Make Every Effort
New York City
October 8, 2026
Dear David:
This letter seconds that of Dianne Benson, “Soggy Bread,” that was published in The Star on Oct. 1 — and not just because of the damage that white bread, cereal, or bagels can do to the ducks that inhabit the village’s beloved Nature Trail duck pond. Humans should make every effort to avoid those products, too, and replace them with whole grain alternatives. Why? White flour lacks many valuable nutrients found in whole wheat, most notably fiber, which is often deficient in the average American diet.
I have been buying and using the excellent whole wheat flour from Amber Waves in Amagansett for years, with excellent results, even for pies. Now, would somebody please come up with a lobster roll on a whole grain bun?
Sincerely,
FLORENCE FABRICANT
On the Table
East Hampton
October 6, 2026
Dear Editor:
On World Food Day, people around the globe will discuss hunger, sustainability, and how to feed a growing population. There is another question worth asking: What are we feeding our food to?
Vast quantities of crops, land, and water are used to raise animals which are then eaten by people. It is a remarkably resource-intensive way to produce food, especially while hundreds of millions of people face hunger.
Ending animal agriculture alone will not solve the political and economic causes of food insecurity, but that does not make the system sensible. If we were designing tomorrow’s food system today, would we build it this way?
We have an opportunity to grow more food for direct human consumption, expand affordable plant-based choices, support farmers through a fair transition, and spare countless animals. A more efficient, equitable, and compassionate future is possible — and it is worth putting on the table.
ELIJAH HANNESBURG
Would Scare Us
East Hampton
October 12, 2026
Dear Editor:
Ghosts? Fun! Zombies? Bring them on! Haunted houses? We’ll take two tickets! But this Halloween, there is something genuinely frightening we should talk about.
Every day, animals are transported into slaughterhouses most of us will never see. What happens inside is kept far away from grocery stores, restaurant menus, and cheerful food packaging. We even use comfortable words like “beef,” “pork,” and “poultry” to help us forget who our food once was. Maybe that is because looking too closely would scare us.
Here is the good news: Halloween horror is supposed to be pretend. We can fill our parties with plant-based candy, cook frighteningly good vegan food, carve pumpkins, dress like monsters, and celebrate everything wonderfully weird about October without making the night terrifying for anyone else.
This Halloween, save the screams for the haunted house and leave animals off the menu.
EDWIN HORATH
Pursuing His Dream
East Hampton
September 27, 2026
Dear David Rattray,
I am writing to recognize an entrepreneur whose roots in East Hampton run deep and whose new business, Georgica Fuel, reflects the hard-working spirit of our community.
Zachary Suhr was born and raised in East Hampton and is proud to call this town home. His family heritage includes generations before him that have served the community in many ways, including whalers, fishermen, keepers of the Montauk lighthouse, law enforcement, and more. Zac’s grandfather Carl Dordelman reigned as chief of police for over 30 years here in East Hampton.
Growing up here, Zac developed a strong appreciation for the people, traditions, and sense of community that make the Hamptons such a special place. Those values have stayed with him and inspired him to build a business that serves the communities that helped shape him. His new fuel delivery company, Georgica Fuel, provides reliable, professional fuel delivery throughout the Hamptons. By launching this business, Zac is not only pursuing his dream, but also investing in the local economy and providing a valuable service to the region.
Small businesses are the backbone of our communities, and it’s encouraging to see a lifelong East Hampton resident choosing to build his future here. We hope the community will support Zac’s new venture and celebrate the dedication, hard work, and Bonac pride that have made it possible. We wish him every success as he grows his business to continue serving the people of the Hamptons.
Sincerely,
JESSICA DANIELL
Ban Year Round
East Hampton
October 12, 2026
Dear David,
Here are the legal arguments for making the ban on gas leaf blowers year round:
In addition to the public health and economic arguments for extending the ban on gas leaf blowers year round, there are compelling legal arguments for the town to come into compliance with its own laws and regulations.
Let’s look at why gas leaf blowers are so destructive to our communities, our public health, and the environment. It goes without saying that blowing animal feces, benzene, fertilizers, and herbicides at 200 miles per hour through our neighborhoods can’t be considered healthy.
Gas leaf blowers use simple two-stroke engines that mix fuel and oil together in a single combustion chamber. This mixed-fuel design results in the release of unburnt lubricating oil and gas into the air and spillage onto the ground because these engines do not have a separate oil reservoir.
