Diament’s double

Orthodox Union public policy director Nathan Diament achieived an impressive feat on Saturday. He had letters to the editor printed in both the New York Times and Washington Post on the same day — and they were on two different topics.

First, his missive in the Post, about Obama’s proposal to reduce the charitable tax deduction:

E.J. Dionne Jr. ["Deficit Dodge Ball," op-ed, March 26] defended President Obama’s proposal to reduce the tax deduction for charitable contributions by echoing Mr. Obama’s assertion that it is unfair for higher-income donors to get a larger tax break for their gifts. He also said that Mr. Obama’s plan would only reduce charitable giving "marginally," by about $4 billion annually.

Although in Washington budget debates a $4 billion reduction might seem "marginal," in the charitable sector it will likely have a devastating impact — especially on small community and social welfare institutions. Also, the study Mr. Dionne cited is at the low end, with others predicting a greater drop-off in giving.

Moreover, if the goal is tax policy "fairness," there is another way to achieve that result while bolstering America’s charities: Rather than reducing the deduction rate for higher-income donors, we could raise the deduction rate for middle-income donors. This would not only spur more charitable giving in our times of great need, but it would also further another of the president’s goals: cutting taxes for the middle class.

Yes, health-care reform is critical, and it must be paid for, but not by placing the burden on America’s charities and those they serve.

NATHAN J. DIAMENT

Director of Public Policy

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

Washington

And in the Times, a letter defending soon-to-be Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s willingness to seek peace:

To the Editor:

You assert criteria by which Benjamin Netanyahu, after becoming the Israeli prime minister, can be defined as being “serious about seeking peace.” Those criteria are the same cant that has been recycled for years and lack any creativity that might break the conflict out of its dead-end cycle.

One could view Mr. Netanyahu’s work to forge a broader coalition containing doves and hawks as the best evidence to date of his commitment to creative and pragmatic approaches to Israel’s challenges, which include seeking peace.

We do not know what Mr. Netanyahu will do and what might succeed. But perhaps at the dawn of a new Israeli government working with a new American administration, we should be open to new thinking about how to attack old problems.

Nathan J. Diament
Dir. of Public Policy, Union of Orthodox
Jewish Congregations of America
Washington, March 27, 2009

The same Times letters page features another letter defending Netanyahu from Menachem Rosensaft, one of five American Jews who met with Yasser Arafat in 1988 — leading to the first PLO recognition of Israel:

To the Editor:

Re “Being a Partner for Peace” (editorial, March 27):

As a longtime supporter of the Israeli peace movement, I believe that based on Benjamin Netanyahu’s record as prime minister in the late 1990s, he may turn out to be more pragmatic and moderate than his out-of-power political rhetoric suggests.

Although Mr. Netanyahu had previously vehemently opposed and denounced both Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization and any negotiations with Yasir Arafat, the P.L.O. leader, Prime Minister Netanyahu in October 1998 lunched with Mr. Arafat in Gaza before meeting with him at the Wye River Plantation in Maryland to negotiate a significant United States-sponsored interim Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. He then shook hands with Mr. Arafat at the signing ceremony at the White House.

During those negotiations, Mr. Netanyahu associated himself and his hard-line Likud Party with the fundamental principle that Israel must be prepared to trade land for peace.

Acceptance of a peace process by dovish Israelis and Palestinians is largely irrelevant. For any such process to be successful, it must have the support of the Israeli and Palestinian mainstream individuals and groups most likely to distrust its very feasibility.

Mr. Netanyahu has said that his government will be a “partner for peace.” If past is prologue, he may well be true to his word.

Menachem Z. Rosensaft
New York, March 27, 2009