letters

Cell phone advocacy applauded

Thank you, Mayor Gavin Newsom, for making San Francisco the first city in America to require warning labels on cell phones. We also applaud Rep. Dennis Kucinich for his work in Congress on this issue. The U.S. needs to employ the precautionary principle and follow the example set by Israel.

Thank you to the Marks family (“Cancer calling?,”

Aug. 6) for turning a tragedy into selfless advocacy.

Benny Kroichick   |   Orinda

Disappointed in ADL

As a longtime supporter of Abraham Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League, I’m disappointed in their decision to oppose plans for an Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero in New York.

Yes, the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for 9/11 cited Islam to justify their murderous attacks. So do the Palestinian terrorists who deliberately massacre Jewish children in Israel. But Islam’s adherents also include former NBA star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who has worked tirelessly to promote Holocaust awareness and build bridges between the African-American and Jewish communities, and Irshad Manji, a leading advocate for tolerance and progressive reform in the Islamic world, who has expressed her support for and admiration of Israel.

The ADL’s mission is to battle prejudice and intolerance in all its forms. It should demand that the leaders of a mosque near the hallowed ground of the 9/11 attacks be vigilant against all forms of hatred, including anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. But it cannot justify opposing an Islamic house of worship based on a stereotype. That diminishes the liberty of all Americans.

Especially at this most sacred patriot grave, we must be guided by the better angels of our nature.

Stephen A. Silver   |   San Francisco

Not a ‘moderate’ organization

I am quite dismayed at your reasoning for the Aug. 6 editorial, “Jewish community should support mosque near World Trade Center.” You claim the Cordoba House is a moderate group promoting peace, understanding and interfaith dialogue. I believe a “moderate” organization would not blatantly promote their controversial ideology by building a mosque near the site of one of the deadliest massacres in U.S. history.

Even though there are few legal options to stop this plan, those behind the Cordoba House project need to be made aware that their lack of sensitivity in choosing to build a mosque near the 9/11 site does not in any way, shape or form promote a positive image of the Muslim-American community.

Simona Stolpner   |   Mountain View

First rule: Know your enemy

J’s editorial supporting the Cordoba center near New York’s ground zero ignores history and the fact that New York currently has hundreds of mosques. The issue is singularly the construction of a mosque near ground zero, the site where Islamists attacked America’s economic heart on 9/11.

The first rule of war is to know your enemy. America is a pluralist society, welcoming people of every religious

and ethnic heritage. Islam defines itself as the only true religion on Earth, seeking worldwide dominion as a theologic imperative.

Islam’s conquests were marked by destruction of previous religions’ buildings and replacement by Moslem edifices: Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock was built atop the site where the Jewish Temple had stood. The largest cathedral in Cordoba, Spain, was converted to a mosque and marked a northernmost penetration of Islam into Iberia.

In 1236, King Ferdinand III of Castile retook Cordoba; the mosque was turned back into a church. (Islam’s loss of hegemony is a theologic humiliation.) New York’s “Cordoba Center” name clearly tells of its intent. Its imam, Feisal Rauf, will not state that Hamas — whose charter calls for the genocide of Jewry — is a terrorist organization.

America’s naiveté can be deadly.

Fred Korr   |   Oakland

Undermining our way of life

The ground zero mosque is a gigantic Trojan horse whose aim is to establish our enemies in the heart of our greatest city so they can start to conquer it from within. Their claim to “moderation” is irrelevant.

All branches of Islam seek domination over non-Muslims. Some are just more violent about it than others. In building their megastructure, they’re following the Muslim tradition of building impressive mosques at the sites of their victories, not only to commemorate those victories but also to consolidate them.

We’re told that the right to build the mosque can’t be denied, because our Constitution guarantees religious freedom. However, there are limits to that freedom. In cases of conflict, secular laws prevail over religious ones. You’re not allowed to ignore secular laws purely on religious grounds.

But in the Islamic view, Sharia law is above all secular laws and owes no allegiance whatever to the Constitution. That’s why an expansion of Muslim influence in the U.S., even if achieved nonviolently, will severely undermine our system of laws and way of life. There’s no reason we should facilitate people who want to harm us, just because they claim to be doing it in the name of religion.

