On the May issue:

Countering China

To the Editor:
Hal Brands wrote a very thought-provoking article that lays out a clear picture of the rise of China, its strengths and weaknesses, and the types of responses needed for the U.S. to address the various challenges posed by China’s rise (“China’s Creative Challenge—and the Threat to America,” May). The one place where the author seems to go too far, however, is in suggesting that China is seeking hegemony. It seems that what China wants is to find an equal place at the table where the global agenda is set and the rules are made. Simply stated, Beijing no longer feels it must accept the rules and norms as defined by the U.S. China wants a more pluralistic international order that reflects its growing power and influence in international affairs.  In this way, it can assert its interests and not be constantly leaned on to succumb to U.S. pressures in addressing global issues.
Denis Simon,
Senior Adviser to the President for China Affairs, Duke University
Durham, North Carolina

To the Editor:
What Hal Brands’s article misses is that China encourages competition and capitalism, whereas the U.S. has become skeptical about these things and insistent that they are primarily unfair to everyone. As a result, we are be-coming lazy and noncompetitive in many fields.

Thus, our graduate engineering schools, for example, are full of Chinese who learn from Americans and then go home to build a better Chinese economy. My son was in graduate school for engineering a few years back and a Chinese graduate student asked him what he was doing there. He had heard, after all, that Americans are too lazy to study engineering.
Gary Rosen
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

The Jews of Bergen-Belsen

To the Editor:
Meir Y. Soloveichik’s article brought me to tears (“The Nation of the Dry Bones,” May). I shed tears of sadness reading about the mom who survived the Holocaust but who thanked God for “the great privilege” of being able to bury her own daughter. And I shed tears of joy reading about the bride clothed in a British parachute. I am once again reminded why we need to support and defend the State of Israel. We have a moral obligation to protect the safe haven for Jews all over the world who face anti-Semitism and persecution. And we have a practical obligation to stand by the only democracy in the Middle East. I was taught by my father at a young age that “those who bless Israel will be blessed.” May America always be a blessing to Israel and be blessed for it. Thanks to Commentary for the special perspective it provides its readers.

Don Bacon,
Brig. Gen. (Retired),
Congressman,
Second District of Nebraska

To the Editor:
The death-camp ovens are not ancient history, and, today, there are defenders and apologists of them. These people wish to see the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of its Jews for a whole litany of supposed crimes.

Fortunately, we Jews have a land and a means to defend ourselves. It is well that Israel remembers its Shoah dead, a week later, the dead who fell in the defense of the Homeland, and the next day, after so much sorrow, we rejoice in our independence on our Land.
Rafi Marom
Haifa, Israel

Changes in Saudi Arabia

To the Editor:
Jonathan Schanzer’s great article about the United States and Saudi Arabia is the work of someone who really understands what’s going on (“Diplomatic Arson in the Middle East,” May). Perhaps the U.S. doesn’t want Saudi Arabia to prosper economically for fear that other countries in the region will follow suit, especially now that MBS has opened things up socially and economically.
Nasser Alhumaid
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Jonathan Schanzer writes:
In the weeks since this piece appeared in the pages of Commentary, Saudi Arabia has launched a grassroots effort in Washington and around the country to cultivate support for the Kingdom. Saudi crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman recently lambasted the hardline religious establishment—the Wahhabi institutions and clerics—in his own country. The continued marginalization of extremists is a very positive sign for the Kingdom. Meanwhile, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan al-Saud spoke several times with Secretary of State Antony Blinken during the course of the Gaza conflict. Blinken thanked Saudi Arabia for playing a positive role in helping to broker a cease-fire. At the same time, however, troubling reports suggest that Riyadh is conducting diplomatic outreach to the Islamic Republic of Iran, an apparent gesture in response to the Biden administration’s efforts to reengage in the flawed 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Saudi Arabia must tread carefully here. Riyadh’s failure to uphold its own principles in countering the world’s most prolific state sponsor of terrorism could undermine its leadership across the region. Patience, tenacity, and adherence to the reforms already underway—not appeasement—will ultimately guide Saudi Arabia out of the current crisis with Washington.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Heroine

To the Editor:
What a lovely article by Brian Stewart (“Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs. the Mob,” May). I doubt it will be read by many progressives or considered by journalists currently employed at places like the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, or similar outlets in Europe. They avoid the entire discussion of the betrayal of women by the left and instead engage in the obscenity of labelling as Islamophobic all criticism of Islamism.  It’s far easier to defend backward chauvinists and attack Israel—whose successful record on women’s rights cannot even be compared with the record of other Middle Eastern countries.
Richard Sherwin
Herzliya, Israel

To the Editor:
Reading Brian Stewart’s article, it’s interesting to consider that postmodern liberals say all cultures are equal. Thus, when confronted with the abuse of women so prevalent in Muslim cultures, liberal disapproval falls, not on the oppressive culture, but on those who’d condemn it. It is the latter group that is accused of hate, intolerance, bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and racism. Upholding the equality of all cultures requires tolerance and indulgence of atrocities.
Jim Austin
Crestline, California

Victim Journalists

To the Editor:
What an excellent article from Christine Rosen (“Help! Help! We’re Being Oppressed!” May). I am not myself in media, but it might interest you to know that I can see the same phenomenon at work here in Germany. Criticism of any kind is often considered an attack, a violation of a “safe space,” or an “upsetting experience” that should come with a “trigger warning.” If you add to this the inflammatory use of words such as “attack” or “assault”—which seem to cover everything nowadays, from actual physical attacks to verbal insults—public discourse in the age of social media has become a minefield littered with emotional bombs waiting to be detonated.
Tobias Budke
Rheine, Germany

Christine Rosen writes:
I appreciate Tobias Budke’s letter, although it is disheartening to hear that America is now exporting pernicious concepts such as the expansion of “safe spaces” and the elevation of emotional experience over factual knowledge in the public sphere. Mr. Budke also makes an important observation—which I think should serve as a warning—with regard to language.

The appeal to abstractions seen in the use of phrases such as “structural racism,” the now-trendy use of the word “bodies” rather than “people,” and ubiquitous claims about “white supremacy” weaken rather than inform our national conversation. Their use is becoming more popular because they are effective tools for silencing debate, not because they offer greater clarity or insight into complex issues. Disagreements used to be the beginning of something—a debate, a conversation, a vigorous intellectual feud—but when one side deems the other irredeemably racist or sexist or transphobic or imperialist, all opportunity for honest discussion ceases. If one side views the other as evil or malign, how can compromise or persuasion happen? And at a time of polarized politics and declining faith in institutions, we need media that foster complicated conversations, rather than merely regurgitating the ideologically trendy argument of the day.