letters
Thursday, March 4, 2010 | byBetter late than never
The proverbial expression “better late than never” fits the decision by the S.F.-based federation not to support anti-Israel programs in any form or deed (“S.F. federation: We won’t fund anti-Israel programming,” Feb. 26). It would be appreciated, however, if other supporters of the S.F. Jewish Film Festival would take the same position.
The organizers of the film festival intended to bring a “balanced view” to the screen about the death of Rachel Corrie. What they accomplished was to bring a mass of offensive rabble-rousers into the theater whose behavior reminded me of a certain time in Germany’s past.
Gershon Evan | San Francisco
Tests lie ahead
There is much to praise in the resolution on policy and guidelines recently adopted by the S.F. federation. It is well drafted, complete and offers clear guidance for grantees.
Although SFJFF is not mentioned in the document, we are all aware that the recent “Rachel” controversy was the impetus for this very substantial effort.
The resolution assumes “good intentions” by the grantees, but the real test over the years will be implementation and enforcement, when necessary.
The first test lies directly ahead this spring, when the federation faces the decision of whether or not to renew the funding for SFJFF.
The federation did not change its “core values” with the resolution; it amplified them with greater detail. Federation leaders have also stated that if the resolution had been in effect before last summer, the “Rachel” program would have been a violation. The federation could reasonably decide that the festival actions were so egregious that SFJFF funding should not be renewed.
If, on the other hand, the federation declares that life began with the resolution’s passage on Feb. 18, 2010, SFJFF could accurately boast that since there was no accountability for the “Rachel” program, that should be the future standard. Stay tuned!
Larry Goldberg | Tiburon
Michael Harris | San Rafael
JCF policy sends strong message
Well it only took seven months of the continuous fallout from last year’s “Rachel” debacle at the S.F. Jewish Film Festival for the Jewish Community Federation to come forward with a strong and clear policy statement.
That being that no longer would federation funds be allocated to events and organizations that act as enablers to the Bay Area’s most vile and fervent Israel bashers. This move by the JCF is long past due, especially in light of SFJFF executive director Peter Stein’s unrepentant attitude throughout.
There should be a no-tolerance policy for any Jewish organization that is collaborating with the enemy. Peter Stein clearly does not understand the difference between legitimate criticism of the Jewish state and the delegitimization tactics its enemies often utilize.
Let’s hope the JCF stays the course with its new policy, and in doing so sends a clear message to Mr. Stein and other misguided individuals who have let pride and arrogance override their better judgment.
David Holsey | Castro Valley
Chilling response
The recently-announced JCF guidelines, which state the federation’s intention to cut off funding to grantees that do or say something it finds objectionable, present quite a different guide: a handbook on how to violate the spirit of our Constitution and how to emasculate the Jewish Film Festival.
It is with some irony that the Daniel Ellsberg documentary and these guidelines were released the same week. The Ellsberg film reminds us of the importance of an independent media and the danger created by an insidious form of censorship known as a prior restraint; squelching speech before it is heard.
The JCF guidelines are designed to achieve a prior restraint. And intended or not, they put us at risk of creating a “chilling effect” on festival programmers, even on the brilliant Peter Stein. Our community will be richer with a free flow of ideas. We festival-goers are hardly lemmings; we will be robbed if Big Brother “protects” us from bad ideas.
The festival must retain its independence. If feasible, the festival should draft a guideline which states it will only accept gifts without strings.
I am aware the JCF gives money to the j. I hope this letter is not censored by them.
Michael Bernstein | San Francisco
Courageous stand
We read with great interest your article about the new JCF policy governing federation funding to grantees for potentially controversial Israel-related programming and believe it addresses the concerns we had. We are grateful to Anat Pilovsky for bringing the issue to the forefront and are happy that the JCF board, although not without significant prodding, took action. Our thanks to Anat for having the courage to stand up alone and take action on an issue of significant importance to us.
Michelle Tandowsky | Burlingame
(on behalf of 19 Peninsula and S.F. women)
Demjanjuk is no exception
I’d like to thank Dr. Daphne Haas-Kogan for sharing her family’s intimate, emotional experience concerning the Holocaust (“Tears, hugs and eye-opening moments at Demjanjuk trial,” Feb. 26).
However, I offer the following clarifications. She stated that valuables were removed from dead Jews’ pockets after they were gassed. Actually, according to the witness testimonies I watched and read, the Nazis ordered valuables be removed using a variety of means, including using pliers to extract gold teeth, cutting off fingers (with rings on them) and others that one can leave to the imagination.
As for the comfort of justice in a German court, let me be clear that trying a Nazi here and there is just what it is — a token effort, because joining the SS, Gestapo and most German police forces was a voluntary act.
Relatively speaking, very few SS, Gestapo, SD and other Nazi policemen and women were ever held accountable and indeed most collected pensions to their deaths. Why did it take until 1970 for Germany to convict the former commandant of Treblinka, Franz Stangl?
What is happening to Demjanjuk should not be the rare exception that it has become. We needed many more trials and now most of these criminals are dead.
Mordechai Pelta | San Francisco
Slow down, pope
Why is Pope Benedict in such a hurry to canonize Pope Pius XII? The Catholic Church has the right to rise to sainthood whoever they please, but it may be counterproductive to do it with a person whose actions were so questionable.
The Catholic Church moves at a glacial speed on anything they do. Yet when it comes to Pope Pius XII, the church wants to push the process of canonization forward as soon as possible, even as the debate about his role during the Holocaust rages on.
I applaud the recent letter a few scholars and religious figures sent to Pope Benedict. These people are experts on the subject matter. Pope Benedict should heed their advice and delay the canonization process.
There is no rush. If the Vatican Secret Archives or other sources show the role of Pope Pius XII to have been different, and scholarly scrutiny shows him to have indeed bestowed heaps of Christian caritas on the hounded Jews, then I believe the entire world would join the Catholic Church in celebrating “Saint Pius.”
Gabriel Wilensky | San Diego
Treat the enemy as the enemy
Meshulam Plaves wants a Jewish-Jewish dialogue where all perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be discussed honestly and respectfully (“Jewish-Jewish dialogue is what we need,” Feb. 25).
His own perspective seems to be that the conflict is mainly Israel’s fault, because of its cruel treatment of the poor innocent Palestinians — that if only Israel would treat them with the honor and dignity they deserve, and return the land it so wrongfully took from them, they would stop being enemies and we could all live in peace.
But there’s another perspective, namely that the whole land of Israel was granted by the Almighty to the Israelites in return for their promise to obey His commands.
Retreating from any part of the land constitutes rebellion against God and can only lead to disaster. Instead of seeking the well being of the Palestinian Arabs, Israel should treat them as the enemy they’ve proclaimed themselves to be, and fight against them until their ability to harm Jews is completely destroyed.
In any Jewish-Jewish dialogue where Plaves’ perspective gets a respectful hearing, the perspective above should also be represented and be heard just as respectfully.
Martin Wasserman | Sunnyvale