor | April 5, 2024

As a recent Inquirer article suggests, artificial intelligence is a fertile technology for misinformation. We already know what interference from Russia (and apparently now China) can do to the voting decisions of citizens. Russia wants Vladimir Putin’s best buddy elected again, and China wants to show its own citizens how unstable a democratic republic can be. The only answer is for the media — from newspapers to television to the internet — to finally put the country ahead of profits and take time to expose AI-generated lies. Members of the three branches of government take oaths to protect and preserve our constitutional government. The media, which has permission to use the public-owned airwaves, should do the same. Maybe more talk about issues and less about polls and the horse race can ameliorate this new computer scourge.

Mitchell Rothman, Merion

My family and I are in southern Gaza. Gaza desperately needs food, but airdrops by the U.S. and other countries have had little positive impact. Searching for food packages can be dangerous and difficult. Elderly or disabled people do not have the strength or stamina necessary to search for food packages that could be on rooftops or the backfill of demolished homes. A friend of mine in north Gaza tells me he has stood in the sun for five hours a day waiting for the airdrops, only to see half the packets fall into the sea. When packets land in areas patrolled by Israeli occupation forces, it is too dangerous for anyone to retrieve them.

Even if all the food dropped from planes reached people, it would only cover a small fraction of the need. Before the war, it took 500 daily truckloads of food and supplies to meet our needs. Now, only a small fraction of that gets through. The airdrops don’t come close to making up the difference.

Airdrops can be dangerous. People have been hurt by falling food when parachutes fail to open. My uncle was sitting in his house when a food package smashed through his window. A friend was hit in the head by a food parcel whose parachute had opened. Israel has been killing us by dropping bombs from planes. Now some of us are being harmed by food dropped from planes. Few of us benefit. The famine in Gaza would end if humanitarian workers could safely transport food and other supplies throughout Gaza. We need a cease-fire.

Hamza Ibrahim, Nuseirat refugee camp, Gaza

The fears of military experts that building a temporary port in Gaza would endanger U.S. service members are well-founded. There is an alternative: a working port 31 miles from Rafah at Arish on the Sinai Peninsula. Problem? This would require the cooperation of the Egyptians. It’s not clear why the U.S. — which gives foreign aid to Egypt — is not putting pressure on them to cooperate. In any case, there would be no two-month delay and no threat to Americans building a temporary port. It seems counterintuitive that Hamas and its allies might consider attacking Americans building a port to facilitate food delivery. However, Hamas has never made the welfare of its own people a priority. Helping to alleviate hunger in Gaza is a laudable enterprise. Is it worthy of endangering U.S. service members when there is an alternative?

Michael Lambert, Philadelphia

I am an American Jew who believes deeply in the need for Israel to exist and in its right to do so in peace. I also recognize the strong feelings of Palestinians and their supporters who believe they were forced from their homeland when the United Nations backed Israel’s creation after World War II. Moderate voices on both sides have advocated for a viable two-state solution, but realistic prospects for that don’t seem to exist.

After the horrors of Oct. 7, I was fully in favor of an all-out response by Israel to root out Hamas’ leadership responsible for that massacre. Sadly, I now believe that too many innocent civilians in Gaza have been killed or wounded or have lost their homes and been driven to desperate refugee camps while there seems to be no real sign that Hamas’ leaders have been weakened or removed. Because Israel suffered an unprovoked attack that killed and captured more than 1,000 of its citizens, I am not willing to condemn its response as a war crime. But I am deeply troubled by the extent of carnage and suffering it has caused.

The reality is that before Oct. 7, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was highly unpopular in Israel and was facing several criminal charges. He has seized upon the attack and the fighting in Gaza to retain his hold on his office. Elections during wartime are divisive and difficult, but not impossible. The U.S. was able to do so during the Vietnam War, the conflict in Korea, and even the Civil War. It can be done. I realize Netanyahu and his governing coalition won’t accede to demands for an election, but Sen. Chuck Schumer had every right to suggest it.

Ben Zuckerman, Philadelphia

The push in Harrisburg to ban Red Dye No. 3 and other FDA-approved food additives is exacerbated by misleading media coverage that would steer Pennsylvanians to believe there’s a systematic failure on behalf of the U.S. food safety system. That’s just not the case. No authoritative body in the world has identified any safety concerns with the use of Red Dye No. 3 in food. All color additives must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration without exception.

The agency is currently reviewing Red Dye No. 3, with results expected in 2024. In the case of brominated vegetable oil, the FDA has initiated steps to review and remove it from the U.S. food supply. This is how our food safety system was designed to work, and it’s a real-time example of it working. Far more states have rejected proposed food additive bans than have passed them. Indiana, Maryland, South Dakota, Washington, and West Virginia have rejected similar bills. Kentucky lawmakers recently passed a resolution acknowledging that food safety decisions should be based in fact and driven by those with regulatory expertise. When it comes to food safety, consumers should be guided by those who have the knowledge to make these important regulatory determinations.

John Downs, president and CEO, National Confectioners Association

Conservative columnist Jennifer Stefano tries to make the point that human rights do not come from the government and then proceeds to quote Thomas Jefferson while suggesting that a weaker government is somehow better for human rights. I find this line of argument quite rich considering that Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves while, at the same time, advocating for limited government that would better allow him and others to deny basic human rights to millions, often using religion itself to justify slavery.

It took a bloody civil war to help the South to understand what true “equality” and “human rights” really mean. It was the unchecked greed of the Southern free market slave owners, who refused to pay even a bare-bones low wage to the locals, which used slavery to maximize profits at the expense of human rights. While religion and government can each be a force for good, the Founding Fathers knew all too well that mixing the two is not so good, which is why they wisely insisted on the establishment clause in addition to recognizing all religions and not just one. By its very name, Christian nationalism implies the preference for one religion over others, as well as melding state and religion despite our founders’ warning. Indeed, government is sometimes necessary to remind us of everybody’s rights, including the rights of other religions.

Anthony Ciampoli, Voorhees

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 200 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.