Letters
The Iranian deal is terrible
The Iranian deal, as announced, is a tragic failure and shows how badly out negotiated the U.S. was.
The major U.S. asset in the negotiations was the blockade, yet amazingly it was the first concession the U.S .made. This destroys our negotiating position as Tehran knows that once the blockade ends and the ships routed away, it is highly unlikely that it will ever be reconstituted. In contrast, Iran can reinstate a blockade of Hormuz at any time it wishes and the issue of control and fees were not even conceded by Iran. At a time when the U.S. initially said benefits to Iran would be based on performance, the reverse has occurred. It is the U.S. that must act first. The Iranians demand the end of the blockade before allowing free passage.
With all the focus on Iran’s nuclear program, it is totally absent in this agreement, no commitments regarding removing the enriched material, no dismantling the enriching infrastructure, no inspections — all to be discussed later.
There is nothing regarding curtailing extensive missile production.
There are no commitments for Iran to stop supporting resistance groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis. Indeed, Lebanon was included in the plans for cessation of military activity that, in essence, confirms Iran’s commitment to Hezbollah. This restricts Israel’s ability to defend itself and creates enormous pressures for Netanyahu.
This agreement hands the Revolutionary Guards a great victory and cements their governance in Iran. The Iranian people, who we claimed to stand by, have been abandoned. Regime change is gone.
The 60-day negotiating period is meaningless as it can be extended and likely will be. Iran knows Trump’s desperate to stop the war despite his bluster and knows he will not take any military action before the midterms. Thus, the big issues, which were the basis of the original strike, will likely go unresolved for a very long time and many never be resolved as Iran loves to play the long game.
The coexistence of this terrible agreement with the spectacle of a cage fight on the White House lawn is hard to take.
David Rocker
Short Hills
Quoting from Exodus
Mayor Michael Wildes Esq. has generously shared with us his comprehensive knowledge of U.S. immigration law and its legislative history in a well-founded opinion piece (“Legal fictions for political ends — why the administration’s green card changes are just plain wrong,” June 5).
In the course of his narration, Mayor Wildes suggests that Stephen Miller should “remember the teachings of the midrash — “You shall not wrong or oppress the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt’” (Mekhilta d’Rabbi Yishmael, Parshat Mishpatim).
Since it is doubtful that Stephen Miller has ever seen this midrash, I would suggest that it is unreasonable to expect him to remember that which he has never seen or heard. However, the sentence quoted by Mayor Wildes, which is actually from Exodus 22:20, is widely recognized as part of the Judeo-Christian heritage. Whether for cultural or religious reasons, this verse should already be well-known to all civic leaders. The Mekhilta source that Mayor Wildes cites is a worthy midrashic elaboration (upon the verse from Exodus), part of which is focused on the absorption of religious converts into the Jewish people. While I am grateful to Mayor Wildes for motivating me to reread today that passage from Chapter 18 of the Mekhilta, I would strongly suggest that a straightforward citation from the book of Exodus would have made his point more effectively.
We well recognize that government policies are unlikely to be revised just because a narrowly Jewish source says so. However, in coalition with other people of faith, we do have the power to sway public (and legislative) opinion. While of course we must be true to our own tradition, there is added value when we can muster a religious and social argument that flows from a shared tradition. In seeking productive coalitions with Christians, citing a verse directly from Exodus is more likely to move the needle.
Rabbi Avram Kogen
Paramus
comments