Operators pour a premixed blend of gas and lubricating oil directly into the fuel tank, causing insufficient combustion. As the engine fires it lacks the advance valves, fuel injection, and catalytic converters found in modern cars. As a result, one hour of gas leaf blowing pollutes the same amount as a car being driven for 1,100 miles.
Because of this basic port design, up to 30 percent of the fuel oil mix causes a direct exhaust release which passes straight through the combustion chamber unburned and is then spewed directly into the atmosphere as an aerosolized toxic mist and spilled on the ground from where it flows into the aquifer we drink from.
In the Town of East Hampton this procedure is against the law as it currently exists. Local regulation 155.5 subchapter (3) states, as follows: “No homeowner or tenant performing groundskeeping, or landscaper or other person in control of performing or providing commercial landscaping services, shall engage in the following or permit any person who is within their employ or control to . . . spill or dump any oil, gasoline, or other petroleum products within the town.”
In addition, under Article I, Section 19 of the New York State Constitution, known as the Green Amendment, every resident has a fundamental right to clean air, clean water, and a healthful environment. Because this provision sits within the New York State’s Bill of Rights, local governments share a constitutional responsibility to consider and protect these rights in their local decisions.
We urge the town board to uphold the law and make the gas leaf blower ban year round.
Thanks,
STEPHAN VAN DAM
Made the Switch
East Hampton
October 12, 2026
Dear David:
We are all resistant to change; that’s a human given. Remember when bars and restaurants screamed they would lose their shirts if people could no longer smoke in indoor public spaces? Well, that didn’t happen.
Although many of our local landscaping companies have made the switch to electric landcare equipment, some even going robotic, some smaller companies complain that they will have to charge more or lose their profits if they are forced to give up their gas leaf blowers and switch to electric. Let’s get real.
At our ChangeHampton Showcase for Switching to Electric (May 16 at East Hampton Town Hall) we learned that while the upfront cost of purchasing a good and powerful electric blower, including batteries and chargers, may be higher than a gas blower, the return on investment takes only 10 to 12 months. Profitability goes up steadily (there’s a Chase Santa Cruz Study you can look up for details) because — and this is what the naysayers don’t tell you — gas blowers need routine servicing. Two-stroke oil blends, spark plugs, filter replacements, carburetor cleaning, etc., with all kinds of parts that are constantly wearing out, they have maintenance costs that electric blowers don’t have. They burn out altogether within two or three years, all that in addition to the cost of fuel! These are non-issues with electric blowers; they can sit for a long time and start right up with a charged battery.
And frankly, we haven’t seen one landscaper provide data to show that they would lose money on switching to electric. Dan Delventhal of the Switch and Greener group in Connecticut has been a landscaper in a community much like ours for decades. His clients’ yard sizes range from a fifth of an acre to 10 acres. For him, the old resistance arguments to electric about cost and power no longer apply, as blowers, batteries, and chargers have all improved. He does all the properties of all those sizes with ease. And he’s making money, not losing it.
And so far, we haven’t seen any of the companies that have switched to electric want to go back to gas. In fact, they are going all electric, from mowers to hedge trimmers.
We trust that our East Hampton Town Board will provide the leadership we need to extend the summer ban on gas leaf blowers to year round — facilitating the switch from a very unhealthy and costly tool in the landscapers’ arsenal to something more appropriate for our environmental and physical health. We now have a New York State rebate program to help with the transition.
GAIL PELLETT
Something Changed
Amagansett
October 10, 2026
To the Editor:
Christopher Kelley got a lot of mentions last week, both on the news pages and in the letters, as the attorney for Kirby Marcantonio in his attempt to win approval from the town board for a housing project on Pantigo.
Mr. Kelley, whom I have mostly referred to as Voldemort in my letters over the years because no one says his name, was the boss who ran the Democratic machine in East Hampton during the years when all intelligent, independent members were ruthlessly forced off the board, the trustees, and the committee. He, more than anyone else, gave me a reason to fear for democracy here, and a motive to write so many letters to The Star.
Something has changed. During Mr. Kelley’s years of maximum control, every town board vote was unanimous. Today, the board is deeply split, with Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, the supervisor, and Cate Rogers, both of whom I thought were Mr. Kelley’s minions, voting against Mr. Marcantonio’s project. The vote in support, however, includes Tom Flight, the town board member who defected to support Jerry Larsen.
