Letters to the Editor | May 23, 2024

I wholeheartedly agree with columnist Trudy Rubin’s overall analysis of the current state of affairs in Gaza. She does, however, make it sound like the only one holding up the peace process is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. For instance, she writes that the Biden administration has proposed “the only plausible” plan for success, one of the contingencies of this plan being an end to the reckless killing of civilians. Yet, President Joe Biden’s actions have greatly facilitated the slaughter. He has given Israel carte blanche since the start of the conflict, providing it with unlimited weaponry and refusing to place any conditions on aid whatsoever. He did finally push back once, on the eve of what would surely be a massacre in Rafah, and Rubin correctly celebrates this. But what is missing from her piece is that Biden swiftly reversed course just days later, approving a new $1 billion sale of weapons to Israel. I have no faith that the administration’s “plausible plan” for peace will ever come to fruition so long as Biden continues to blindly provide Israel with weapons of war.

Steven James Peterson, Irvine, Calif.

I am sure I am not alone in saying that I have had enough of protest marches that block our roads, make a lot of noise, and take enormous amounts of police power to ensure the protesters’ safety. I watched another protest Saturday on John F. Kennedy Boulevard, while traffic was being diverted and buses were at a halt for 30-40 minutes. Yes, people have the right to protest, but I protest their right to block traffic, take much-needed police resources, and keep the rest of the population hostage, unable to get home or work or wherever it is they wish to go. I suggest the city designate a protest zone — say, Love Park — where they can hold their rallies. It would take less police presence and would not penalize the average citizen.

Nancy Gordon, Philadelphia, ngordon1@sbcglobal.net

Since 1954, the U.S. has supplied millions of tons of food commodities to hungry people around the world through the Food for Peace program. Since then, nonprofit groups have developed programs that help local populations build resilience to drought and price shocks, offering a “hand up” vs. a “handout.” The American Farmers Feed the World Act (HR 4293) will take us backward in addressing world hunger, making it nearly impossible to implement resilience-building programs. Three million people would be left without assistance and closer to extreme hunger. This bill would prohibit local procurement, leaving communities dependent on aid. Communities with strong food systems are more stable. Contact your representative and tell them you oppose taking hunger relief efforts back to the 1950s with the American Farmers Feed the World Act.

Larry Blankemeyer, Catholic Relief Services, St. Vincent de Paul Parish, Richboro chapter, blanks0330@gmail.com

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.