To the Editor:
The World Jewish Congress has given its highest recognition, the Theodor Herzl Award, to Representative Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), largely for her outspoken support for the state of Israel. Stefanik, honored at the most recent award ceremony, declared:
“I am proud to be one of the foremost champions of the Jewish people in the United States Congress, ensuring Israel’s right to defend herself and fiercely opposing efforts by some of my colleagues to undermine it.”
But using starvation as a weapon of war cannot be justified as self-defense. Notably, at a January 13, 2024 press conference, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remarked, “We provide minimal humanitarian aid… . If we want to achieve our war goals, we give the minimal aid.”
Moreover, in the Spring of 2024, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration provided an assessment to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, which concluded that Israel was deliberately blocking deliveries of food and medical aid into Gaza.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) established the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) in 1985, in response to famines in East and West Africa and a need for better warning of food crises.
FEWS NET regularly publishes updates on the Gaza Strip, such as its November 12, 2024, report titled, “If food supplies remain blocked, then Famine (IPC Phase 5) will most likely occur in North Gaza.”
Significantly, earlier this year Israel did not allow any humanitarian aid to enter the Gaza Strip for 77 days, from March 2nd until May 18th. This was after Israel destroyed Gaza’s fields, orchards, greenhouses and water infrastructure.
As famine expert Alex de Waal observed: “I’ve been working on this field of famine, food crisis and humanitarian action for more than 40 years, and there is no case, over those four decades, of such minutely engineered, closely monitored, precisely designed mass starvation of a population as is happening in Gaza today.”
This recent blockade is part of a much longer pattern: Israel’s restrictions on the movement of food into Gaza actually date back to 1991, well before Hamas came into power in 2006. Government documents reveal that, between 2007 and 2010, Israel deliberately reduced food imports into Gaza to what officials described as “minimal subsistence” levels.
Dov Weisglass, a senior advisor to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, was quoted as saying the policy was “to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” Army officers actually devised mathematical formulas to calculate the specific amounts and types of food permitted for Gaza residents.
In Peter Beinart’s powerful 2025 book, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza, he observes that sacred texts and memories of persecution have been weaponized to legitimize the destruction of another people.
Beinart also explains that Judaism teaches that every human being possesses infinite worth because all people are made in God’s image. He contends that many treat the state of Israel as more important than the value of the people living within it—including Palestinians—thus violating this core Jewish principle.
According to Beinart, when loyalty to a state is placed above human life, it becomes a form of idolatry, since only people, not states, are sacred in Jewish tradition.
The awarding of honors should not silence the uncomfortable truth: policies that starve populations are grave violations of human dignity and international law. How long will the United States allow its allegiance to Israel to obstruct justice?
Terry Hansen
Grafton, Wisconsin
Terry:
How long? As long as Israel keeps it up, apparently.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Ehrhart Responds to Carine
Dear Editor,
Contrary to Aaron Carine’s claim in your October 31st issue, I have never in my entire life said that Israel is “illegal” and “has no right to exist.” I defy Mr. Carine to find anything I’ve ever written that makes such claims. Quote me. Quote my words and identify their source. Come on. Prove me wrong. Mr. Carine can’t because he has simply invented these accusations against me.
Moreover, I am Dr. Ehrhart, but not “Prof. Ehrhart.” Or as he writes, “Prof. Earhart.” Indeed, as our Alleged Editor points out, Mr. Carine hasn’t even bothered to pay enough attention to spell my name correctly.
W. D. Ehrhart
Bryn Mawr, Pa.
W.D.:
This letter should have run in our paper of November 14th, but did not due to a workflow error. We apologize for the delay.
The Editor
–=≈=–
350 New Hampshire Will Continue
To the Editor:
350.org has publicly announced temporary suspension of its United States-based programming, with significant layoffs to global staff. 350 New Hampshire is deeply concerned for those whose lives were upended by these difficult decisions.
350 New Hampshire will continue to carry out the mission of achieving a just transition to a sustainable future for everyone. 350NH is legally and financially independent of 350.org, and as such not dependent on the national or global entities for local programming and staffing. In New Hampshire, 350NH will continue to end reliance on fossil fuels, ensure access to affordable clean energy, and hold polluters and politicians accountable.