Then as now, Mr. Kelley was a partner in an influential local law firm which frequently backed projects before the board. I had the sense back then that he was in effect being paid to lobby himself — a setup which lost its strangeness in a town already so far through the looking glass.
Today, because of the rule, We Do Not Talk About Kelley, I have no idea what is happening. At least a few hundred of our neighbors certainly do, through greater proximity to local politics (probably including the publisher and staff of this paper). If nobody feels able to tell us what has changed, and who runs things now, if it’s not Mr. Kelley — perhaps in an article or letter next week — could one of you please sidle up to me at the post office and whisper something? I promise not to recognize you, but to regard it as a disembodied voice from the air.
For democracy in East Hampton,
JONATHAN WALLACE
Who Decides?
Springs
October 12, 2026
Dear East Hampton Star,
Between school drop-offs, band practice, sports, birthday parties, and the 900 other things on everyone’s calendar, it’s easy to miss what’s happening at Town Hall. We’re busy. We get it. But apparently, East Hampton is considering killing 100 deer in Springs, with $40,000 allocated for deer management this year and another $40,000 proposed for next year. Is this really the best use of our taxpayer dollars?
And we’re just accepting this as the solution? We’re talking about killing 100 animals and spending public money, yet nobody has clearly explained how this will work or how success will be measured. Before this moves forward, shouldn’t we have answers to some pretty basic questions? For example, here are a few questions I’d be curious to know the answers to:
How many deer are actually in the proposed area? What percentage of the local population would 100 represent? Where do these deer travel?
Are we targeting deer that regularly enter residential neighborhoods and cross busy roads, or simply deer living in wooded areas where hunters can reach them?
Will this actually reduce tick-borne illness? Where’s the evidence that killing these particular deer will reduce infected ticks and the risk of Lyme disease in people?
How many deer collisions occur near the proposed treatment area, and what evidence shows that killing 100 deer will meaningfully reduce them?
What about forest damage? The town has research showing that deer browsing can harm vegetation. But what evidence shows that killing 100 deer in this specific area will improve forest health?
Who decides which deer live and which die? Will hunters target bucks, does, or both? What are the credentials of these bow-and-arrow hunters? What scientific reasoning determines which animals are selected, and what safeguards will prevent unnecessary suffering?
“Deer are a problem” is not a plan. Before we kill 100 animals and spend $40,000 of taxpayer money, shouldn’t we know what is the plan, what exactly this is supposed to accomplish, where is the evidence, what science shows this specific approach will work in Springs, what does success look like, what measurable results are expected, and how will the town know whether the cull actually achieved them.
What happens if it fails? Will the town stop and reassess before killing more deer?
Deer will pay with their lives. Taxpayers will pay with their money. The very least we deserve is a clear plan, evidence to support it, and a way to measure whether it works.
I hope others will join me in pushing the board to answer these basic questions before we start killing animals simply because we’ve decided they’re the problem. We owe it to the deer, the taxpayers, and this community to know what we’re doing, why we’re doing it, and whether it will actually work.
Sincerely,
JENNIFER GROSSBACH
Violence
East Hampton
October 12, 2026
Dear David,
Did you ever get a feeling deep inside your soul that something is not right and as much as you want to push the feeling away it keeps haunting you and creeping up into your conscious mind, not just once in a while but consistently from one day to the next? I have come to understand that with the constant barrage of current events that we live with on a day-to-day basis — that this concern I have been struggling with is violence.
The level of violence with countries starting wars, sexual violence, and hate crimes on the world stage is now at a level that I am having a difficult time living with. Our country, on a macro level, is acting out its own violent drama not only in other countries but also on our streets in our towns and cities with no end in sight with the current federal administration’s war on our immigrant population.
It has also filtered down on a micro level on the eastern end of Long Island with the violent desecration of our natural land being bulldozed down, eliminating our wildlife habitats in exchange for massive multimillion-dollar resort-size houses being built by the thousands, and at a local level by prematurely clearing acres of land for projects that go unfinished or get abandoned for one reason or another that leave ghostly half-built developments or unsightly massacred land.
Recently, the East Hampton Town Board requested that the wildlife management committee proceed to hire an outside professional company to come into our neighborhoods and nature preserve land this fall to hunt down and kill 100 deer in the Springs area paid for by our tax dollars for the sum of $40,000. This program falls in this year’s budget as a fiscal expenditure and therefore does not require a resolution for funding or a public hearing for our community to have a voice or say in this herd-reduction program that now has been extended into next year’s budget.
