Letters
Trump’s new twist on blood libel
In his accusation that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are stealing, killing, and feasting on their neighbors’ pets, former President Donald Trump has revived and updated one of the vilest and most chilling charges that have been leveled against Jews for centuries — blood libel.
Blood libel, the accusation that Jews use Gentile blood in their religious rituals, can be traced at least as far back as the Middle Ages.
In 1255, the body of a 9-year-old English boy, Hugh of Lincoln, was discovered in a well. One medieval chronicle — one among many — asserted that Hugh had been tortured and crucified and thrown in the well by Jews when attempts to bury his body failed because the earth expelled it.
The unsolved murder legitimized pogroms, terror campaigns against English Jews. Their goods were stolen and their houses put to the torch. Those Jews may have been the fortunate ones: others were imprisoned, tortured, and executed. Ultimately, the Jews were expelled from England.
Stripped of the horrific, incendiary details, the blood libel proved yet again that Jews were “other,” were inhuman. Some seven centuries later, millions of Jewish vermin were loaded onto boxcars and shipped to the death camps. “Vermin” is precisely the word that Trump used to characterize immigrants.
Americans are sentimental about their pets, as they have the right to be. Imagine a group of people living in their communities who kill and devour Rex and King, Smokie and Tiger. Human beings don’t act like that. At the very least, local groups armed with baseball bats and cudgels should be out patrolling the streets. And that’s only the beginning.
Trump has played fast and loose with the language and his demented diatribes about the Deep State. He’s not alone. Have any Republicans stood up and condemned these ugly slurs?
We have the power to fight back — through the ballot box. Voting for Trump and his sad henchman is a vote for blatant hatred. Let the weird former president and his weirder compatriots rave about stolen elections, while we save some piece of democracy.
Aaron Fischer
Fort Lee
Voting for the better choice
Just when I thought nothing could shock me anymore, I read Steven Starkman’s letter last week.
We’ve all been through the list of Trump’s disgraceful comments and behavior ad nauseam — but to say that he is a “flawed character” is hard to comprehend. So sad that morals, ethics, a respect for our country and constitution does not matter to him when it comes to Trump. Mr. Starkman doesn’t mention how Trump is a fine example for our children — constant lying (Haitians eating animals), name calling, disrespect, misogyny, racism. If it’s all about putting more money in your pocket, then that’s a pretty sad commentary on what is right for this country. The rich might be a little less rich but we can hold our head high when it comes to being a good and righteous human being. Of course Kamala Harris is not a perfect candidate, but we have all voted for the best of the two candidates, and this is a choice of good vs. evil.
Sandra Kleinman
Old Tappan
Yes, we are better off now
The question generally presented to the American public during presidential election years is “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” The focus is on economics and the response can be based on statistics or on personal experiences. However, there are other areas that can reflect on the response as well. Let’s examine this:
Four years ago, voting rights were being threatened, civil rights were being threatened, workers’ rights were being threatened, medical coverage was being threatened, women’s rights were being threatened — and a few years later, those rights were lost.
Fair elections were being threatened and challenged with a nearly successful treasonous act.
Yes, we are much better off today than we were four years ago.
Alan Schoffman
Teaneck
comments