On the March issue:

Gaza’s Future

To the Editor:
Elliott Abrams’s analysis of Gaza was excellent (“‘Gaza Shall Be Forsaken,’” March). I would only add that the Palestinian cause has been subsumed in Gaza by radical Islamist ideology. Aspects of this belief system have existed in the Palestinian body politic for a long time (e.g., the mufti of Jerusalem).  But the rise of radical Islam in the Muslim world and its adoption in Gaza is a major factor in the unwillingness of other Arab countries to accept Gazan refugees who would threaten the stability of their regi-mes. This was not the case when Palestinians fled from their homes in 1948 and settled in much of the Arab world.

Transforming Gaza into a modern, productive state is impossible as long as this poisonous ideology dominates the territory. Abrams cites Haiti as an example of a failed state. But Gaza is different because its economic and political rehabilitation could only take place with the deradicalization of the populace; this would likely require the active
involvement of moderate Muslim states, and its chances of success are far from clear.

Deradicalization of Germany and Japan took place under American occupation. But Iraq and Afghanistan proved that this is far more difficult in societies that reject the values necessary for economic and political success.
Paul Efron
Palm Beach, Florida

To the Editor:
I enjoyed Elliott Abrams’s article about Gaza. With the Arab world unwilling to take in Gazan refugees and refugees potentially refusing to leave, I cannot imagine how Donald Trump’s plans can be realized. Where would these 2 million people go if nobody wants to take them?
Maria Wagner
Mandurah, Australia

To the Editor:
I found Elliott Abrams’s essay about Gaza most interesting. My takeaway is this: If “Gaza shall be forsaken” is the eternal message of prophet Zephaniah, holding in the present and presumably into the future, will that not also apply to Donald Trump’s vision of a French Riviera in the Middle East?  Why spend billions, if not trillions, on reconstruction, if Gaza is coming down again anyway?
James Lutzweiler
Jamestown, North Carolina

Elliott Abrams writes:
I thank all three correspondents for their comments. For reasons all three suggest, Gaza is most likely to look as it does now in one year, or three, or five. Arab states will not take many Gazans, or waste fortunes on reconstruction projects that Israel would have to destroy if Hamas again tries to assault Israel and then hide behind civilian targets. Paul Efron’s focus on ideology is right, and today—a year and a half after the October 7 massacres—the new Palestinian Authority curriculum designed for use in Gaza continues to teach hatred of Jews, glorify terrorism, and erase Israel from the maps. No one is going to deradicalize Gaza except Gazans, who will either rise up against Hamas or face a future that looks very much like their past.

Assessing Trump

To the Editor:
John Podhoretz provides an excellent perspective on Donald Trump (“Trump 2: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” March). His argument is well stated and comprehensively documented. With so much bias in the media today, this was a breath of fresh air.

Now the question is: Will Trump do himself in by overreaching? Put another way, will his ego damage the positive achievements? I certainly hope not.
Roger Gross
Indian Land, South Carolina

To the Editor:
A great piece by John Podhoretz, as usual. Trump must learn to be less incontinent. And I wonder if he has a trusted adviser, someone to counsel him on the importance of the “long view.” Executive orders are subject to change. The president needs to persuade recalcitrant Republicans to enact bills that he can sign into law.
Steve Ostafy
King George, Virginia

On the AAP

To the Editor:
I appreciate Christine Rosen’s engagement with the problems at the American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAPalling,” March). She is correct to emphasize the importance of parents seeking accurate medical information from pediatricians.

Rosen’s critique of the AAP’s stance on gender-affirming care raises valid concerns, especially given the more cautious approaches now adopted in Sweden, Finland, and the UK Systematic reviews have led these countries to reassess medical transitions for minors, and it is appropriate to question whether the AAP has been too quick to embrace an affirmative-only model while downplaying uncertainties in the evolving research. Scientific institu-tions must be willing to correct course when necessary, and gender-affirming care should be subject to the same rigorous scrutiny, debate, and reassessment as any other area of medicine.

I was surprised, however, that the article focused almost entirely on the past five years and overlooked decades of evidence-based advocacy that has saved millions of children’s lives.

Since its founding in 1930, the AAP has played a critical role in shaping pediatric care, leading to landmark improvements in child health. AAP advocacy helped eliminate polio, measles, and diphtheria. It also supporting universal hepatitis B and HPV vaccination to prevent cancer. The AAP’s “Back to Sleep” campaign cut SIDS deaths by 50 percent, and its work in neonatal intensive care has saved thousands of premature infants. From promoting car-seat laws to drowning prevention, the AAP has drastically reduced childhood fatalities. The AAP has been a leader in treatment guidelines for depression, suicide prevention, and ADHD. The AAP fought for lead removal from gasoline, paint, and water, preventing millions of cases of childhood neurotoxicity. And the AAP helped develop PALS and neonatal resuscitation guidelines, now global standards for saving critically ill children.