This board believes that this will help with the tick population, car accidents, and understory issues in what’s left of our woodlands. I think this only adds to the violent culture that is consuming and destroying us in so many ways.
It appears that violence happens when we have a problem that we can’t get consensus on and we kill people and needlessly destroy countries. Locally, we destroy habitats and now kill deer because it’s easy to do, and some people just don’t like deer where they live and think killing deer will solve our tick problem.
Ticks come from multiple sources other than deer, and car accidents mainly happen whether there is a deer in the road or not by exceeding speed limits and not paying attention when driving. And for some, killing deer will also save the newly planted hydrangeas on their acres of newly mowed and irrigated lawns that used to be meadow and woodlands where wildlife and deer lived, and as a result are being pushed off and out into what’s left for them to exist, and, surprise, now we have an understory problem.
Violence is violence — just paid for and carried out in many different ways. In other countries, on our streets in cities and towns, and now possibly in one of our neighborhoods and on our “nature” preserve lands. But it still doesn’t make it right or okay.
BETSY PETROSKI
Needs Real Funding
Springs
October 11, 2026
To the Editor,
I found your recent article about the potential for a professional deer cull of interest since Tom Flight, the town board member in charge of both tick control and wildlife management for over two and a half years now, admits that the town has a serious deer overpopulation problem. This has been known since 2013 when the state recommended a cull. But, as Tom points out, “nothing has been done” since then.
It shouldn’t be debated that deer are the main hosts for the overabundance of ticks in our area and the reason for at least 500 car collisions every year for almost a decade now. That figure is up tenfold since 2000, according to an article in this paper from 2013. While this staggering number of accidents has been normalized, we continue to have four times more accidents per square mile than even our neighbor Southampton does.
Given the town doesn’t have any natural predators for deer, the herd has expanded exponentially in the past few decades, leading to both serious traffic safety problems and health risks from tick-borne diseases. Unfortunately, Tom’s suggestion that only 100 deer should be culled in the year ahead and that only another $40,000 needs to be allocated to this problem is clearly lacking.
As I’ve pointed out many times now in the last six months, the town needs to allocate at least $400,000 to $500,000 to this issue annually for at least three to four years to have real long-lasting impact. Perhaps community preservation fund resources could be used, given recreation in preserve areas is very dangerous without a significant reduction in ticks.
Why is so much money needed? Because we likely have at least 7,000 deer in town every summer (five times more than wildlife biologists say is healthy for the environment or the deer themselves) and culling just another 100 on top of the 1,000-plus that are taken by car accidents or hunting each year won’t make a difference. Tom should know that and in fact he suggested a cull of 500 when I attended a wildlife management meeting last March.
I pointed out then that a cull of 500 deer needs to be done for multiple years and the cost of doing that would be at least $250,000 annually, and if the meat was processed and donated to local food banks as it should be, that would add another $100,000. This is almost 10 times his suggestion of only $40,000 per year and he clearly hasn’t bothered to try to get any realistic estimates for what these types of things cost in the last six months. But perhaps that is the point, make grand statements and then don’t allocate the money needed to actually do anything despite having a town budget of $119 million.
What is more worrisome is that Tom seems to have no idea how large the size of the deer problem is despite supposedly studying the issue for over two years now? I asked for a deer survey to be done a year ago, but Tom stated a month ago $100,000 was too much to spend on this. Then start with one for $20,000 for an accurate, modern infrared drone survey just for Springs, as I’ve suggested to him and the board since the beginning of the year. The board refuses because it would become obvious how bad the problem truly is.
The most alarming thing I’ve seen in the last year is the outright lies when it comes to the potential size of the deer herd in town. Bill Crain wrote a letter to this paper almost a year ago discussing how his group led a lawsuit to stop a planned cull in 2014 that relied on a highly inaccurate and flawed deer survey done by the town in 2013 — it said there were only 877 deer when more than that were killed by hunting and cars even then.
