Regarding the April 3 front-page article “Along a humanitarian path, a team of 7 ferrying food aid is struck down”:
As a Jew, I am appalled by the loss of innocent lives in both Israel and Palestine. While Israel had the right to defend itself after the brutal Oct. 7 attack and kidnapping of hostages, it has gone too far and risks inspiring new terrorists to attack Israel in the future. Granted, Hamas has made it impossible to avoid the loss of innocent lives, by attacking Israel in the first place and by using both individuals and civilian institutions to shield its operations. The process of eliminating Hamas must become more surgical to avoid continued loss of innocent lives.
Israel and the Middle East would be better off without Mr. Netanyahu in a leadership position. Then perhaps the world can come up with a viable plan to rebuild Palestine and work toward a two-state solution.
Nan Raphael, Washington
Sen. Van Hollen’s Israel views
Regarding Joe Davidson’s March 30 Federal Insider column, “Chris Van Hollen pressures Israel for more aid, fewer ‘war crimes’”:
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) courageously flagged the Biden’s administration’s violation of the Foreign Assistance Act and international humanitarian law. That law prohibits the United States from sending assistance or arms to a country that obstructs the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance. President Biden has refused to enforce it, instead continuing to deliver billions of dollars worth of weapons to Israel despite the daily accumulation of evidence that Israel is impeding the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance needed to forestall the widespread famine that humanitarian organizations warn is imminent.
The senator faults the Biden administration for neglecting tools to force Israel into compliance with international humanitarian law. But Congress is derelict in its duty, too. Lawmakers have held no televised hearings to expose Israel’s war crimes of deliberate withholding of food from civilians. They have not invoked the power of the purse or Senate filibusters to block additional weapons deliveries. And they have not explored an impeachment resolution warning Mr. Biden to faithfully execute the law as the Constitution requires or risk removal from office.
Congress possesses the constitutional tools to redress the grievances Mr Van Hollen has voiced against the Biden administration. The senator’s ire should be directed at his colleagues’ fecklessness. Mr. Biden should not be made a scapegoat for congressional dereliction of duty.
Bruce Fein, Washington
Joe Davidson and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) came across as unaware that Israel is fighting for its national survival, and for the lives of Jews who live there, in its war against Hamas.
Why do Mr. Davidson and Mr. Van Hollen completely ignore Israel’s claim that Hamas has long diverted incoming aid for its own use, rather than for the civilians for whom that aid is intended? And neither Mr. Davidson nor Mr.. Van Hollen appear to consider Israel’s need to check the supplies entering Gaza to prevent the import of more arms to Hamas. What nation is about to permit military assistance to flow to their sworn enemy?
And what does Mr. Davidson think he’s conveying by saying “Israel’s retaliation against Gaza has killed … 27 times the number who died Oct. 7”? Is there a death limit on an existential struggle? Should Hamas be allowed to fulfill its stated goal of obliterating the state of Israel and the destruction of the only Jewish nation in the world? Would that even up the balance sheet?
Edie Alexander, McLean
Flying into Trump International Airport
Regarding the April 3 Metro article “House Republicans put forth bill to rename Dulles Airport”
Perhaps proposing to rename Washington Dulles Airport after Donald Trump was an early April Fool’s joke?
What a preposterous idea! Dulles Airport was originally named for John Foster Dulles, a former secretary of state and U.N. General Assembly delegate who advised President Harry S. Truman despite their political differences. With Dulles Airport welcoming millions of international and American visitors to the nation’s capital, the idea that the name of the rudest, most divisive and most unwelcoming president in U.S. history should adorn the facility is frankly ridiculous.
