Both sides not needed

It is outrageous that this year’s San Francisco Film Festival will screen a film about Rachel Corrie — a Jew/Israel hater. Further, a SFJFF discussion probably will include the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel groups International Solidarity Movement — which openly supports Hamas terrorist efforts to destroy Israel and murder Jews — and Jewish Voice for Peace, a vicious anti-Israel group.

Among the most dangerous of today’s current politically correct concepts is “moral equivalence,” whereby the arsonist and fireman are viewed as equal. Morality is not a relative issue and never has been.

Yet SFJFF organizers feel compelled to present both sides of the “destroy the Jews” issue. This is not a moral alternative. It is a position showing a consummate ignorance, or willful denial, of history.

Islamists such as Iran, and its proxy Hamas, see the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jews as a theological imperative; no compromise. In the 1930s, anti-Semitic radio personality Father Charles Coughlin was asked: If all Jews on earth could be annihilated in an instant, would world peace follow the very next second? Father Coughlin responded: Yes.

Remember Hillel’s comment:  If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

Fred Korr   |   Oakland

See the film before criticizing

Since its inception 29 years ago, the SFJFF has presented films that sometime challenge our assumptions of who we are and what we think as a community. Surely we are mature enough to form our own opinions when seeing a film and participating in a post-film discussion. I look forward to the screening of “Rachel,” a cinematic investigation into the tragic death of peace activist Rachel Corrie in 2003. I invite those who raise concerns about the festival’s inclusion of this film in the program to see the film and join in the discussion.

While Israel does have its critics, an open public discussion at a movie theater does not threaten its security. Israel is strong, and so are we strengthened when the free flow of ideas is exchanged.

Janis Plotkin   |   San Francisco

Former co-director and executive

artistic director, San Francisco Jewish Film Festival

Remember ‘Jewish’ in festival name

A few years ago, in response to the slew of anti-Israel films presented at the SFJFF, a group was formed to protest. After letters to and from the SFJFF board, there seemed to be a commitment for showing fewer anti-Israel films.

For the past two years that commitment seemed to hold. But this year they are showing an epitome of hate-Israel propaganda, plus bringing anti-Israel propagandists to speak at the film showing. This movie “Rachel” is about a volunteer for the ISM, which was organized by the Palestinian terrorists for outside volunteers to assist them in their terrorism.

Glorifying such a person should not be an objective of a film organization that has named itself the “Jewish Film Festival.”

Arthur Cohn   |   Portola Valley

‘Whatever’ does work

I think we can all agree that we would be surprised to see your film critic, Michael Fox, at a meeting of the Woody Allen Fan Club. However, the mindless rant against Woody and this sweet little film, “Whatever Works,” took me aback. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but the depth of Fox’s anger shows a lack of respect for one of the true comic geniuses of our time, as well as a serious lack of professionalism.

Fox intimates that audiences have become too “sophisticated” for Woody’s brand of humor. Perhaps Mr. Fox could use a little sophistication himself. Probably the reason for his distaste is the fact that he didn’t grow up in New York. I’m just guessing here, but if Mr. Fox were a New Yorker, he would be sophisticated enough to understand Allen’s brand of humor, which is worth watching despite any nitpicks we may have with a phrase (such as “inchworm”) being used more than twice.

Allan Altman   |   Kentfield

Nothing frugal here

In regard to the story “Bride happily says ‘I do’ to frugality” (June 26): Frugal means “prudently saving or sparing.” It might mean a ceremony and reception in a relative’s lovely garden, and friends helping prepare food. I don’t think it means a $30,000 weekend in Mexico with fireworks.

Miriam Marr   |   Los Altos

Obama’s words in Cairo rang true

Yossi Alpher’s essay, “Turmoil in Iran could benefit Israel-Palestinian peace process” (June 26), highlights the opportunity for peace between Israel and Palestine in the context of a broad regional realignment. Alpher credits President Obama’s Cairo speech for creating a “friendlier and fairer America” where Arabs might feel welcome in moving toward “the pro-Western camp.”

And Obama did this by simply telling the truth.

He was unambiguous in expressing support for Israel: “America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable.”

His remarks about the Palestinians were equally clear: “America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

Turning to the task of reconciliation, he spoke of both sides meeting obligations agreed to under the road map: “Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed … Israel must also live up to its obligations … settlement construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”

Following Obama’s lead, Israelis and Palestinians might now turn away from extremism, acknowledge each other’s painful histories, and begin to work toward peace.

Perhaps this is indeed the time …

Dr. Michael J. Cooper   |   Lafayette

President’s speech a missed opportunity

Rabbi Sheldon Lewis (Letters, June 19) calls for bringing dignity into the Mideast debate. But what is most conspicuously absent is empathy — the ability to see another’s perspective.

President Obama’s Cairo speech, though well intended, was a missed opportunity. He didn’t acknowledge that Jews are indigenous to the region, or that the Koran itself recognizes Israel’s ancient history and right to exist (Suras 5:21; 17:104). He didn’t mention that more Jews — nearly 900,000 — were forcibly expelled from Arab countries than there were Arabs who left Israel.

Above all, he didn’t ask the Islamic world to consider Israel’s plight.

“How would you feel,” Obama should have asked his audience, “if you were an Israeli Jew? Your grandparents and parents fought in the Arab-initiated wars of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, and you want a better world for your own children. Imagine that you voted for an Israeli government that offered the Palestinians a state born in peace, as Israel did in 2000 and 2008. How would you feel when the Palestinians responded by rejecting peace and sending bombers into Israeli schools, buses, discos and pizzerias to murder your children?”

That would have been a real first step toward peace.

Stephen A. Silver   |   San Francisco