The local hunting group suggested there could have been up to 6,000 deer in the summer back then, and your paper did a great article in 2013 on it, “Deer Study: Fewer Than Expected.” Four of the five board members at the time admitted the survey was incorrect, but they were too cheap to pay for a real survey after wasting $13,000 of town money on a company that went bankrupt a few years later.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense would have known that it was impossible for there to be only 877, and another survey should have been done, but for Bill Crain and his protect wildlife group that was exactly what they wanted for their lawsuit. His group should have known it was incorrect since they sponsored a survey in 2006 when traffic accidents were lower that said there were 3,300 deer.
What is more appalling is that when I attended the wildlife management committee in March, this is the exact same trick they tried to use again. Tom sent me a copy of his report that stated there could be as few as 700 deer in the town in 2025. I told him this was impossible, but when I brought it up at the meeting, he asked Bill Crain how he had come up with this estimate.
One might wonder why someone who led a lawsuit against a cull in the past was ever put in charge of this important task, but you have to ask Tom why he did that. At a certain point, Tom is responsible for this information, and that he didn’t question such an absurdly low estimate once again or make any effort to do an accurate survey makes one wonder if anyone in the town administration really wants to take action.
I appreciated in your article that you pointed out how preposterous Tom’s suggestion is to spend $20,000 on tick tubes that won’t even affect the vast majority of the ticks and clearly not the lone star that is dominant now. When one already grossly underfunds an important project like deer and tick management, the last thing they should do is to then waste half the money.
Given all these mistakes, Tom Flight should step down from the important position of heading the wildlife management committee. Perhaps David Lys, who is the only lifelong resident on the town board, should take over. Hopefully, someone with that kind of perspective realizes how much things have changed in the last 30 years and why a deer cull and a four-poster tick reduction program are needed.
As I’ve pointed out to the board for years now, North Haven has a very successful program where they claim to have reduced ticks by 90 percent using culls and four-poster machines. Places like Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket are in similar positions and modern surveys they have done suggest that they have 7,500 to 10,000 deer during the summer. They have both made plans to do culls to try to reduce their herds by at least 60 percent, something we should also set as a long-term goal, but to do that the town needs to allocate real funding.
No more excuses or misinformation. Let the scientific facts guide the town to do culls in residential areas where they are needed the most. I know our area at the end of Springs is badly in need of this given we likely have 10 times the number of deer per square mile than is healthy for plants, insects, birds, and the deer themselves.
Having roughly 500 deer killed by cars every year is inexcusable at this point and inhumane too, something the protect wildlife groups should think about.
BRAD BROOKS
Crucial Election
Sag Harbor
October 12, 2026
To the Editor:
With a crucial election looming that will begin in just over a week, I’ve been thinking a lot about my grandfather, who was a Republican state senator from Utica, N.Y., a pretty conservative person (he voted against women’s suffrage!) but widely respected as a man of high integrity. He would not know what to make of the Republican Party of today.
A party that once stood for free trade has imposed tariffs that have kneecapped our economy and ratcheted up Americans’ cost of living. A party that stood up to Soviet Russian expansionism is cozying up to Vladimir Putin while he makes war on Ukraine. A party that believed in keeping government out of citizens’ lives has sent armed, masked agents occupying our cities, kidnapping and even killing American citizens. A party that believed in fiscal responsibility has pushed our national debt to $40 trillion. And a party that stood for strong national defense has managed to start, and lose, a pointless war in the Mideast, making our country look weak and sending gas and energy prices through the roof while they’re at it. The Republican party of Donald Trump, in short, is one my grandfather would want no part of.
Trump’s name is not on the ballot in this election, but today’s G.O.P. is still completely in thrall to Trump and his whims, his grievances, and his cockamamie notions of economics. Republicans in Congress, like our Representative Nick LaLota, have rolled over for his wars, his destruction of federal agencies, and his ruinous economic agenda.
Bruce Blakeman, the G.O.P. candidate for governor, touts Trumpist policies — pro-ICE, anti-Medicaid — and spouts Trumpish rhetoric. He assails Democrats as “communists,” an insult so hysterical it just underscores how little Mr. Blakeman has to run on. To vote for these candidates is to ask for more war, more inflation, and more cruelty.
The Democratic Party has its flaws, but it still stands for opportunity for all, a helping hand for those who are struggling, sticking up for working people in the face of moneyed interests, protecting the environment from economic exploitation.
The only way to move our country and our state in the right direction — and, I believe, the only way to move the Republican Party back toward what it used to stand for — is to vote for Democratic candidates in this election.
