At issue: Secretary of State Antony Blinken's letter to Israel calling for easing restrictions on Gaza.
An election eve letter sent to Israel by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is an apparent in-kind donation to Vice President Kamala Harris to stem the exodus of Arab American voters in the key battleground state of Michigan. (“Blinken’s Letter”) Salacious Letter,” editorial, October 16).
Biden and others have also called on Israel to refrain from attacking Iran's oil and nuclear facilities following Iran's second deadly ballistic missile attack. Which side is the Biden-Harris administration on?
james hyland
Beach Hurst
Mr. Blinken's letter is all conversation, no walking.
He is not “threatening” Israel in any meaningful way. One section listed ways Israel could lift restrictions on food and aid that Gaza desperately needs, as if Israel would listen and care.
Mr. Blinken is a staunch supporter of Israel, which has continued to pursue genocide against the Palestinians without hindrance for more than a year. Considering that fact, the little letter means nothing.
leon bader
brooklyn
American assets are deployed in Israel's neighborhood, sending a signal to Iran that it supports its allies.
But that message is being diluted day by day by Blinken's letter and the various debates over what targets are off-limits for Israeli retaliation.
It is difficult to ignore significant anti-Semites within the Democratic Party.
The moral thing for Democrats to do is isolate them. A big chance.
leonard toborov
Miami, Florida
To be clear, a country was attacked and its allies told it to shut up and sit down.
The Biden-Harris administration's weakness is that it is destroying allies.
Philip Vallone
ossining
The Biden-Harris administration has betrayed its allies with a deeply misguided foreign policy.
Far from supporting Israel, Messrs. Biden and Harris are interfering in Israel's domestic policy, undermining its wartime leadership, threatening to halt military shipments, and seeking to control the IDF's combat plans.
stanley rubin
fresh meadows
At issue: The upcoming vote in New York on the controversial and confusing ballot item, Proposition 1.
Proposition 1 adds a hodgepodge of new characteristics as protected categories: age and autonomy (“Proposition 1 is anti-parent,” Kelly Eustis, Post Opinion, October 17).
Adding age along with the right to autonomy to anti-discrimination legislation essentially turns children into de facto wards of the state and nullifies the role of parents.
Proposition 1 does not benefit civil society. This is a social engineering project in which the state controls individual behavior.
Linda Cebrian
Rhinebeck
Eustis had no idea that there were actually transgender people who discovered their gender identity without ever being exposed to what she called “radical transgender ideology” in school. It seems like it was.
Children are not personal property that parents can control based on political bias. Children are individuals who need to be supported as they are.
As a mother of two whose friends have transitioned, as well as many of my transgender adult friends (I had one in high school, and I have no regrets), I can relate to Mr. Eustis's panic. I think the biased statement you made is completely off base. .
In the name of a free society with equal rights for all, I fully support Proposition 1 and fully support transgender people.
Katherine Diekman
manhattan
Want to weigh in on today's story? Send your thoughts (including your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters may be edited for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