In the current challenging federal political landscape, much of the most meaningful and effective climate action is happening at the state and local levels. 350NH is proud to be a member of the 350 Network Council, a group of sixteen 350 affiliates who will continue to ensure that climate action in the U.S. moves forward.
350NH works to stop the climate crisis by building grassroots support for a just transition to renewable energy and an end to fossil fuel use and expansion. We are a multigenerational movement of people fighting for clean energy, climate justice, and a future where everyone lives free of environmental injustices. For more information, visit 350nh.org.
Rebecca Beaulieu
Communications Director, 350 New Hampshire
Concord, N.H.
Rebecca:
It is dismaying, yet illuminating, that 350.org has had to take this step.
If its founder, Bill McKibben, had devoted his life, not to protect but to plunder the environment for raw materials to convert into meretricious, profitable, polluting crap, he’d be able to afford a private jet, fly to COP 30 in Belem, and hobnob with fossil fuel lobbyists.
Our former governor, among many other glad-handers, loved to spout off about “The New Hampshire Way.” That term usually serves as code for “Maintaining a Status Quo that Comforts the Comfortable and Afflicts the Afflicted.”
350 New Hampshire’s vow to continue working for “a sustainable future for everyone” is what “The New Hampshire Way” ought to be.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Nixon Looks Honorable in Comparison
Dear Editor:
The extreme behavior of Mr. Trump and his allies to prevent the full release of the DOJ’s files regarding the Epstein affair and Trump’s involvement reminds me of the extreme actions Richard Nixon took to prevent the release of the tapes of his conversations within the Oval Office. The reason Nixon took such drastic actions to prevent the release of the tapes was because he knew exactly what was on those tapes and how devastating the consequences would be if they became public. Of course, we know what happened in that situation.
As new information regarding the Epstein files is released, Mr. Trump is taking even more aggressive action to prevent the full release of the DOJ Epstein file. In a very strange move this week, Mr. Trump summoned Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) to the White House Situation Room to meet with him, Attorney General Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Blanch and FBI Director Patel. Rep. Boebert was one of 4 Republicans who signed the petition to force the release of the DOJ files on Epstein. The meeting took place after the swearing in of Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the final signature needed on the petition to force the House to vote on the release of the DOJ files on Epstein. This raises the question as to why Rep. Boebert was summoned to an unusual secret meeting in the Situation Room, that is highly secure and without audiotaping, with Trump and a number of high ranking members of the DOJ. Considering the timing and the very unusual nature of this meeting, it might be fair to consider the possibility that she was being pressured into removing her signature from the House Epstein file petition.
Like Nixon and the tapes, Mr. Trump is doing everything possible to prevent the release of the full DOJ Epstein file. And like Nixon, the reason Mr. Trump is doing so is because he knows exactly what is in those files and what the consequences will be if they are released. Nixon knew what he said in the Oval Office and what was on the tapes, and Trump knows what he did with Mr. Epstein and what those files will reveal. History repeats itself in strange ways.
Rich DiPentima
Portsmouth, N.H.
Rich:
How well we remember those days. Nixon was scurrying around in the White House like the cornered rat he was, and several prominent Republican Senators, including Lowell Weicker of Connecticut and Howard Baker of Tennessee, were among those doing the chasing.
Of course, you also had the likes of Rep. Earl Landgrebe [R-Ind.], who famously said—on the morning of Nixon’s resignation, no less—“Don’t confuse me with the facts. I’ve got a closed mind. I will not vote for impeachment. I’m going to stick with my President even if he and I have to be taken out of this building and shot.”
Nowadays the Senate Republican Conference is Landgrebes, all the way down.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Jungle Law
To the Editor:
A journalist recently asked President Trump about legal authority to blow up Caribbean boats. He answered that authority comes from the fact illegal drugs kill people in America.
This shows that #47 does not recognize sources of authority other than his own right hand.
The President made no mention of statutory law, constitutional law, international law, treaty agreements, the Supreme Court, rules of engagement… just his own peculiar brand of animal instinct. He must do it because “I alone can fix it.”