Yours,
PETER GINNA
Serious Concerns
East Hampton
October 8, 2026
Dear Mr. Rattray,
Here are some statistics about average prices on Long Island in just one year. The first figure represents prices in Oct. 2025, the second, Oct. 2026 — home heating oil, $3.69 a gallon vs. $6.27 a gallon, or a 70 percent increase; gasoline: $3 vs. $4.50, or a 50 percent increase; 30-year fixed mortgage: 6.09
percent vs. 7.03 percent, or a 15 percent increase.
Buying a home, heating it in winter, and driving have become serious financial concerns to most people. But not Donald Trump. When asked if he was concerned about the rising Consumer Price Index, Trump responded, “No, I love it. The numbers were great. I love the inflation.”
If you agree with Trump and love the inflation, then vote for Nick LaLota, who continues to support the policies of the present administration. If you are concerned about inflation, then vote for Chris Gallant for Congress.
As a member of a House controlled by Democrats, Chris will oppose the Trump policies that have led to the point where the Bureau of Labor Statistics now includes used clothing in the C.P.I. A vote for Chris Gallant is a vote for affordability.
SALVATORE TOCCI
Work Together
Hampton Bays
October 9, 2026
Dear Editor,
I reside in the Town of Southampton, but what happens in East Hampton matters to those of us on the other side of the town line, too.
As for your paper’s criticism of Congressman Nick LaLota for saying he won’t go to bat for additional federal funding for municipalities that choose to limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, I sincerely agree with Mr. LaLota’s approach. Public safety doesn’t stop at the town line.
Seeing East Hampton put new limits on how its police can work with federal immigration authorities concerns me. Criminals certainly don’t care whether they’ve crossed from East Hampton into Southampton.
If someone dangerous is moving through our communities, I want the people whose job it is to protect us to be able to pick up the phone, share the appropriate information, and work together. Most people don’t care which agency gets the credit. They care that the job gets done and their families are safe.
Congressman LaLota has made it clear that he opposes sanctuary policies and doesn’t believe he should fight for additional discretionary federal funds for municipalities that choose to impose them. I agree with him.
East Hampton and Southampton may have different town governments, but our communities are connected. We travel on the same roads, shop at the same businesses, and cross that town line every day. Criminals can do so too, using every advantage we hand to them.
So far, in Southampton, common sense has prevailed, and it has chosen a different approach. I hope it continues to do so.
I also hope our neighbors in East Hampton take another look at whether creating more red tape between local and federal law enforcement is really in the best interest of everyone who calls the East End home.
MICHAEL J. ZARRO
Firing Squad
Amagansett
October 12, 2026
Dear Editor,
We used to watch for the “pink mist” when shooting varmits on the prairies of Colorado. It might be wise to suggest that anyone planning to watch the live firing squad execution of the scumbag Fort Hood murderer have a vomit bag nearby.
The Army probably will use seven shooters. Six rifle bullets (one rifle will be loaded with a blank for plausible deniability) at such close range may result in an explosion of guts and blood, similar to a water balloon bursting.
Perhaps with the Village People singing “Macho Man” in the background, Commander in Chief Bone Spurs could send the creep to Allah after ordering, “Ready. Aim. You’re Fired.”
GORDON RYAN
Does Not Support
North Haven
October 15, 2026
To the Editor:
East End Jews for Israel is deeply concerned by Jeff Gewert’s Sept. 17 letter concerning the so-called Hannibal Directive and Oct. 7.
Mr. Gewert states that the Israeli Defense Forces’ directive “requires the killing of any Israeli who is about to be taken captive.” He then asks: “So how many Israelis killed that terrible day were killed by their own people?”
Those are not innocuous rhetorical flourishes. They convey a profoundly serious factual accusation that Israeli forces may themselves have been responsible for an unspecified portion of the Israelis murdered on Oct. 7. If The East Hampton Star is going to publish such an accusation, its readers are entitled to know what the evidence actually establishes.
There is, to be sure, a legitimate story concerning the Hannibal Directive. Evidence exists that Israeli forces killed some Israelis during the extraordinary chaos of Oct. 7. The United Nations Commission of Inquiry investigated particular incidents and concluded that the Hannibal procedure was likely applied in at least two instances, potentially resulting in the deaths of as many as 14 Israeli civilians.
Those incidents deserve investigation and honest reporting. East End Jews for Israel has no interest in concealing misconduct by anyone.
