Regarding Stephen J. Lyons’ op-ed “Why can’t I criticize the war in Gaza without being called antisemitic?” (Feb. 5): Of course, it is possible to criticize Israel’s government or policies without it being antisemitic. Just like it’s possible to criticize the U.S. government’s policies without it being anti-American. Where criticism of Israel becomes antisemitic is to deny the legitimacy of the very existence of the state of Israel and to describe all of Israel as “occupied land” that must be liberated “from the river to the sea.”
Criticism of Israel also shades into antisemitism when Israel becomes the sole focus and target of protest and criticism of its policies.
It is true that Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, including for its defense. It is also true that the U.S. is the largest individual contributor of foreign aid to the Palestinians, primarily through the U.S. Agency for International Development (more than $5 billion since 1994), and is the largest single donor to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides humanitarian aid to Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank.
It should be noted that UNRWA has long been criticized by European Commission officials for educational materials used in UNRWA schools for Palestinian children that are filled with hateful propaganda. Also, Israel has alleged that at least a dozen UNRWA staffers participated in the Oct. 7 attack against Israel. Israel has also provided evidence that more than 1,000 UNRWA members are members of Hamas.
I am certainly in support of reviewing the United States’ foreign aid, to ensure that the money is spent wisely for its intended purposes and in accordance with our nation’s values and security needs, so long as this process is done for all recipients and not just focused on Israel. And given USAID’s and UNRWA’s alleged involvement with terrorist groups and antisemitic activities that do not promote the cause of peace, the United States should certainly be reviewing its contribution to those agencies as well.
In short, if someone doesn’t want to be considered antisemitic by others, apply the same standards of judgment across the board to all nations, not just the sole majority-Jewish nation in the world, which has been singled out, vilified and invaded for the “crime” of its existence for the past 75 years.
— Stephen Bayer, Chicago
Op-ed writer loses credibility
Regarding Stephen J. Lyons’ op-ed: Indeed, it is possible, and I for one share his criticism of Minister of National Security of Israel Itamar Ben-Gvir, for example.
But when Lyons’ entire op-ed focuses on Israel, except for two sentences about Hamas — and those sentences do not make any demands whatsoever of Hamas — then he loses credibility as a fair critic of Israel.
— Rabbi Alex Freedman, Highland Park
US Jews made to feel unsafe
In his op-ed, Stephen J. Lyons asks why he can’t criticize the war in Gaza without being called antisemitic. He certainly can criticize it in my opinion, and I’m glad that he mentions the horrific actions of Hamas. I am one of thousands of Jews who have disliked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for years and are horrified by the way he is conducting the war. He is trying to stay in power when most people want him removed and is supported by extremists. Jews, too, have protested here and in even larger numbers in Israel. So protesting the war should not engender that accusation.
However, there is an aspect of Lyons’ op-ed that is more questionable. Asking a university president if it is acceptable for students to advocate for the genocide of all Jews is not a “linguistic trap.” What if the question had been how they would feel if a group were marching and loudly calling for the genocide of all Black people? I know Jewish faculty members on college campuses who fear for their safety because of pro-Palestinian protesters and the slogans they are allowed to chant and yell. If universities are “islands of repression,” as Lyons wonders, the ones being repressed are the Jewish students and faculty members who bear no responsibility for Israel’s actions — not the Palestinian students.
I think the U.S. should make military aid conditional on the protection of Gaza’s civilians, but everyone also has to insist that Jews not be made to feel unsafe because of the actions of a foreign government they cannot control.
— Joyce Porter, Oak Park
Op-ed is commendable
I am writing to thank Brant Rosen for his op-ed “Passage of the cease-fire resolution was a proud moment for Chicago” (Feb. 7).
Rosen, a Jew, has shown his support to Mayor Brandon Johnson for calling a cease-fire as a fair initiative. His comment on the Tribune editorial calling the resolution “shameful” is particularly commendable.
— Nusba Parveen, Markham
Rabbi is not representative
Brad Rosen does not speak for the Jews I know, who value life above all else. Rosen devalues life, Jewish life in particular, with his comments. He cites the killing of 27,000 Palestinians. Since the Hamas Ministry of Health is responsible for those statistics, how many of the 27,000 are Hamas terrorists?
My husband recently returned from a mission to Israel, where he met with first responders, kibbutzim survivors and Nova festival survivors. About 250,000 Israelis are without homes. I met with a survivor from Kfar Aza and heard her riveting story. The Israelis who lived along the Gaza border befriended many of the Gazan residents. Palestinians living in Gaza were hired by Israelis at an Israeli wage to work on their kibbutz. Israelis drove many to medical appointments into Israel, believing they were helping their neighbors.
On Oct. 7, Israeli women were brutally killed, mutilated and desecrated, to say nothing of the sadistic killing of children and babies. Medical forensic labs are still trying to identify partial remains. What if this was your loved one?
I applaud Ald. Debra Silverstein, 50th, and her proposal to denounce Hamas’ horrific attack on Oct 7. She has a right to speak on behalf of the Jewish community.
A cease-fire, which was in effect until Hamas violated it on Oct 7, is a nonstarter. Brandon Johnson has no allegiance to Israel; as the elected mayor of Chicago, he should concern himself with matters under his jurisdiction. Perhaps Rosen should concern himself with the true definition of a rabbi.
— Mary Ellen Bowers, Highland Park
Chicago standing as one
I think it is important to note that, of the roughly 40 synagogues in the Chicago area, the rabbinical leaders of only seven signed on to the Jewish United Fund letter published as a full-page advertisement in the Tribune this past Sunday. And for good reason: This letter conflates acts of antisemitism with a reaction against policies that mirror apartheid. It also omits the fact that this is taking place in a region where land disputes are adjudicated in large part based on a single sect’s interpretation of its own religious texts and settled through violence.
There is nothing antisemitic about Chicago standing as one against the killing, injuring and displacement of hundreds of thousands of people, the vast majority of whom want to live in peace and be afforded the same self-determination we expect for ourselves.
— Mike Belle, Cicero
