Letters to the Editor | April 25, 2025

On behalf of the Philadelphia Business Improvement District (BID) Alliance, we applaud The Inquirer’s editorial on the Open Streets initiative. The Center City District’s effort to reimagine corridors as pedestrian-friendly spaces exemplifies smart urban planning that benefits both communities and local businesses.

Increases in foot traffic and sales, along with reduced noise and nuisance behavior, highlight the broad value of these events. Such outcomes support the BID Alliance’s mission to foster vibrant, safe, and inclusive commercial corridors across the city.

We propose the city make safety measures — like the vehicle barriers used for Open Streets — available not only to Philadelphia’s 16 BIDs, which form the alliance, but also to community development corporations and civic groups that organize people-centered events. Philadelphia has a strong tradition of activating public space, from block parties to cultural festivals.

With the 2026 Semiquincentennial approaching, now is the time to invest in resources that help communities safely and affordably host public events. These supports would ease rising costs of permits, insurance, and security — advancing the mayor’s vision for a safer, cleaner, and greener Philadelphia with access to economic opportunity for all.

Katie Hanford, executive director, East Passyunk Avenue Business Improvement District, Job Itzkowitz, executive director, Old City District, and Sarah Steltz, senior vice president of strategy, University City District

Thank you, Bucknell University professors Michael Drexler, Ron Smith, and Clare Sammells, for your clear explanation of the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism via the adoption of the Jerusalem Declaration.

Your explanation of this distinction, and the nuances involved, will facilitate healthy debate on what is happening in the Middle East and will clarify what is and is not clearly antisemitic speech. In so doing, you will protect students, faculty, and the public who wish to protest Israeli policy and behavior from being prosecuted for antisemitism.

Hopefully, more institutions will adopt the Jerusalem Declaration and discard the dangerous definitions, internal conflicts, and presuppositions of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s position.

Jeffrey Plaut, Elkins Park, [email protected]

The op-ed by the Bucknell University professors provides a convincing defense of protest, something I wholly support, even if the protest includes offensive speech. However, in terms of “clarifying antisemitism and anti-Israel criticism,” the op-ed doesn’t help. And it’s really not that hard. Saying Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal, that too many children are dying in Gaza, or that Palestinians are abused, might be right or wrong, but it is not necessarily antisemitic. Israelis can feel that way. But saying Israel has no right to exist, that it is a colonial racist state, that it is committing a genocide, are all contemptible lies and are antisemitic. The authors of this piece are right on the line. They say a definition of antisemitism that includes the words “claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavor” contradicts the idea that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled at any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” But there is no contradiction. No other country has its existence questioned, and its people all called racist. There are millions of Israeli citizens of color, Jews and Palestinians, who support Israel. And the authors defend language that includes the words “between the river and the sea,” which has a history of supporting the elimination of Israel. And while I suspect the authors support an equal binational state — one of the solutions they list — anyone who knows the history of Jews being expelled from almost every Middle Eastern country agrees Jews need a state of their own.

Barry Kirzner, Philadelphia

America’s Little Napoleon is fond of the original’s quote: “He who saves his country does not violate any law.” Donald Trump is transmogrifying the U.S. Supreme Court’s judicial overreach, granting him immunity from crimes committed in office, into immunizing his illegal or unconstitutional acts themselves from judicial review. Opposition to such acts does not “deny the American people the executive actions they voted for,” as squawked by Harrison Fields. They voted for a president, not sweeping tariffs, gutting Social Security, and other unilateral actions opposed by a majority of voters. In Trump’s administration, responsibility for bad decisions rests with the American people, not the president.

Steven Miller’s claim that “the whole will of democracy has been imbued into the president” is overinflated. Jean-Jacques Rousseau distinguished between general will, the collective will of citizens focused on the public interest, and the will of all, i.e., “whole will.”

Miller seems to argue that when a president is elected, their actions represent the collective will of all Americans. That is hogwash, and a claim never uttered by a Republican when Barack Obama was president.

The GOP Congress is afraid to challenge Trump’s actions. It is up to the courts to ensure the three branches of government remain separate but equal, and the executive branch is not allowed to ignore and usurp the authority of the other two branches. Germany’s Third Reich serves as a stark warning.

Stewart Speck, Ardmore

In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made a deal with Germany that gave Adolf Hitler the Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia. In return, the rest of Europe would be safe from German aggression. A year after the resulting Munich Agreement was signed, Germany invaded Poland.

Replace Chamberlain with Marco Rubio, Hitler with Vladimir Putin, and the Sudetenland with Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and you can get the picture.

Bill Maginnis, North Wales

How many false steps does an unqualified, cabinet-level secretary get to make before he is dismissed? In my decades-long experience with sensitive issues, I would have lost my security clearance (and my job) had I had one of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s security lapses, and he has had two! Long past time to step down or be fired.

Paul Tierney, Villanova

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was a bad choice from the get-go. It took a tiebreaking vote from Vice President JD Vance to confirm him for a position he was eminently unqualified to assume. In just 90 days, he has proved himself to be a danger to the nation and the men and women of the armed forces under his leadership. Donald Trump, stubborn to his core, announced Hegseth is not in danger of being removed. Too bad for us, but even more so for the U.S. It is now up to Congress to rid the U.S. Department of Defense of its very bad and unreliable leader by way of impeachment. The Democrats in the House and Senate recognize that removing Hegseth is imperative. What are the Republicans waiting for?

David Kahn, Boca Raton, Fla.

Join the conversation: Send letters to [email protected]. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.