Letters to the editor

Editor,

In the Feb. 26 edition of the Daily Journal, Ted Rudow shed crocodile tears over an Israeli Defense Forces group claiming alleged abuse of Palestinians. These tears are "disproportionate” to the situation (to use a term frequently applied against Israel when it responds militarily to terrorist attacks). The purported abuses consist of things such as an IDF soldier, operating a grenade launcher against Palestinian gunmen, is concerned that he might hit innocent targets, or the IDF shutting down Palestinian shops with a curfew. These are extremely mild reactions from the IDF, in defending their country under constant terrorist attacks from an implacable enemy dedicated to her destruction. Where is Rudow’s outrage that Palestinian gunmen are operating from a civilian site? Where are examples of Palestinian concern that innocent Israelis may be killed or maimed by the ongoing terrorist campaign? Where are the corresponding Palestinian websites protesting official Palestinian policy, such as the desire to utterly destroy Israel as a Jewish state?

I do agree with Rudow concerning the effectiveness of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and appreciate him plugging it. The main reason for its effectiveness is that AIPAC provides U.S. policy leaders with spot-on, accurate information that is objectively verifiable. This objectivity is most welcome amidst the perpetual propaganda flurry perpetrated by the Palestinians, and their supporters such as Rudow.

Larry Yelowitz

Sunnyvale

Who should paint

over graffiti?

Editor,

Rather than have our own Public Works Department spend their time and energy cleaning up the graffiti, why not have those recently arrested for this, get out there and paint the many areas of our city that has been vandalized by these taggers?

I can provide you a list.

Joanne Bennett

San Mateo

Clinton’s bogus pledge against poverty

Editor,

Hillary Clinton’s recent pledge to end child poverty rings hollow with me. I worked on welfare reauthorization in Washington D.C. just after she was elected senator and recall her stance on child poverty. She repeatedly refused to meet with her constituents living in poverty, welfare rights advocates, and researchers to discuss meaningful reauthorization and make adjustments to the law that her husband signed in 1996.

By 2001, early research established that children of welfare recipients were facing additional hardships, increased poverty, and lack of supervision because of the new reforms and the strict work-first model. Government subsidized child care providers made profits while welfare mothers of those children were forced to work for minimum wage. She had a hand in devaluing mother-work in this country, and no doubt sending thousands of families deeper into poverty with few real opportunities to escape the vicious cycle.

She often cites Marian Wright Edelman, but according to a recent NPR interview, Edelman states that although Clinton is an old friend, she is an enemy in politics and that the welfare reform that the Clinton’s developed is an abomination and partly responsible for the "cradle to prison pipeline” that exists for poor children of color.

Sandra Chapin

San Mateo