Letters to the Editor
search
OpinionLetters

Letters to the Editor

(Photo from Flash90)
(Photo from Flash90)

Too much information
Regarding “Gun Policies Vary Widely Among Pittsburgh Congregations,” Jan. 31, we agree completely and support Mr. Andrew Neff from Upper St. Clair in his letter about this article on Feb 2.

Exposing and writing about specific shuls and their security and firearm protection for their congregants during services is not a wise or helpful idea. In fact, it is dangerous. This applies to synagogues in the South Hills and in the entire Pittsburgh area. By mentioning and opening up a commentary on the subject of guns as a key form of protection and which synagogues have or do not have such security, this information only provides an invitation for criminals to attack our Jewish places of worship and our people even more specifically and easily.

These pieces of “information” written in our own city’s Jewish publication should be more attentive to the protection of our synagogues while providing reading information to its subscribers that actually serve to protect our people. Never should information open the door to a wild person’s anti-Semitic urges to harm and kill. We need that tactical advantage at all times, as Mr. Neff clearly wrote in response to the original article well.

Robert and Audree Schall
Mt. Lebanon

Both sides now
Re: Your two opinion pieces on the Middle East peace plan: Generally, when there are two opinion pieces, the usual standard for journalist integrity and objective reporting calls a pro and a con position. However, both of the opinion pieces presented only the con position.

You could have included: an article by Caroline Glick (a member of Israel’s negotiating team with the PLO 1964-1966) who is very much in favor of the plan; or this tweet by Gov. Mike Huckabee: “Palestinians routinely rejected or ignored all previous plans. We will soon know if they want peace or poverty.” You could have referenced an Arab research center survey results showing “that Arab respondents preferred by a 10-to-1 ratio to remain Israeli citizens.” But you didn’t present anything from the “pro” peace plan side.

Furthermore, the headline of the lead article, “Locals voice skepticism, condemnation,” conveyed the impression that there was local skepticism about the peace plan, but closer reading showed that the skepticism was in reality about the sincerity of the Arab Palestinians’ desire for peace. A reader had to flip to page 14 to discover that “Mahmoud Abbas rejected the plan before it was released.”

A little journalist investigation would have likely found many Pittsburgh locals who thought the peace plan was a refreshing departure from multiple failed attempts to placate Arab leaders who have rejected every plan that allowed for anything less than total destruction of the Jewish state.

Next time please present both sides equitably.

Simone Shapiro
Squirrel Hill

read more:
comments