Two-state delusion
Your editorial (“Historical sites are important, but not at the cost of fresh peace talks,” March 5) was heartfelt but delusional.
The Palestinians will always find a reason for saying that Israel is hurting the peace process, but the real reason there is no peace process is that they really want one state: Palestine. Unless they honestly decide to accept the reality of a Jewish state as a neighbor and behave accordingly, and stop teaching their children their lies about Israel, there can be no peace. The only peace they would accept is one that would put them in a better position to make another attempt to defeat Israel.
Israel understands this, but most of us, especially Jews, do not. Instead we are delusional by thinking that if we make concessions and be “nice” to them they will make a just peace.
Eugene Myers | Walnut Creek
More excuses
The j. editorial on historical sites said, “We do not dispute historical significance of the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb.” The historical presence of the Jews at these sites preceded Jesus and Mohammad by more than 1,000 years. If the Palestinians really wanted a peaceful Palestinian state next to the Jewish state of Israel, they wouldn’t object to Jews visiting their holy sites in the West Bank or in a Palestinian state. Similarly, they would not object to Jews building in their already well-established neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, which some people call “settlements.”
These oppositions are excuses, not causes of the disputes. Israel should not give up or postpone its rights as part of a peace agreement, and should not delay its rights in order to coax the Palestinians to have talks about an unlikely peace agreement.
Norman Licht | San Carlos
Searching for Zion
David Newman’s op-ed (“Heritage sites: steeped in myth, saturated by politics,” March 5) is intriguing and raises a plausible pursuant proposition: Is the land of Zion a requisite for a Jewish state?
Zion, the Temple Mount and Jerusalem are myths in our collective memory as much as Rachel’s Tomb is … and of course all have significant meaning to the so-called Palestinians’ heritage. Thus, if one is to follow the esteemed scholars’ logic, it would be less controversial to the peace process and to everybody’s concern if Israel will cede them altogether.
Let’s find another land, where Jews will be accepted with open arms and open hearts. It will be beneficial and less confrontational to all, in particular the Arabs.
I tried very hard to locate such a place, but so far had no luck; even Antarctica is spoken for. The solution it seems is to revert to the “mythical homeland” in our collective dream, similar to Zion but …
Sam Liron | Foster City
Creating civil debates
Dan Pine’s story on the discussion at the CJM on pluralism (“Pluralism panel morphs into debate over new JCF rules,” March 5) focused almost exclusively on one aspect of a larger conversation about pluralism. While Pine noted the exchange of ideas and the voices present in the room — Peter Stein of the SFJFF, Doug Kahn of the JCRC, Rabbi Lavey Derby and many others — he neglected to mention that the conversation was sponsored by Sh’ma: A Journal of Jewish Responsibility. And that’s an important piece of why a heated topic like the new federation guidelines for funding was discussed civilly by 100 people.
The journal, each month, creates conversations (in print and online, www.shma.com) that unpack the important topics of the day. What we did at the CJM on Feb. 25 was just that: bring into the room a group of Jews to talk openly about a difficult topic.
Susan Berrin | Menlo Park
Editor, Sh’ma
JVP’s real motives
Based on comments that Peter Stein and the former SFJFF Executive Director Janice Plotkin made about the new JCF guidelines at the pluralism panel, it’s clear that they still just don’t get it.
To no one’s surprise, a Jewish Voice for Peace representative in the audience likened the new policy to being a “crude McCarthyism.” Well, I don’t put too much stock in that analogy, especially when you consider the source.
One look at JVP’s Web site reads like a Israel-bashing manifesto with little more than a token mention of Palestinian terrorism. Google JVP images and you will get page after page of JVP members with signage condemning all things Israel. But mysteriously absent will be images of them condemning Palestinian terror groups like Hamas or the ineptitude and corruption of the Palestinian Authority.
Regardless of future programming, I will never go to the SFJFF as long as Peter Stein is the executive director. For me, it’s become a matter of principle at this point. So resign already, Mr. Stein — I hear JVP has openings.
