Letters

Heritage 'spurned'

Ariel Sharon and his left-wing cohorts have brought disgrace upon the entire Jewish people. The whole world watched in astonishment as Jews destroyed their own communities with their own hands in their blind retreat from Arab terrorism, turning thousands of people into refugees in their own country. Do Israel's leaders really think that the world admires them or respects them for this action?

A few decades ago, it was a common saying that Israel's future was assured because it was strong enough to defeat not only any Arab state but also any combination of Arab states. In those days, the Palestinian Arabs were considered a marginal threat at most.

Why have Israel's fortunes sunk so low? It's because the leaders have spurned their heritage and put their trust in false ideologies and false hopes. Even now, they're counting on Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the principal terror organization, to fight the terrorists for them so that they won't have to.

It's clear that the current generation of leaders is inadequate to the task of building a healthy Jewish society. It will take a new generation of leadership, perhaps arising from the ashes of Gush Katif, to accomplish that goal.

Martin Wasserman | Sunnyvale




'Odd' perspective?

There is a consistent response by certain readers of j. to any movement toward a two-state solution. The most recent is the prediction that the Gaza disengagement will lead directly to the end of the Jewish state.

This is a specific prediction that Israel has fatally given the Palestinians license to use Gaza as a staging ground for terrorism. We will know soon enough whether it's correct.

Will those who reject out of hand the option of land for peace respond differently if by December, let's say, there is still no significant Palestinian terrorism originating in Gaza? And if there is a process of negotiated settlement and reconciliation that is set in motion?

Or is it that any negotiated peace settlement that puts an end to years of bloodshed is seen as a non desirable

outcome to this hundred-year conflict?

How odd. Would any of these letter writers say the same thing about any other part of the world?

Marcia Freedman | Berkeley




Breaking the deadlock

Thank you for your thought-provoking coverage of the disengagement, particularly the Aug. 12 "two views."

I just returned from a wonderful trip to Israel, where I saw the country bravely preparing for the process. I agree with Larry Derfner: While this is painful for those settlers who are being uprooted, it is a good step for Israel as a whole. It represents not "moral bankruptcy" but coming to terms with the reality that for Israel's survival as a Jewish state, it cannot continue to rule over a captive Palestinian population.

That's why a majority of Israelis support it.

One banner I saw in Israel read, "Welcome back ... to Zionism." As a lifelong Zionist, I am encouraged to see a movement that breaks the deadlock and takes a step towards coexistence.

Dan Alter | Oakland




Eagerly awaited

Thank you for the excellent coverage of the Gaza disengagement. I always eagerly await j. so I can read the whole story about Israel. I subscribe to the San Francisco Chronicle, but I refuse to read any article about Israel because they're so biased.

Toda, and keep up the good work.

Lauren Helfand | Alameda




Fear about fears

David Browda's Aug. 19 letter is both mean-spirited and illogical. For Browda, the announcement of the marriage of Eddie Reynolds and Ed Jones is pornographic. He asserts that j.'s inclusion of such material is tantamount to an endorsement of Arab terrorism, Holocaust denial and bestiality.

It seems to me that the clearly homophobic and racist tone of Browda's letter is the bigger threat to j.'s standing as a family publication than the announcement of a union characterized by family acceptance, inclusive theology and community celebration.

I found his letter offensive in whole and in part, including for example a sad attempt to equate the Reynolds/Jones nuptials to the "marriage" between a "Muslim bomber and his camel."

Browda actually offers his congratulations to the couple on their "friendship and union" and "success in obtaining legal benefits." In the subsequent paragraphs, he seems to tie the "selfishness" of the couple, and the willingness of j. to announce their marriage, to the end of civilization. I am far more worried about the impact of Browda's fears on our society than I am about the potential results of a loving relationship between any two people.

Jack Weinstein | Fremont




True menschen

Regarding David Browda's hateful, ignorant Aug. 19 letter: If you don't like same-sex weddings, I have three words of advice for you: Don't have one.

