Letters to the Editor, September 15, 2025: The legal consequences

This is not a fringe extremist movement. This is what the Left has become.  According to a Network Contagion Research Institute poll, 48% of liberals believe it is at least somewhat justified to murder Elon Musk. 55% said the same about Trump.

Kirk, a leading figure of the American Right and unabashed Israel supporter, believed in open, respectful debate. He engaged in spirited conversations with college students, often winning them over with the power of his words. For him, freely speaking your mind was the bedrock of American democracy.

The Left believes otherwise. To them, words are violence. Even the tiniest insult requires harsh retribution. One side of the debate must be silenced while those who are least capable of rationally defending their positions rule society.

Kirk spoke prophetically in April about the Left’s growing violence: “Any setback, whether losing an election or a court case, justifies a maximalist violent response.  This is the natural outgrowth of left-wing protest culture tolerating violence and mayhem.”

Those who commit these despicable acts must suffer the legal consequences. The cowards who incite this violence from the comfort of their computer screen or undeserved podium are morally bankrupt and beneath contempt.

Declaring that there will never be a Palestinian state can be understood, after multiple refusals to accept one, after the horrific result of creating a pseudo-state in Gaza, and after over 100 years of their determination to annihilate the Jewish state.

Still, since we don’t want to lose our majority in Israel, we are creating a group of stateless people of five million or so. This is the way to kill the Abraham Accords, plunge Israel further into isolation, and ensure everlasting terror. That is no path to peace.

What should be done is to create an autonomy for the Palestinians, something like the Kurds in Iraq and, maybe, in Syria, but with security in Israel’s hands.

They should know that if they stop pay-for-slay and begin to teach their children that cooperation with Israel will bring them benefits that killing Jews and martyrdom will not, and if, after five years, maybe more, they have built the institutions needed and proved that they will be a friendly state alongside us, they could have one.

It still thinks that Israel, the collective Jew, should know its place and should accept the world’s diktats as to what is good for it.

In that sense it has always been obvious that the real drive toward a Palestinian state and a “two-state solution” is not a secure peace for Israel, but rather a permanently weak and indefensible Israel dependent on Western benevolence.

The obvious response to the near certainty of the UK, France and Canada recognizing the phantom state of Palestine at the UN this month is for Israel to belatedly rejoin the liberated Judea and Samaria to it by removing the misplaced laws of war to the territory and applying Israeli civilian law, as real international law requires – a public declaration of its sovereignty.

James Mcdonald, the first US ambassador to Israel, describes in his book My Mission In Israel 1948-1951 how, after prime minister David Ben-Gurion stood up to US president Harry Truman’s demands by resolutely refusing to give way, the relationship between the two countries was permanently reset to one of mutual respect.

Israel must make its opposition clear through diplomacy, and, if necessary, military action now, in order to avoid large-scale kinetic action in the future.