Nicholas A. Morriss, Chevy Chase
Citizenship for adoptees
The Post’s April 2 obituary, “William Delahunt, congressman who eased international adoption, dies at 82,” rightly points out William Delahunt’s critical role in ensuring that internationally adopted children now have an easier path to obtain U.S. citizenship. Indeed, it has helped tens of thousands of children and families — including my own — by saving time, money and bureaucratic paperwork. Most importantly, it ensured that these children do indeed establish citizenship, which had not always happened. Unfortunately, with the benefit of hindsight, we now recognize this law was not enough. As The Post has previously reported, there remain adoptees left out of this important law. Mr. Delahunt’s crucial work helping adoptees is admirable; Congress should honor this legacy by closing the loopholes that leave a small but not insignificant number of adoptees without the citizenship rights they deserve.
Ryan Hanlon, Alexandria
The writer is president of the National Council for Adoption.
Kindness for the vaccine-skeptical parent
Regarding Dr. Leana S. Wen’s March 27 Wednesday Opinion column, “How to counter vaccine misinformation this election cycle,” and her March 28 Checkup newsletter, “The Checkup With Dr. Wen: Do you know a vaccine skeptic? Here are 10 simple responses.”:
In late March, the presidents of the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Medical Association advocated “a comprehensive effort to prevent the dissemination of medical misinformation.” Though a national public health strategy to reaffirm the value and safety of vaccines is essential, one-on-one conversations addressing childhood vaccine misinformation matter, too, and require a very different approach.
Fortunately, health-care professionals and even ordinary Americans don’t have to look far to find strategies they can use. In February, the American Academy of Pediatrics published strategies to improve vaccine communication for health-care professionals, which included establishing an honest dialogue, listening to parents’ concerns and welcoming questions.
In my experience as a pediatrician who has had thousands of conversations with parents about childhood vaccines, approaching one-on-one conversations with parents who have vaccine concerns with empathy and clear communication often results in vaccine acceptance. Most of these parents are not a part of the tiny but loud and dangerous anti-vaccine movement spreading vaccine misinformation. In conversation, mislabeling these concerned parents as “anti-vax,” “science deniers” or “conspiracy theorists” or wrongly assuming they will refuse all vaccines, which is still an extremely rare choice for parents to make in the United States, derails the opportunity to build trust and, ultimately, keep their children healthy by protecting them from vaccine-preventable diseases.
David M. Higgins, Centennial, Colo.
Christine Blasey Ford’s motivations
While I don’t normally address potshots aimed at me, I feel moved to correct the record on Kathleen Parker’s April 1 op-ed “Christine Blasey Ford is no hero, if justice is the measure.” Ms. Parker claims that my former client, Christine Blasey Ford, “wanted to block [Brett] Kavanaugh because of fears he would vote to reverse Roe v. Wade” and cites a speech I gave at a law school as support for this claim. This, as Ms. Parker ought to have known, is nonsense.
The idea that Christine Blasey Ford would come forward to stop Roe v. Wade’s reversal is absurd, for the simple reason that any nominee put forward by President Donald Trump would likely have voted to reverse Roe. In fact, they all did. She came forward because, in her words, it “was her civic duty to tell [us] what happened.”
Ignoring that testimony, Ms. Parker instead focused on remarks I made supporting both abortion rights and my then-client during a talk at University of Baltimore Law School. As Ms. Parker’s colleague, Ruth Marcus, wrote in her book “Supreme Ambition: Brett Kavanaugh and the Conservative Takeover,” conservative media sources falsely manipulated and conflated these topics in this speech. In Ms. Marcus’s words, “I found no indication … that Ford was motivated by a desire to protect Roe.”
I was right in saying that when Justice Kavanaugh takes “a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, ... we will know his character and we will know what motivates him, and that is important.” Knowing another aspect of his character is what motivated Christine Blasey Ford to come forward, at great personal risk to herself. The claim that she was motivated by politics is unfair, and not supported by the evidence.
Debra Katz, Washington
This was a very brave op-ed from Kathleen Parker.
Why is it that for Donald Trump, unproven is tantamount to disproven; but for Christine Blasey Ford, unproven is tantamount to proven?
Tom Hafer, Arlington
