Letters

Applying facts to law

Ari Berman urges Jews to “not overthink” the attempt by the Trump administration to deport the activist Khalil Mahmoud (March 21). Mr. Mahmoud’s speech and actions in support of Hamas were unquestionably heinous. As a Columbia College alumnus, I am outraged and saddened by the university’s tepid response to the antisemitism on campus. However, Mr. Berman blithely glosses over the fact that the proposed deportation of Mr. Mahmoud is in contravention of the law.

The law at issue, 8 USC1227(a)(4)(C)(i), states that deportation is allowed where “[a]n alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.” To argue that Mr. Mahmoud’s activities would “reasonably” have “potentially serious adverse” foreign policy consequences is not only a stretch, it does not even pass the “straight face” test.

A student activist spouting hatred on a private college campus has no discernable impact on U.S. foreign policy, much less serious impact. As deplorable as his activities may have been, they simply do not meet the standard set out by the statute. Therefore, the use of this law as justification for his deportation is indefensible. As unacceptable as Mr. Mahmoud’s actions are, all Americans should be opposed to allowing this country to become ruled by passions rather than law. This is not overthinking; it is simply the application of facts to law.

Jay K. Goldberg
Fort Lee

Securing First Amendment rights

I have known my friend Joe Kaplan for over 50 years. No one I ever met has a greater level of intellectual honesty and respect for others — as well as a keen understanding of the law, and a passionate dedication to Jewish tradition and values.

I do take issue with an important point in his eloquent and well sourced article, “Freedom of Speech and Assembly — Part II” (March 21), regarding the proposed Teaneck ordinance on public demonstrations.

As Joe himself notes, reasonable (if minimal) “time, place and manner” restrictions on First Amendment (FA) rights are Constitutionally acceptable so as to respect the rights of both demonstrators and their targets. And, Joe adds, the demonstrators must have the right to express themselves “at that [target’s] location. Indeed,” he continues, “if protests against these events can be banned,” so too could other protests that we might favor. But therein lies my concern.

I believe the purpose of such an ordinance is not to “ban” anything or anyone’s right to protest. Rather it is to arrive at a Constitutionally acceptable means of addressing the fear, intimidation, and harassment to which one part of the town’s population feels it has been subjected — whether or not Joe finds those fears legally justified.

I would agree that a 300-foot (the length of a football field) separation requirement seems unreasonable, in effect a “ban.” But then, what we’re talking about is the degree (20 ft? 50 ft.? from all doorways and driveways to insure free, unhindered access to a home or house of worship), not the fact of Constitutionally valid limitation. With the input of people of experience and goodwill like Joe Kaplan, the right balance can be struck.

The FA rights of all, virtuous or vile, deserve and require protection. Would that those anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, pro-Hamas demonstrators who delight in making life unpleasant for others shared that belief.

Alan M. Schwartz
Teaneck

The case for vengeance

I’m puzzled about Rabbi Shammai Engelmayer’s March 21st opinion piece, “Defaming God in God’s Name.”

Though I am, without a doubt, not as familiar with the verses of the Torah as Rabbi Engelmayer, I was puzzled by the case he makes for what God deems to be acceptable behavior.

I, too, am terribly uncomfortable with cutting off all humanitarian aid to Gaza. The amount of death and destruction weighs heavy on my heart. But is this behavior really counter to what God has commanded in the past?

What about God’s famous directive to King Saul about Amalek in 1 Samuel 15, verse 3? God instructs him, “Now go attack Amalek and proscribe all that belongs to him. Spare no one, but kill alike man and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.”

God provides very clear role-modeling of taking revenge in the previous verse of 1 Samuel 15 by saying, “I am exacting the penalty for what Amalek did to Israel, for the assault he made upon them on the road, on their way up from Egypt.” (See sefaria.com.)

Rabbi Engelmayer notes that Deuteronomy 20:19-20 provides evidence that God “forbids needlessly destroying an enemy’s food trees.” But the directive says right after that “you may eat their fruit.” So the idea was not to preserve food for the enemy — but for the Israelites!

And in the verses immediately above the ones he cites (16-17), God says: “In the cities of the nations that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance you must not leave alive anything that breathes. For you must devote them to complete destruction — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.”

So I ask Rabbi Engelmeyer, can you really argue that God has never been vengeful and advocated for extreme cruelty toward the enemy?

Lonye Rasch
Short Hills