One of the most fundamental principles in medicine—and science as a whole—is that knowledge evolves as new evidence emerges. Public health recommendations during an unprecedented global pandemic required constant re-evaluation, adjustment, and humility in the face of uncertainty. This is not evidence of ideological bias—this is the scientific method in action: We form hypotheses, test them, analyze data, refine our understanding, and, when necessary, correct course.

This is particularly relevant to the ongoing debate over gender-affirming care. While the AAP has taken a stance based on its interpretation of the available evidence, the shifts occurring in Europe should prompt rigorous, open discourse and reassessment. Just as we expect scientific institutions to refine their positions on vaccines, mental health, or nutrition, we should expect the same level of scrutiny, humility, and adaptation when it comes to complex and evolving areas of medicine. A defining strength of scientific institutions such as the AAP is their willingness to self-correct. The ability to acknowledge mistakes, update positions, and refine best practices is not a weakness but a hallmark of intellectual integrity—something that all institutions, and people, should aspire to. On this, we agree.

Can the AAP do better? Of course. But the real question is: How should we respond to what we have learned?

If Rosen’s position is that parents should trust their pediatricians, then she must also acknowledge that pediatricians overwhelmingly recognize the AAP’s value—even if they don’t always agree with every stance it takes.

Dismissing the AAP as a politicized institution risks undermining public trust in pediatricians, the very people who care for children based on the best available medical evidence.
David Sandweiss, M.D.
Salt Lake City

To the Editor:
Christine Rosen’s column on the AAP is spot-on. I am a founder of a children’s primary-care medical group in San Diego. For six years, I was the president of the California AAP District. And I have received two of the highest AAP career-achievement awards. I am currently on the AAP Committee on Philanthropy and have been waging a battle to reform the AAP and, especially, to rid it of internal anti-Semitism.

Your story vindicates my argument, and I am grateful. Keep up the amazing work.
Stuart Cohen, M.D.
San Diego

Christine Rosen writes:
I appreciate Dr. Sandweiss reminding readers of the many successful, evidence-based public-health campaigns in the AAP’s past. My argument is not meant to cast doubt on those accomplishments.  

Rather, it is meant as a reminder that when an organization violates people’s trust too many times and with no acknowledgement of its errors, it ceases to matter if its past work was good. The credibility of the organization is called into question going forward. This is especially concerning when it comes to public health and to the treatment of children. One of the reasons ideological capture of institutions is so corrosive, as the AAP’s political maneuvering around Covid school closures during the first Trump administration and its subsequent uncritical embrace of transgender activists’ claims demonstrate, is that it makes it difficult to determine whether its recommendations come from the rigorous scientific scrutiny Dr. Sandweiss describes—or if they are merely an expression of political and ideological activism.

As long as the AAP remains intransigent on its transgender messaging and indulges the anti-Semitism of some of its members it will continue to alienate parents and well-intentioned medical practitioners. 

Dr. Cohen is one of many voices that have been trying to warn the organization of this danger. Reform of an institution is possible and should be encouraged, but until such reform succeeds in changing the culture of the AAP, parents should treat its recommendations with the skepticism it has unfortunately earned. 

The Podcast and the Magazine

To the Editor:
John Podhoretz’s column about COMMENTARY’s purpose was grounding and refreshing (“Constant Commentary,” March). It is very uncommon to find people taking a stand on values, so I listen to the COMMENTARY podcast every weekday. The recommendations segments have led me to multiple enriching experiences that I would likely have missed otherwise. And I turn to the pages of the magazine more and more.

When John Podhoretz read the words of Yarden Bibas spoken at the funeral for his murdered family, I already knew what had been said. Even so, I was riveted and pained to listen. I felt that I owed it to Podhoretz and the family not to turn my face and ears away from this evil. As a Catholic, I am conflicted between the appetite for vengeance and teachings on forgiveness. I find myself most often embracing the former. From COMMENTARY, I have come to understand the feeling of family that prevails in Israel. I happen to have a grandson and granddaughter close in age to the Bibas children. Each also shows a beautiful tinge of red hair. There are members of our species who would squeeze the life from them with bare hands if the opportunity presented. I pray that the IDF or other Israeli defenders will track down every person who touched the Bibas family and send them where the flames do not end and the worms do not die.

You do God’s work. Don’t stop.
Will Clarke
Manhattan Beach, California