Does it matter that innocent people die in this Latin American manhunt?
Nope. Does it matter that the American people and their elected representatives have no say in the new system of rule by the king of the jungle? Nope.
Is it sad that nobody else but he is smart enough to get things done? Yes, it is very sad.
Kimball Shinkoskey
Woods Cross, Utah
Kimball:
You know what’s really sad?
News organizations that sanewash the gibberish coming out of the mouth of a draft-dodging, bankrupt felon, thereby prolonging the national embarassment that is his presidency.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Sovereign Immunity is NOT JUSTICE!
To the Editor:
Sovereign Immunity was never an original U.S. Constitution privilege for anyone. It was a handout case, given, many defense attorneys have argued for decades, wrongly, by U.S. Supreme Court judges who were still indoctrinated with “Royalist” ideology. The 11th Amendment did not solve the injustice.
It allows bad actors freedom to abuse their government stations, titles, and positions of power. All of them have immunity, elected or not.
[At this point Mr. Frost rather cavalierly throws in what appear to be three quotations, without making any effort to 1) connect them to what we suppose is his argument; or, 2) adhere to commonly accepted norms of punctuation. We tolerate these irregularities in this case because 1) Mr. Frost has, in the past, stood up for the principle of jury nullification, and 2) he appears to be teasing an entry into the race for the 2nd Congressional District. – The Ed.]
“pay out only $475,000 because of a sovereign immunity cap after the jury listed only one “incident” of abuse on the verdict form.[”]
“Superior Court Judge Andrew Schulman previously ruled that no reasonable jury could have found fewer than 116 incidents after a civil trial that lasted about a month last year.”
“Deane argued that “incident” should be viewed through the perspective of the injured victim and be “fairly balanced” against the immunity cap, which was signed into law in 1985.”
The government can be insured, just like companies, against the risk of bad actors committing crimes against humanity while doing their work.
I am exploring [an entry into the race for] the 2nd [U.S. Congressional District].
Jeff Frost
Alexandria, N.H.
Jeff:
Fair warning: in future, letters as sloppy as this one will rapidly find a (temporary) home in the Round File.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Pomp for the Pompous
Dear Editor:
Trump mustered high pomp for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit: military officers on horseback with Saudi and American flags, military band music, and F-35 flyovers. Trump will need Congressional approval to sell F-35 fighter jets to the Saudis. But he’s shown that he doesn’t care about such rules. His toadying Republican Congress will let him, too.
Our President made light of the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Kashoggi. About Kashoggi, he’s now said, “A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman.” So his murder and dismemberment in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul doesn’t matter? Charlie Kirk (liked and disliked), murdered, mattered. No sympathy for journalist Kashoggi’s family and workmates?
In June 2018, Trump’s first term, “the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published a 101-page report which held the State of Saudi Arabia responsible for Kashoggi’s ‘premeditated extrajudicial execution’.” The execution was ordered by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Will Trump and the Crown Prince, this visit, privately agree extrajudicial murder is okay? Easier? Now Trump has our Navy doing extrajudicial/no-evidence-needed executions of crews on Venezuelan boats. Sink those boats. An NPR interview with an experienced military person made the point that detained live crews provided useful information during questioning. Trump’s way leaves dead crews—and no investigative leads.
Lynn Rudmin Chong
Sanbornton, N.H.
Lynn:
It’s all a little too obvious, isn’t it? Dead men tell no tales.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Dunning-Kruger Poster Child Writes…
To the Editor:
Listening to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough call the Honorable Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville, “ignorant,” is the height of displaying his own GUTLESS IGNORANCE!
As long as the U.S. Military is hiring, NO YOUNG AMERICAN MAN, should be allowed to apply for nor receive “SNAP benefits” nor SECTION 8, unless they fail a “MEPS” in-processing assessment test.
U.S. Senator Tuberville is correct!
You, “Jackass Jo” Scarborough, are wrong!
I was in the same circumstances, 35 years ago, as these “SNAP RECIPIENTS” are today and after one week of food stamps, I thank my lucky stars as I told myself, “I am not going to live like this! I am young and strong and it’s time to join the American military.”
