Film festival ‘drivel’

I came to the July 28 screening of “Between Two Worlds” (San Francisco Jewish Film Festival) hoping for honest and heartfelt dialogue from those who love Israel in our community, even those that may disagree with a specific policy.

I’m a “big tent” guy, and I am willing to discuss a variety of diverse opinions. I believe the SFJFF has potential to be a tremendous force for good and honest dialogue in our community. Sadly SFJFF let us down, once again, almost from the opening credits.

What I got from the film was a pile of defensive, self-serving, sanctimonious drivel showing the SFJFF is incapable of learning from their past mistakes and seemingly hell-bent on committing them again.

Steve Lipman, Foster City


In support of Glenn Beck

A recent article (“Glenn Beck: Offensive to Jews or an Israel champion?” July 29) reflected two sides of Beck’s approach to Israel. On the one hand, he declares that Israel is in a dire situation where the surrounding Arab states and the Palestinians are doing everything in their power to delegitimize the Jewish state, from warmongering to vicious anti-Semitic propaganda. Add to this swarm of enemies Iran and the picture becomes really ominous.

On the other hand, Beck deplores those who are ignoring the facts of Arab rejectionism, closing eyes on the pitiful results of Israel’s withdrawals and concessions, and pushing Israel into more “good-will” gestures. Currently, Beck is organizing a rally in Jerusalem, on Aug. 24, in support of Israel.

As stated in the article, Dana Milbank, Jewish columnist for the Washington Post, is trying to derail the rally because of Beck’s statements concerning non-Israel related issues. But a longtime unapologetic advocate of Israel, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) expressed his support for the rally. And in my neck of the woods Sen. Lieberman’s position turns Dana Milbank’s reasoning into total irrelevance.

Vladimir Kaplan, San Mateo

Right turn on J Street

I take Glenn Beck’s Zionism any time over the so-called Zionism of J Street.

Gershon Evan, San Francisco


Free lunch, but not healthy

I’m really pleased that you included a profile piece on the justice of healthy eating for people of low income (“The right to eat well: Access to healthy food options is Berkeley native’s dream,” June 17).

It is interesting to me that Oran Hesterman’s research showed that the barrier to healthier eating indeed was limited access to grocery stores. I wanted to point out another way people are limited from accessing healthier meals.

At my public high school, students from low-income families are able to enroll in the free or reduced lunchtime program and face the consequences. Although a free or reduced-cost lunch may appeal to students from low-income families who simply cannot afford lunch, many meals of the school lunches are not healthy.

One meal, called the “Chicken Super Burrito,” has 837 calories packed into it. Certain daily food guidelines suggest a teenager should eat around 1,800 calories per day; the calories in this lunch are nearly half that.

The high-calorie foods are not the only problem, either; cooking food in plastic that easily melts also presents an issue because plastic contaminates seep into the food, which students eat.

It certainly holds true that limited access to healthier food is the main barrier to low-income families, and it all starts in the schools.

Elianna Cohen, Mill Valley