:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tronc/2TC6UOTKGNGLJJF4BGDKSLBLTA.JPG)
Readers’ responses (letters, Dec. 6) to Seph Mozes’ op-ed (“Why Chicago Jews are fighting the genocide of Palestinians,” Dec. 4) echo the wide disparity in public reaction to Israel. We are witnessing passionate protests and widespread condemnation of the Israeli military’s actions against the Hamas terrorist group. While it’s crucial to scrutinize and question the use of force in any conflict, there appears to be a concerning incongruence in the intensity of outrage and activism. This becomes even more glaring when one considers the relative silence surrounding other conflicts with significantly higher casualties and humanitarian crises.
The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, particularly Israel’s recent response to the Hamas threat, has sparked fervent protests and criticism on a global scale. Activists argue that Israel’s actions are disproportionate and primarily rooted in motives other than self-preservation, and they call for justice and an end to the action. However, this same level of outrage seems notably absent toward other conflicts with staggering human tolls.
Consider the ongoing conflict in Syria, where hundreds of thousands of Arab civilians have lost their lives due to the brutal regime of Bashar Assad. Despite the staggering number of casualties and the egregious human rights violations, the global response remains muted in comparison with the outcry against Israel. Our streets are not filled with demonstrators demanding justice for the victims in Syria.
Similarly, the battle for Mosul witnessed uncounted civilian casualties as coalition forces fought to liberate the city from the clutches of the Islamic State. Yet, this complex and challenging conflict, with its significant toll on civilian lives, did not elicit the same level of condemnation and protest witnessed in response to the Israel-Hamas war.
Yemen, torn apart by a devastating war, has seen tens of thousands of lives lost and a dire humanitarian crisis. However, the global response to Yemen’s plight seems overshadowed by the more fervent reactions to Israel.
Is anti-Israel outrage primarily fueled by geopolitical considerations, media coverage or historical biases? Of the examples above, only one is a result of responding to existential threats — Hamas repeatedly states its mission is to eliminate Jews from the face of the earth. Can it truly be viewed that massive casualties of war for political or territorial reasons are more tolerable than any deaths caused by any Jewish response to defend the right to exist?
While it is essential to hold nations accountable for their actions, the selective nature of the protests deserves our introspection. War is bad. Espousing religious or racial genocide is unthinkable.
— Steve Holdem, Northfield
Absolutist view of free speech
The Tribune Editorial Board’s otherwise excellent comments on the recent disastrous performance by the leaders of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology falls into the “absolutist trap” when referring to the First Amendment to our Constitution (“University presidents proved spectacularly inept on Capitol Hill. Resignations should follow.,” Dec. 7). The editorial states that “the First Amendment does not contain an exception for calls for genocide.” That is incorrect. This view of the First Amendment has been repeatedly and roundly rejected by the Supreme Court.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan, in the majority opinion for Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, wrote: “(The absolutist view) … cannot be reconciled with the law relating to libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like.” (Emphasis mine.)
I would certainly include “calls for genocide” in the category of “solicitation of crime.”
This misstatement about the First Amendment is tremendously important today because Donald Trump, his co-conspirators and his enablers are citing the absolutist view of the First Amendment as defenses to the crimes of which they are accused. Many poorly informed or willfully ignorant Americans who read the literal language of the First Amendment are led to believe that Trump has the right to say absolutely anything that he wishes to say, without any concern for the consequences.
I note that Harlan included in his recitation of notable exceptions to First Amendment protections the word “conspiracy” and that Trump is accused of multiple counts of that crime in the federal and state cases against him.
I hope that the editorial board will do a better job in the future of explaining to its readers that none of the rights granted to us in the Constitution are correctly understood to be absolute. All of our behavior when exercising our rights must give way to the equally important rights of other members of our society and to the interest of our society in maintaining civil order and good governance.
— Jon Meyer, Chicago
Congress fiddles while cities burn
Once upon a time, Russian President Vladimir Putin enjoyed the praises of an American president. Now he enjoys something far more valuable: a Republican effort to choke off funding for Ukraine, thus almost certainly leading to a Putin victory over a democracy.
All of America’s successful post-World War II efforts that led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union are in essence being scorned by this Congress. Ukrainian blood of an entire generation is being spent in defense of democracy and a strong Europe while our Congress plays a childish game.
— Bob Quitter, Plainfield
On the hook for decision-making
I had great hopes for Mayor Brandon Johnson when he was elected, but I fail to understand his willfully stubborn attitude in clinging to and going ahead with construction of the tent facility on a well-known toxically polluted site.
Others have expressed to Voice of the People that it would make good sense to house the migrants in schools closed by previous administrations that are sitting vacant. I, for one, am fed up with the lack of vision and the outright failure to consider reopening these schools.
Chicago Tribune Opinion
The wasted time and expense of proceeding with this site, of course, will be picked up by the state. Hello! We the taxpayers are “the state.” This is poor governance by Johnson.
— Linda Burke, Indian Head Park
What about residents’ health?
If the site for the proposed Brighton Park migrant camp is unsafe, what about the surrounding neighborhood? Isn’t the site unsafe for the residents too? Just asking.
— Sandra Marcus, Glenview
Join the conversation in our Letters to the Editor Facebook group.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.