February 2: Trumpian worries

Letters (photo credit: REUTERS)
(photo credit: REUTERS)
Trumpian worries
Reporter Sam Sokol brings us American Jewish wake-up quotes about Donald Trump, the leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination (“US Jewish leader calls Trump ‘danger to democracy,’” February 29).
Trump is dangerous in more ways than one. On February 27, he referred to a judge hearing a court case against him by saying: “I believe he happens to be Spanish, which is fine. He’s Hispanic, which is fine.” If it’s fine, why did Trump mention it? I was immediately thrown back in a cold sweat to the spring of 1951, when Communists Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were on trial for treason. I was 12 years old. Some editorials were saying the fact that the Rosenbergs were Jewish should not be a consideration. If not, why mention it? After a shudder brought me back to 2016, I realized that Trump, with all his grimace, is very dangerous: One day, when things are not going well for him, he will, totally out of context, be able to refer to a judge as Hispanic, and on some other day, when pricked, refer to someone else – despite his useful familial connection to Jews – as “Jewish, which is fine.”
I pray that voters across America, Jew and non-Jew alike, are developing a fine nose for the likes of Donald Trump.
The writer is a member of Republicans Abroad.
In “From Obama to Trump” (Comment & Features, February 29), New York Times columnist Ross Douthat rightly asserts that the “spectacle of the Republican Party’s Trumpian meltdown has inspired a mix of glee and fear among liberals....”
On the same date, your “US Jewish leader calls Trump ‘danger to democracy’” said American Jewish groups are “up in arms” over Trump’s declining to disavow support by the Ku Klux Klan.
We all remember when then- US president Bill Clinton declared, “I did not have sex with that woman.” Of course, that declaration was later proved to be far from correct.
In addition, we – especially Jews – remember well the Barack Obama-Jeremiah Wright partnership, in which then-Democratic presidential hopeful Obama failed to wiggle his way out of attending a church whose leader was not only virulently anti-Semitic, but virulently anti-American. Jews in America and, I’m sure, Israel held their collective breath, just waiting for Obama to enlighten us as to why he attended Wright’s church. (Oh, we should have seen the writing on the wall!) Now we have the “celebrity factor” candidate who is pulling the Republican Party to even newer lows. His mouth is foul, his demeanor is anything but presidential, and his kinglike statements have caused seismic shudders in the GOP, as well as among politically conservative Jews.
And now comes the best part: Trump states that he has “never had a relationship with David Duke,” a white supremacist who makes Wright look like a saint.
We Jews are in trouble, and electing a Trump to the White House will surely bring us at least four more years of Obama-like feelings of hostility to Israel. This is because Trump, unlike Rubio, has said he needs to be “neutral” in dealings with the Palestinians and Israelis.
Neutral? I wonder and fear what that neutrality will look like while Israel is continuing to fight for its very existence.
Rabbinate’s ‘issues’
Regarding reader Michael Davis’s February 29 letter “Time to ask,” the Chief Rabbinate is indeed obligated to represent all Jews in Israel. However, it is under no obligation to represent any organization.
The issue it has is with Reform organizations and their agendas, not with the Jews who are their members.
Right – and duty
Your February 28 editorial “Cultural justice” attacked Culture Minister Miri Regev using a number of cynical expressions, choicest of which was describing her proposed bill as having “emerged from beneath... a political rock.”
Typical of many liberal (or leftwing) articles of this sort, you chose to attack the bill based on an argument of freedom of speech, which (according to you) Regev’s bill will undermine.
Why is it typical? Because you neglect to mention that there is no attack on freedom of speech whatsoever, and Israel’s plethora of theaters, museums and other cultural institutions will continue to make whatever political noise they wish after the bill is passed.
What Regev’s bill would do is allow the minister to stop giving taxpayer money to finance those who attack the state. So-called cultural institutions that go on a far-Left rampage can carry on in the future, but without state financing. Where’s the attack on freedom of speech? None whatsoever.
What probably disturbs your editorial writer is the idea that someone with Miri Regev’s ideas will actually be able to make decisions – as is her right and duty as a cabinet minister.
Doing the math Your February 25 editorial “Gaza despair” referred to Gaza’s GDP as increasing only a couple of percentage points since 1994, while its population increased by 230 percent.
But then it incorrectly stated: “This means that real per capita income in Gaza is 31% lower than it was in 1994.”
What it really means is that per capita income is 31% of what it was in 1994, which corresponds to being 69% lower.
Graphic video I went to The Jerusalem Post’s website and was shocked to find that you had posted the security camera footage of the attack on the Ma’aleh Adumim security guard – with the notation “Graphic Video,” no less! I can think of only two reasons to post that video as “news”: 1. You are trying to draw readers by offering the cheap thrill of watching real violence.
If this is the reason, then posting the video is an unprincipled act showing utter disrespect for the victim and his loved ones.
Moreover, the only possible result is to traumatize viewers and guarantee that they will not be able to think clearly about what has happened and what needs to be done.
2. You are striving to incite to violence, which is punishable by law.
In either case, posting that video on your website is unworthy of a reputable paper, and it should be removed from your site immediately.
Ma’aleh Adumim
JPost.com managing editor Daniel Clinton responds: Publishing a violent video or picture that could potentially offend someone is never an easy decision.
In this case, as well as in many previous cases during the current wave of violence, we came to the same conclusion that led the Israeli security authorities to release videos of attacks: There are claims that attacks are staged and the assailants are innocent people who were framed and killed by security forces in cold blood.
As a news organization, when there are competing narratives, we are obligated to publish as much of the truth as we can.
We titled the posting “Graphic Video” because our videos play as soon as you click on them, and this is the only way to give fair warning to those who understandably wish to avoid seeing such disturbing material.
I think the greater sin here would be to possess the video and choose not to publish it, while claims that the attack never took place are published abroad.