Letters to the Editor: US elections

Well, that makes a lot of sense.

Letters (photo credit: REUTERS)
(photo credit: REUTERS)
US elections
One of my esteemed Post-reading colleagues wrote: “A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for an anti-establishment, apolitical, financially successful candidate who... has disdain for political correctness....”
(“Readers weigh in on Trump vs Clinton,” Letters, October 25). You printed it and I agree completely. But let’s take a look.
“Anti-establishment” means against established authority. “Apolitical” means not interested or involved in politics. “Disdain for political correctness” means insulting groups that are discriminated against. However, I don’t think “financially successful” means having declared bankruptcy several times.
So where does this leave us? It leaves us with rebellion against established authority, which is sedition. It leaves us with someone not involved in politics, which is hardly what one would expect of the president of the United States. It leaves us with people who are now free not only to invoke the Second Amendment against people perceived as political rivals (wink, wink), but with a president who implies giving people license to call Afro-Americans and Jews by derogatory names.
So we are advised to vote for Fidel Castro, P.T. Barnum, Bernie Madoff and David Duke, all rolled into one.
Well, that makes a lot of sense.
Kiryat Tivon
In “Top Reform rabbi: Trump has ‘antisemitic associations’” (October 19), Rabbi Jonah Pesner is quoted as saying it “defies belief” that Donald Trump is unaware of antisemitic associations in his campaign rhetoric, saying he must “unequivocally repudiate support of antisemites who have embraced his candidacy.”
A sitting Democratic congressman from Georgia, Hank Johnson, is on record as having designating Jewish settlers as “termites.” I do not recall one instance of the Religious Action Center calling on Hillary Clinton to “repudiate” such support.

I just cast my absentee ballot for next month’s US election, and now I feel like I need a shower.
Into Africa
Regarding “Africa wants renewed ties more than Israel realizes” by Jürgen Bühler (Comment & Features, October 23), there is another reason why the bonds between Israel and Africa should continue to be strengthened: food security.
Fewer and fewer people in Israel are interested in being farmers, and the land available for farming is shrinking and very expensive. With Tnuva having been sold to China (after a previous sale), people wonder: What next? The government should seriously consider leasing large tracts of land in eastern Africa, e.g., Kenya or Uganda.
The basis would be the following: Very long leases, at least 100 years. The area should ultimately be very large, many square kilometers, in order to benefit from economies of scale (although it could start on a modest scale to test the concept). These leases should only be for agricultural land that is currently underperforming and could benefit from Israeli knowhow.
Absolutely no one should be displaced. Existing villages should remain. The lease should include a section that by agreement with all interested parties, Israel will totally modernize the agriculture on the leased lands in order to double or triple (or more) the food produced. The rent Israel pays would be a share of the surplus generated by its input. For example, if output is tripled, one-third goes to Israel and two-thirds remain in Africa, thereby doubling the produce for local residents.
The quality of life for the Africans living on Israel- leased lands would continually improve beyond recognition.
Israel could help with schools, hospitals and all the infrastructural improvements needed on a case-by-case basis. And since Israelis would remain there, the indigenous population would gain enormous benefits, enabling sustained growth in the local economy and services. Permanent and invaluable bonds would form, too.
For some of Israel’s youth, Africa could be a better post-army destination than Asia. And there would be an added bonus: The problem of the shmita year, the halachic mandate under which all agricultural land in the Land of Israel should remain idle every seventh year, would be solved once and for all.