It was the best decision I ever made and it gave me back a sense of pride, a sense of purpose and a unique opportunity as I became a Russian Linguist, graduating from the Monterey DLI school.
I served for almost 20 years.
I salute the Honorable Senator Tuberville and urge ALL lawmakers to pass NEW restrictions on ANY American man, applying for SNAP benefits and/or Section 8, to submit themselves for U.S. Military Service.
SNAP and SECTION 8, should be denied, if these American men are capable of carrying the burden of defending our nation!
It’s time for some “tough love!”
We need to STOP growing “victims” in our American society and START growing AMERICAN MEN, you lily-livered, slack-jawed f_____s!
Very Respectfully,
CTI2 Jacques Porche, U.S.N Ret.
Las Vegas, Nev.
Jacques:
You, Jacques, are wrong.
We just Googled “list of the ten dumbest senators.” Here’s what we got:
“There is no official or objective list of the ‘ten dumbest senators,’ as intelligence is subjective and not measured by any official metric for public officeholders.
“Media outlets, political pundits, and the public sometimes create subjective rankings based on gaffes, policy positions, or controversial actions. For example:
“Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) has been frequently cited in recent years by various commentators and news outlets (such as The New Republic and MSNBC) as a potential candidate for ‘America’s dumbest senator’ due to his public statements and actions, particularly regarding military affairs.”
You say you enlisted 35 years ago, or about the year 1990. Are you sure? We ask because Robert F. McNamara’s “Project 100,000,” which drafted more than 300,000 poor schmucks who couldn’t pass the usual battery of tests, was shut down in 1971.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Now It’s the Center for Disease Causation?
Dear Editor:
Earlier this week a CDC website dedicated to “Autism and Vaccines” was updated to suggest there is a causal relationship between autism and vaccines. There is no such relationship.
The new language on the website now states, “Vaccines do not cause autism is not an evidence-based claim. Scientific studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines contribute to the development of autism.”
For those not familiar as to how epidemiological studies work, this might sound rather frightening. Epidemiological studies can never rule out the possibility of any exposure causing a negative outcome. You cannot prove a negative. The statement noted above could be said about anything. Scientific studies have not ruled out the possibility of having a pet, or drinking milk or eating pasta or anything else does not cause autism. However, dozens of studies from real scientists across the globe have found no causal association between childhood vaccines and autism.
The wording contained in this updated website statement would never be written by a trained scientist, especially not an epidemiologist. In fact, RFK Jr. told the New York Times that he personally ordered the language change. Kennedy has no academic or clinical background in medicine, science, or public health.
Dr. Demeter Daskalakis, the former head of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, who resigned earlier this year, stated that “The weaponization of the voice of CDC is getting worse. Do not trust this agency. This is a national embarrassment.”
This is much more than a national embarrassment, it is a serious threat to public health and puts people’s lives at risk. Unfortunately, Kennedy and his anti-vaccine agenda add to the confusion and fear among parents. Many might decide against having their children properly immunized against a host of potential deadly diseases. This is a national public health emergency.
Rich DiPentima, RN, MPH
Portsmouth, N.H.
Rich:
It is a shocking thing to contemplate: the CDC was created by the 79th Congress to support the nation’s good health. Now that [string of gratuitous insults deleted] has put [second string of gratuitous insults, more vile than the first, deleted] in charge of it, it seems to be bent on killing us.
As a layperson, the editor finds this situation extremely upsetting. We can only imagine the chagrin a health professional like yourself must be experiencing. As an editor, though, accustomed to taking the long—in our case, very long—view, we have to ask, is it really that shocking?
Our health care system as a whole is killing us, and draining our finances in the process.
Our automotive industry—at least until that pest Nader started meddling—was knocking us off in wholesale lots!
Our food industry seems quite oblivious to the deleterius effects of the food-like products it cranks out.