Martin Wasserman   |   Sunnyvale

Legal, but divisive

You don’t hear much about terrorist attacks committed by Jews, because there weren’t too many. But there was one that stands out.

In February 1994, Baruch Goldstein, dressed as an army officer, entered the Tomb of the Patriarchs and shot to death 29 Arabs at prayer. Jews around the world were horrified and condemned this slaughter.

What would the world reaction be if a 13-story synagogue was now to be built next door by moderate Jews as “a beacon of tolerance”? With an interfaith community center attached, of course.

The Cordoba House Islamic Center is legal and should be allowed, but the mosque organizers ought to be mensches and realize how hurtful and divisive this is, and offer to build it elsewhere.

Sheree Roth   |   Palo Alto

Israel must stand its ground

This is in response to the opinions about what would be the best solution to ensure peace in Israel. Some still think that if Israel would just give up land to its Arab neighbors there would be peace. However, this is not the case, as shown in history. Whenever Israel has given up land in the past, peace did not increase. On the other hand, terrorism increased, as well as danger for Jews in Israel and their Arab neighbors.

When the Arabs feel that they can get more land from Israel, they continue to pressure Israel, in hope of getting even more land. This pressure involves terrorist attacks and rockets launched at Israel. But when Israel takes a firm stand and does not even think about giving away land, the surrounding Arab countries realize they will get nothing. And so it becomes safer for Jews and Arabs when there is no compromise of Jewish land.

Jews should know that all of Israel belongs to them according to the Torah, and that there is no need for them to be guilty about living in their own land.

Alex Dvorkin   |   San Francisco

Gaza in a different light

The recent allegations by British Prime Minister David Cameron that Gaza is “a prison camp” with all that it implies deserve a closer appraisal. Although Cameron also described Gaza as “a giant, open-air prison,” certain current yardsticks strongly suggest his remarks are wrong.

The CIA World Fact Book (2009) compares the life expectancy of those who live in Gaza with those who live in Turkey. Life expectancy in Gaza is 73.68 years while in Turkey it is 72.23.

Another critical yardstick is that of infant mortality, which is often used as an indicator of the quality of health and health services in a country. Here the CIA World Fact Book (2009) reports that infant mortality in Gaza is 18.35 deaths under 1 year of age per 1,000 births, whereas in Turkey the figure is 25.78 (in Syria it is 25.87 and in Iran 35.78).

It is ironic that Prime Minister Cameron made these comments with regard to Gaza in Turkey. In the revealing light of the facts and figures presented, the prime minister’s assertions appear rather hollow and ill-directed.

Richard J. Sideman

American Jewish Committee

Immediate Past National President

Mervyn K. Danker

AJC San Francisco Regional Director

An ‘exercise in futility’?

The folks from J Street are convinced that a two-state solution is the best way to resolve the Middle East conflict.  If only the Arabs agreed. A recent poll showed that over 80 percent of Palestinians living in the territories would not accept a Palestinian state if it meant giving up their so-called right of return. Over 70 percent of them don’t want to share Jerusalem with the Jewish state.

All this talk about two states for two peoples by the liberal Jewish community is an exercise in futility if the Arabs are unwilling to accept this principle. Meanwhile the Palestinian Authority and Hamas continue to incite violence against Jews and Israelis while J Street and friends press Israel to make security concessions while blindly claiming that Abbas is a peace partner. If he was a peace partner he would be negotiating now instead of demanding more conditions for talks.

Gil Stein   |   Aptos

A disturbing sameness

As a child of a Holocaust survivor, I agree with Mervyn Danker (“Calling Israel an apartheid state is preposterous,” June 25) that the characterization of Gaza as “the world’s largest concentration camp” is reprehensible.

   This and other comparisons with the Holocaust diminish the magnitude of that experience, without addressing what’s really happening in Gaza. Unlike Danker, however, I’m not so ready to dismiss the comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa as “preposterous.”