David Holsey | Castro Valley
‘A duty to speak out’
In response to the new Jewish Community Federation guidelines that state the federation’s intention to cut off funding or refusal to co-sponsor any event that the federation finds objectionable (“S.F. federation: We won’t fund anti-Israel programming,” Feb. 26), I am appalled and infuriated that the federation claims to speak for the whole community while taking a stand that supports a narrow-minded view that inhibits free expression.
When someone justifiably questions repressive actions and policies of the Israeli government it does not mean that person is anti-Israel or anti-Jewish. Seeing fellow Jews in Israel dehumanizing and brutalizing others the way Jews were dehumanized and brutalized in Germany in the 1930s is sickening and disheartening, and we have a duty to speak out and not be attacked and denounced for doing so.
The federation needs to rethink this faulty policy.
Ruth Haber | Pleasanton
Where is the democracy?
JCF will not fund groups that delegitimize Israel as a Jewish democratic state or that promote “other forms of bigotry.” Problem: Can one get funded if one attacks Israel as a racist state? Mizrachi Jews are second-class citizens, Palestinians third class. Palestinian Israelis cannot lease or own land on 93 percent of Israel. They make a third as much as Jews, have much worse infrastructure, get a third as much spent per pupil. Government ministers refer to them as cockroaches and a cancer, a demographic threat. The government openly states its goal to Judaize the Galilee and East Jerusalem. Commemoration of Al Naqba was almost criminalized.
Is Jewish democratic state an oxymoron? Does truth trump JCF’s “core values”?
Alfred Lerner | San Carlos
Not all are pleased
Your editorial lauding the Jewish Community Federation’s gag policy on Israel (“Federation’s new funding guidelines should please everyone,”
Feb. 26) infuriated me, particularly the words in the heading “should please everybody.” How on earth can you make that claim when your article does not include one opinion from a progressive Jewish leader? Does “everyone” in the Jewish community now only include those who follow the lead of the federation, and those in favor of stifling dissent within the Jewish community?
In a recent survey conducted by my shul, 24 percent of members identified as non-Zionist or anti-Zionist, 43 percent opposed the occupation, and the percentages were much higher for those under 35. Where are their voices to be heard in the Jewish community? Certainly not in j. or at federation-funded events. Whatever one’s opinion on BDS (and I don’t necessarily support the policy), it may be the only non-violent option available to those who oppose the occupation, and deserves a hearing within the community.
Is Jewish continuity served by preaching to your ever-shrinking readership and donor bases? The federation’s policy uses words such as “respecting diversity,” “inclusive tent” and “pluralism.” Give me a break!
Richard Weiner | Oakland
JVP’s response
The rather astonishing language of j.’s editorial suggests that “everyone” believes that the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival’s artistic and political expression should be policed by its funders, and that the Jewish community is served by preventing ideas from being aired. Apparently, “everyone” does not include Jewish Voice for Peace’s thousands of Bay Area Jewish supporters who believe that pressure on Israel is necessary to change its disastrous policies.
Please read JVP’s response to the new Jewish Community Federation policy at http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/responsetojcf.shtml.
Joel Frangquist | San Francisco
Dana Bergen | San Francisco
‘Guilt by association’
In my college critical thinking classes I teach logical fallacies, so I am dismayed to find the guilt by association fallacy used as a basis of the new federation funding policy.
Many Jewish groups working to improve social conditions in the U.S. or encourage dialogue among discordant voices have to work in coalitions to achieve these goals. But if one of the objectives of the new ideological screening test is to limit the ability of progressive groups to function or survive as specifically Jewish unless they conform, it probably will be achieved, with the added result of alienating even more young, progressive and socially active Jews from any kind of organized Jewish life.
Judith Bank | Walnut Creek
Another mezuzah
Regarding your story about the mezuzah on the door of the Delaware governor’s mansion (“Delaware governor’s mansion becomes a true Jewish home,” March 5), while living in Connecticut we had occasion to visit the governor’s mansion in Hartford. We were surprised and thrilled to see a lovely mezuzah affixed to one of the two stone pilasters outside the front door.
The governor then, in the early ’90s, Lowell P. Weicker Jr., was not Jewish, and we therefore believed that it had been installed by one of his predecessors, the 80th governor, Abraham A. Ribicoff, who governed from 1955 to 1961, and was the first and only Jewish governor of Connecticut.
Berta and Philip Wesler
Walnut Creek