It pains me to have to dignify his letter with a response. Yet respond I must. Intolerance left unchecked has a way of festering and spreading.

At this moment, an entire movement of bigots who share Browda's views are attempting to pass a ballot initiative that would eliminate domestic partnership rights, thereby enshrining their blatant hatred of gays and lesbians into the California Constitution. In the face of this effort to turn an unpopular group of people into second-class citizens, remaining silent is not an option.

I am honored to have served as a chuppah-holder at the wedding of Eddie Reynolds and Ed Jones. I cannot imagine two fathers who are more loving and devoted to their children. I cannot imagine two individuals whose lives are more dedicated to Jewish values.

It is because of the passion, selflessness and, yes, philanthropy of gay Jewish leaders like Ed and Eddie that our Bay Area Jewish communal institutions are so welcoming, vital and strong. They are true menschen who deserve thanks, not contempt.

Michael Sarid | San Francisco




Marriage misconception

David Browda (Aug. 19 letters) calls j. "pornographic" and "on a suicidal road to insanity." As mean-spirited as such sentiments are, let's examine his misconception of the history of "marriage."

Marriage, "by definition," was never "developed in prehistory." For common folk, marriage with religious overtones didn't exist until recently (250-350 years).

"Common" meant everyone except royalty and feudal lords possessing large holdings.

Historically, family relationships were primarily economic. Any sacred connection was, inappropriately in my opinion, welded onto economic contracts much later. This unfortunate weld causes the anxious extremes in Americans' marriage debate.

True, those religious fugitives establishing the political structure of the United States exhibited agitation around adultery, infidelity and any patterns of thought these self-appointed "founding fathers" did not sanction as pre-approved doctrine. This era of our country's founding hardly qualifies as "pre-history," however.

Browda's screed perpetuates the belief that women — and children — can only correctly be the property of a man. No other interpretation of human affairs need apply. That so many continue to believe this with no evidence that Divine sacred intelligence mandated only laws for men's convenience fails to convince that this extreme doctrinaire position is the only one with validity for a civil society.

Fern Leaf | Berkeley




False marriage claims

David Browda of Lodi (Aug. 19 letters) claims that "marriage by definition always has been between a man and woman since the institution was developed in prehistory to create a family of mother, father and children." Does that mean that a man and a woman who are not able to, or choose not to, have

children, should not be allowed to be married?

Thank you to j. for continuing to print news of same-sex marriages and for referring to them as marriages and not as commitment ceremonies. And mazel tov to Edwin Jones and Edward Reynolds.

Kenneth Altman | San Francisco




Where are positives?

I take serious exception to the tone of the Aug. 12 article "Retired leader creating community, both here and abroad" about Steve Bauman, the new president of the Albert L. Schultz Jewish Community Center in Palo Alto.

In the article, Bauman is quoted as saying that "being forced out of its previous location was the best thing that ever happened to [the JCC]."

I frankly do not see what are the many positives to which Bauman refers. The site on Arastradero Road had a beautiful swimming pool, was next door to a highly successful Jewish day school, and had a myriad of fine, outstanding cultural programs. What we have now is a shrunken, hidden JCC with limited funding, a dwindling set of programs and the hope someday that a bigger, larger site will materialize.

What Bauman does not acknowledge is the disruption that ensued due to the whims of a confused Palo Alto School District and the loss of an outstanding facility in the heart of the Jewish community.

Frank Kushin | Redwood City




Letters policy

j. the Jewish news weekly welcomes letters to the editor, preferably typewritten. Letters must not exceed 200 words and must be dated and signed with current address and daytime telephone number. j. also reserves the right to edit letters. The deadline is noon Monday for any given week's publication. Letters should be sent by e-mail to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or by mail to j., 225 Bush St., Suite 1480, San Francisco, CA 94104.