Hicks wrong about Israel and Maloney
Re: Candidate blasts Maloney on Israel, Middle East,” T&V, Mar. 8
Sander Hicks is no match for Mrs. Maloney. Firstly, what kind of activist is he? I also have a book he should read, if he’s smart enough, Old-New Land by Theodor Herzl. Herzl said, “Zionism is a return to Judaism and that even before the return to the Land of the Jews.” He needs to learn that anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism, which means hating Jews. Is his kind of “activism” spray painting swastikas on synagogue doors in the dead of night? It wouldn’t surprise me. I don’t trust him to listen to me with his immature and idiotic viewpoint.
I read your article and so did many Jewish friends and we were all scared to see “men” (bigots) like him rise. Maloney does respond. I worked on her campaign before and people like him called all the time requesting, often impolitely, to be called back pronto. There simply weren’t enough hours in the day for her. As well, if she didn’t jump when he called, why didn’t he just call back? That’s what I do in that situation.
History shows us that many nations have violently taken land from other countries or tribes, including the USA, from the Native Americans, and Israel won the West Bank fair and square. The settlements live peaceably, for the most part, with Arab neighbors. As a matter of fact, I was just in the West Bank visiting a cousin in 2016. It was green, lush and safe. The Arab villages weren’t as green but they refused Jewish help for the same reason Mr. Hicks would — hate. Zionist aggression? So let him petition Trump to return land to those tribes who were there first? We fought for Texas (Remember the Alamo?), New Orleans, the whole West Coast and yes, we still own them. So why different rules for Israel? Maybe because you hate Jews?
So you operated a few failed businesses. Do you blame Jews for that, too? Or was that your incompetence? Maloney’s wearing a burqa was not a sign of disrespect.. Any sixth grader wouldn’t miss that message, but Hicks sure did. He talks too much, but he is dumb like the one in Washington who doesn’t shut up until beddy-bye time.
I am relieved that Mrs. Maloney does not support anti-Israel boycotts, but Hicks would, because he simply hates Jews. The measures he advocates regarding are on a federal level and not under any one person’s control. Doesn’t he know how politics works? I could go on and on why this imbecile shouldn’t be elected to even dog catcher, as the dog may be Jewish. Oy vey.
Oops, did I just ID myself as Jewish?
Susan D. Schoenbaum, ST
Second Amendment: Then and now
To the editor:
The importance now being placed on Nikolas Cruz’s prior history gets its importance in the light of the killings. In the time before his action, his prior history did not have the importance we now swear was there.
But claiming, as Mr. Trump and others have claimed, that we should have known that Cruz was too unstable to have guns rests on wisdom we all have, but we have it after the fact. If we go back to the time before the killing, then, in that time, denying him his guns probably looks like denying him his second amendment rights — if we look at the second amendment in that literal popular way as endowing all of us the right to guns.
The difficulty here is not Cruz; it is how many of us understand Amendment II. My answer is to take the second amendment seriously. It reads:
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
That’s it! The purpose of our right to arms is that we must have arms in order to have a well-regulated militia. The key is not the arms, but the means by which we might have a well-regulated militia.
Clearly, most clearly, the second amendment does not give citizens scattered throughout the country the right to bear arms because they fear, for one reason or another, for their personal safety — a fear, I suppose, that can be traced to the fear of what a man might do once he was made a slave, and to the fear of settlers as they and the government stole lands from the original people.
The idea that we might walk around with a pistol within reach as we prepare supper, or as we take the kids to school, or go to a movie, or within reach as we sleep at night, all that make-believe — with the right ending of course — occurs within highly controlled fantasy stories that we tell ourselves as we try to preserve our simple view of the purpose of the second amendment.
Armed citizens scattered throughout the country may have had a clear sense in 1791 when the country was in its infancy and had reasoned fears. Citizens might have come together quickly to form “well-regulated militias,” but the country is quite different today, and the coherence the framers put into the Second — its very place in the life of our early country, is not a life we have now. The result is an amendment we cannot grasp — as we once did.
Counting on psychological insights is tinkering.
We should do to Amendment II what XXI did to XVIII: Repeal it! Repeal it!
John M Giannone, ST