The U.N. commission did not conclude that Israeli forces killed an unspecified or substantial portion of the Israeli victims of Oct. 7. Nor did it conclude that Israel had a general policy of killing its own civilians. To the contrary, the commission concluded that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups deliberately killed Israeli civilians during the Oct. 7 attack.
Mr. Gewert takes evidence concerning particular incidents and transforms it into the question of how many Israelis were actually killed by their own countrymen. That is a leap the evidence does not support.
There is a similar problem with his description of the Hannibal Directive itself. The Israel Defense Forces’ published explanation describes the directive as concerning the prevention of kidnapping and the response to attempts to abduct soldiers or civilians. Mr. Gewert’s assertion that it “requires the killing” of an Israeli about to be captured is a very different proposition. It should not be presented as an established fact without evidence supporting that precise characterization. This is not the first time. There is a history here that The Star should not ignore.
In January 2025, a letter appeared in these pages criticizing Mr. Gewert’s treatment of Oct. 7. We know that history particularly well because our organization authorized that letter. We raised concerns then about the factual assertions being made about Israel and the Oct. 7 massacre.
Yet more than a year later, Mr. Gewert has again been given space in The Star to advance an even more consequential version of that narrative, this time suggesting that Israelis themselves may have been responsible for an unspecified number of the deaths on Oct. 7.
East End Jews for Israel is not asking The Star to suppress Mr. Gewert’s views. We are asking whether the newspaper is applying to those views the same standards of factual scrutiny as it would apply to comparable allegations concerning any other government, nationality, religion, or identifiable group.
Would The Star publish, without qualification, an assertion that another government had a directive requiring its military to kill its own citizens? Would it then publish a rhetorical question suggesting that the government might have killed an unknown number of those citizens during a massacre?
There is nothing wrong with investigating allegations of Israeli misconduct. There is nothing wrong with reporting Israeli friendly-fire incidents. There is nothing wrong with criticizing Israel.
But there is a profound difference between saying, “Investigators have found evidence that Israeli fire may have killed civilians in particular incidents,” and saying, “The Israeli military has a directive requiring the killing of Israelis about to be captured — and how many Israelis did Israel itself kill?” The first is a factual proposition grounded in identified evidence. The second invites the reader to accept a much broader and far more incendiary allegation.
The legal question should concern The Star as well, and to give some thought to the exercise of due care. New York law gives substantial protection to letters to the editor because readers ordinarily understand them to express the author’s views rather than the newspaper’s own editorial position. But that protection is not unlimited.
In Immuno A.G. v. Moor-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235, the New York Court of Appeals recognized the special protection afforded letters to the editor while making clear that the protections of opinion-page journalism do not provide a license to misstate facts. In Brian v. Richardson, 87 N.Y.2d 46, the court likewise made clear that simply placing material in an opinion section does not automatically transform factual assertions into protected opinion.
The relevant question is whether a reasonable reader would understand the challenged language as an assertion of fact capable of being proven true or false, or instead as protected opinion or speculation.
Mr. Gewert’s statement that the Hannibal Directive “requires the killing” of any Israeli about to be captured is plainly susceptible to factual examination. The directive either says that or it does not.
His suggestion that Israelis killed on Oct. 7 were killed by “their own people” likewise is not merely an abstract political opinion. It invites a factual conclusion about who killed particular human beings.
East End Jews for Israel therefore respectfully suggests that The Star consider whether, in repeatedly publishing such assertions without adequate qualification or factual context, it is approaching — or potentially running afoul of — the very distinction New York’s letters to the editor jurisprudence has drawn between protected opinion and potentially actionable factual assertion. That is not a threat. It is a warning about editorial responsibility.
And it is especially appropriate here because The Star has already been alerted to the problem his letter and column writing has created. The newspaper therefore cannot fairly regard the present concern as unexpected or unforeseeable.
East End Jews for Israel believes that Oct. 7 deserves the fullest possible investigation — including investigation of any Israeli misconduct that actually occurred. But investigation requires evidence.
The existence of documented cases of possible Israeli friendly fire does not establish that Israel killed an undefined number of its own citizens. And a rhetorical question cannot substitute for evidence. The victims of Oct. 7 deserve better than that. So do the readers of The East Hampton Star.
MITCHELL AGOOS
STEVEN BECKER
ALAN HYMAN
DAVID B. SAXE
East End Jews for Israel