Let’s face it: so long as Milton Friedman’s diktat hold sway—the corporation’s sole responsibility is to jack up quarterly profits for insatiably greedy shareholders—it’s open season on Americans.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Our Retro-President
To the Editor:
Let us not claim the current president cannot think long-term—he does. Unfortunately, while most world leaders are looking forward, the president is looking backward. He seems to believe that America was great during the 19th Century, when slavery still existed in the United States and only white men could vote; a period when women and children were considered property and had no rights other than those bestowed upon them by the man of the family.
It is hard to believe that this country is better off headed by a person living two hundred years in the past. No wonder the president is unable to determine whether grocery prices are climbing or falling—he doesn’t know what a grocery store is. He doesn’t understand fuel prices—after all, we were using wood stoves for heating and whale oil for lighting. He cares nothing for the SNAP program recipients or for the homeless—after all, the poor should be imprisoned or, at the very least, be residing in workhouses. Certainly, he is not a man for our times.
Lorraine L. Hansen
Rollinsford, N.H.
Lorraine:
Exactly.
Here’s a little-known fact: William F. Buckley used to have a home in Hopkinton, New Hampshire. It was an undistinguished brown ranch, set on a large, fairly flat lot, with a long, winding, paved driveway. On either side of the drive were perhaps twenty of the most ridiculous trees this state has ever seen. What species they were, we cannot say. They were unnaturally uniform. Their trunks were straight, branchless, and perhaps six inches in diameter. Perhaps ten feet up, they sported dense, round crowns of green foliage. They looked like so many overgrown lollipops.
This was in the late 1980’s, a couple of years before the editor snagged the rights to this newspaper; he was working as an assistant to a contractor then. That contractor said Buckley told him that the reason this house had two complete, separate heating systems was that he’d rather waste money on a redundant boiler than pay taxes to the IRS.
We bring up this ancient history because we can’t help it, and because we’re about to cite the quintessential Buckley quote: “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”
Buckley claimed to be a conservative, but there’s a term that fits him better. He really was a reactionary, and, like Trump, it was his burning desire to drag us back into the past.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Let’s Unleash Putin on Europe!
To the Editor:
Trump’s proposed sweetheart peace deal with Russia is beyond embarrassing.
Trump clearly favors totalitarian Russia rather than democratic Europe. His 28-point peace plan tilts heavily in favor of Putin’s interests and treats Europe like its security interests don’t exist.
No wonder Europe has joined Zelensky in condemning the proposed plan.
How many times does Trump have to express his admiration for authoritarian rulers in Turkey, Hungary, Russia, and China or his desire to see Democrat Congressional military vets in jail or dead before this country wakes up?
For any American who got past 5th grade, all this is a clear signal that our President loves personal power more than representative government, lethality more than righteousness, and cruel, godless dictators more than humanitarian servant leaders.
Kimball Shinkoskey
Woods Cross, Utah
Kimball:
Was there ever any doubt?
The Editor
–=≈=–
Nit-Picking 101
To the Editor;
I’m afraid I have to bring up the Middle East again. Referring to the United Nations plan to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, the Gazette writes “The UN calls for cramming 70 percent of Palestine’s population—Arabs—onto 44 percent of the land, so 30 percent—the Israelis—can occupy it.”
The partition plan didn’t cram anyone onto anywhere. The prospective Jewish state would have had 397,000 Arabs, and no one was telling them to leave. Making a case through straw men is often a sign that people don’t have confidence in their position. The complaint that Jews got over half the land when they were one-third of the population lacks force since Jews were a majority in the area consigned to them, and for a Jewish state to be viable it had to have a large share.
We know why Arabs found partition difficult to accept. Some may think that Jews would have expelled Arabs even if there had been a peaceful transition to statehood—I don’t—and some may think Zionism turned out badly in practice—I do—but readers should get an accurate account of what the United Nations was trying to do in 1947.
Aaron Carine
Dover, N.H.
Aaron:
There are, no doubt, more ways than one to look at “what the United Nations was trying to do in 1947.” What’s more, there is little doubt in our mind[s] that you are more well-versed in the topic that we are.
Nevertheless, we can confidently state that whatever the UN was trying to do in 1947 was inconsequential, next to what the Israelis did. And much of that was indefensible.
The Editor