LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Parallels to Vietnam and Gaza

In the 1960s, students saw the horrors of the Vietnam War with clear eyes. Lacking our parents’ unconditional support for our allies (any anti-Communist regime, no matter how repressive), we saw that any war against a popular resistance kills many more innocent people than combatants. Our government repressed that insight. We protested even harder, trying to get the country to listen. Instead, it arrested, beat and killed the dissenters.

Today’s youth are again protesting a war against a whole people. They are directly affected by the horror and senselessness of the war. They are not blinded by political allegiances into believing that such a war can be “won” by more killing by either side.

Rather than incorporating their wisdom into our actions on Gaza, our institutions are citing “law and order” to suppress dialogue. As then, conservatives are piling on. Nixon then (and Trump now) hype, not just the protests, but the more violent repression of them, as signs of an American chaos, rather than a serious disagreement about our country’s moral direction. Their answer was and is to stifle the discussion with a more repressive government, unmoored from constitutional laws. Last time, that got us seven more years of Vietnam, hundreds of thousands more deaths and a rogue president.

The way out of this danger is honest, unhysterical, shared decision-making about what we as a country should do about Gaza. Anything less will lead to many more civilian and hostage deaths and our own authoritarian nightmare.

James Dealy, Providence

Netanyahu is creating his own Vietnam

For many Americans, the word “Vietnam” means unwinnable war. Israel, under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, in continuing its fight against Hamas is creating its own Vietnam.

Israel cannot win in Gaza. It is up against an enemy who hides in plain sight or goes underground into a 310-mile tunnel system that is half as big as New York’s subway system. Hamas’ guerrilla tactics are not unlike those of the Vietcong, who also built hundreds of miles of tunnels, many containing conference rooms, arms factories, aid stations, even hospitals.

The United States lost that war.

Every bomb Israel drops on Gaza creates new members of Hamas. With 32,000 Palestinians killed and 73,000 injured since the war began, imagine the number of Palestine teenagers and young adults who every day see their parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends, girlfriends and boyfriends killed or maimed by Israel’s indiscriminate bombing. How many, do you think, want to fight back?

Yes, the Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel in which 695 Israelis were killed and 240 hostages were taken was horrible, but it has drawn Israel into a war that is many times worse in terms of deaths and destruction. And, it’s unwinable. Additionally, it has diminished Israel’s standing in the world and created a new wave of antisemitism.

Gordon Rowley, Wakefield

Democrats’ ‘hostility’ towards motherhood

Are members of the Democratic Party on a mission to eliminate motherhood? They relentlessly promote legislation that enables and, I would argue, encourages pregnant women to terminate their pregnancies. No baby means no mother.

Birth prevention has become an integral part of Democratic Party politics. Most Democratic candidates for office begin their campaigns by declaring their pro-abortion (they euphemistically call it prochoice) bona fides.

How do we explain the Democrats’ hostility towards babies and motherhood? Why do they regard pregnancy as a pathological condition in need of a medical intervention?

I don’t know the answer to those troubling questions. What I do know is that their perverse anti-maternity mindset is antithetical to a healthy society. Something needs to be done about it.

This Mother’s Day, let’s push back against the Democrats’ malevolent assault on motherhood. For starters, we can resolve to vote pro-abortion Democrats out of office in November.

Resolve to do that for the good of our country. Do it because it’s the right thing to do. And do it to honor your mom on Mother’s Day.

A. H. Liddle, Warwick

Another approach to the gender different

Joseph H. Crowley’s column “No reason for anyone to fear gender different” (Commentary, May 5) indicated that our society is very good “at protecting those born with issues that make them different…” He earlier listed Down’s syndrome as such an issue. Does his commitment to the different extend to civilly protecting the lives of those with Down’s before they are born when most are killed?

He has doubts about some of the opposite gender claims of troubled teens when he argues for extensive psychological supports before any decisions are made. But why would puberty blocking drugs and surgery make sense even after counseling? Such approaches are about as ethical as liposuction for anorexics.

He speaks of major religions as bullies in this matter, but the real bullies here are certain public school administrators pressuring teachers into referring to boys as girls, etc., against their consciences and sane minds. This type of bullying can go on in families as well.

A Pope Francis-approved statement recently said that “desiring a personal self-determination, as gender theory prescribes, apart from this fundamental truth that human life is a gift, amounts to a concession to the age-old temptation to make oneself God, entering into competition with the true God of love revealed to us in the Gospel.”

Yes, Mr. Crowley, we are all God’s children, but your approach does not treat some who are confused and vulnerable as such.

William P. McKenna, Cranston

Give neighbors a better say in development

“GOAL: Promote and manage growth through land development while sustaining Providence’s high quality of life and preserving its unique attributes.”

Thus begins the Draft Comprehensive Plan for Providence. A healthy edit might read: “GOAL: Cultivate, nurture, and manage Providence’s high quality of life and preserve its attributes.”

“Promote and manage growth” is political/developer speak. It’s a subtle word play that lets the unsuspecting think that the citizens who pay for city government consent to it. But it is planners and developers who promote growth. They get paid for it. And the citizens are the ones who pay. Growth should begin with citizens, not politicians and developers.

Anyone who wants to build should begin with contacting neighbors. Let the builders convince their neighbors first. If the neighborhood thinks it is a good idea, only then invite the planning department to weigh the entire city’s impact. Projects are reviewed by the neighborhood first, Planning Department next. Projects would succeed if neighborhoods could see some benefit.

Maybe the Comprehensive Plan could include language which gives advantage to neighborhoods from the new tax revenue that accrues from the project in their neighborhood. Nonprofit projects might have a formula which lowers neighborhood taxes. Maybe projects entice with employment opportunities.

The point is that developers and politicians should serve citizens and not the other way around.

Joe Cornwall, Providence