Making a park is easier than making peace
Mr. Ori Nir’s op-ed (“Why peace is possible: the Hiriya garbage dump theory,” Dec. 9) brought up childhood memories of growing up in Israel and watching, during bus rides to my high school in Tel Aviv, how that putrid mound grew to a stinking hill.
I cannot agree more with Mr. Nir’s assertion that the transformation of that garbage hill to a national park is admirable and is “a perfect example of how Israeli resourcefulness, ingenuity and determination can make the seemingly impossible happen.”
Yet, taking a situation that is totally within the control of one nation, Israel, and extrapolating it to a theory on the possibility for peace is a giant leap.
For peace between Israel and the Palestinians, it requires both sides to be willing to compromise and seek a solution; it takes two to tango.
Further, the claim of Israeli’s leftists and organizations such as Americans for Peace Now and J Street that “only if Israel will be willing …” is old, and worn out. Since 1947, the Palestinians rejected all attempts to settle this conflict, including the latest by Ehud Olmert in 2008.
It is time for Americans for Peace Now and their supporters to accept reality rather than espousing their wishful illusions.
Sam Liron | Foster City
Beautiful example of civil discourse
Ori Nir added much more than opinion in his op-ed about peace and the Hiriya garbage dump.
Instead of shaming and humiliating, he found a way to dignify Israel’s high side and spur people to become more, to become their best. His metaphor was gentle and useful — awakening to a real possibility of living beyond war.
Nir’s journalism genius was fitting to conclude our local Jewish community’s historic 2011 Year of Civil Discourse.
Perhaps each of us can emulate Nir’s contemporary kind of communication and spirit, to light up 2012 with even finer civil discourse. Like Ori Nir, let’s continue launching new kinds of conversations with an updated vocabulary and way of engaging and dignifying one another — even our “enemies.”
Libby & Len Traubman | San Mateo
J Street U is a legitimate voice
As a Berkeley alum, active in Berkeley Hillel during my time at Cal, I was disappointed to read that the Jewish Student Union at U.C. Berkeley blocked J Street U from becoming a member organization (“Berkeley’s Jewish student union says ‘no’ to J Street U,” Dec. 2).
This silencing of opposition on campus — of students by students — runs parallel to the policy of silencing opposition that is now being pursued by extremist elements in the Knesset, as human rights organizations are having their funds monitored and blocked.
And in response to those who say that supporters of J Street are “outsiders” coming into the “mainstream” Jewish community: I have, throughout my adult life, run Jewish summer camps, taught Jewish music and led Jewish youth programs. But when I oppose Israeli policies of illegal settlement, of treating Arabs as second-class citizens inside of Israel’s borders, of defying human rights law, then I am called a traitor to that community.
I applaud the brave students of J Street U, and hope that they are successful in their struggle to have their voices heard as a legitimate voice in the Jewish community on campus.
Naomi Adiv | Brooklyn, N.Y.
Keep J Street U out of the tent
The Jewish Student Union at U.C. Berkeley has shown more courage and insight about J Street than their elders in the Jewish establishment.
Cal students have to deal with anti-Israel propaganda on a daily basis. Their task has been made more difficult by the actions of groups like J Street.
Your editorial (“Jewish student union vote sends a message of exclusion,” Dec. 9) noted that many of J Street’s positions seem to be incompatible with a pro-Israel stance.
It takes more than proclamations that one is pro-Israel to make it so. J Street was financed by anti-Zionist George Soros. They lied about this. In politics, “follow the money.”
A big tent is not always desirable. The students understand that giving J Street standing as part of the JSU undermines their efforts to support Israel. How can they promote Israel’s right to self-defense when a so-called pro-Israel group accuses Israel of war crimes for defending her people?
Too bad community leaders do not have the common sense of these students. Forget the free speech issue. The J Streeters can talk all they want, just not as members of the JSU. J Street positions are more in line with those of Mahmoud Abbas, and their actions undermine Israel’s security.
Gil Stein | Aptos
Gingrich speaks the truth about Palestinians
I was shocked when I read Newt Gingrich’s recent comments on the Palestinians. In today’s political arena, the truth is shocking. He used historical facts to claim that there are no real Palestinians, but rather another Arab community.
In contrast, President Barack Obama stood before 8,000 supporters of Israel in 2008 and claimed to believe that Jerusalem should be undivided — and immediately after, his machine expunged the statement.
Newt, unfashionably, is speaking the truth to everyone at the same time and sticking with it.
I voted for Obama in 2008 and will not vote for uncertainty in America and constant Israel-bashing next November. I am now watching the GOP candidates — who would have thought!? The chips are down for Israel and it is time for supporters of the Jewish state to stand up and tell our leadership in no uncertain terms that the recent dangerous actions and comments from Obama, Clinton, Panetta and even the U.S. ambassador to Belgium denouncing Israel are unacceptable. For the first time, I am being forced to envision a Middle East without a Jewish state.
We cannot let our leaders encourage or support the realization of such darkness. As Hillel said: “And if not now, when?”
Howard Roth | San Francisco
Gingrich and morality
Newt Gingrich told a Republican Jewish group that he would bring to foreign policy the “moral clarity” that the Obama administration has lacked (“‘Clarity’ or inconsistency? Conservatives debate Gingrich,” Dec. 9).
Does Mr. Gingrich knows the meaning of the word moral?
During his term in the House, 84 ethics charges were filed against Speaker Gingrich and he was sanctioned $300,000. He violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him. Gingrich acknowledged in January 1997 that “In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee.”
In September 1980, while having an affair, a mean-spirited Gingrich visited his wife of 18 years while she was in the hospital, recovering from cancer surgery, to discuss the terms of their divorce. Gingrich reportedly told his campaign manager: “She’s not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the president. And besides, she has cancer.”
Gingrich began another affair during the Lewinsky scandal, when Gingrich became a leader of the investigation of President Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with his alleged affairs.
Raphael Rettner | Berkeley
Winning with ‘twinning’
Thanks to j. and to Emma Silvers for capturing the school twinning movement so well (“‘Twinning’ helps students in U.S. and Israel learn about each other,” Dec. 2).
Through meaningful personal relationships the program is nourishing, we see deep connections to Israel emerging in the hearts and minds of students. And, as Emma’s piece noted, students, educators and families in Israel gain a deeper understanding of our community and what “Jewish” looks like in Northern California — for many of them, it’s a revelation.
These twinnings have been developed by BJE’s Israel Education Initiative and BASIS Initiative (focused on day schools). Together, these programs have been generously supported by the Jim Joseph Foundation, the S.F.-based Jewish Community Federation, the Goldman Fund and the Koret Foundation. We are grateful to all our visionary funders for supporting this trailblazing effort.
The program and the schools involved are indeed leading the nation and we see huge potential for others in our community. We hope to expand this concept to include synagogues, JCCs and other institutions. For those who seek Israel engagement in deep and personal ways — we invite others to jump in — the water’s fine.
David Waksberg, executive director, Bureau of Jewish Education
San Francisco
Rabbi dynamics worth exploring
How fun to read about the name/role conversations (rebbetzer? hubbetzin?) regarding women rabbis married to men (“Meet the rebbetzers: Husbands of female rabbis find the role challenging fun,” Nov. 25).
The issues involved regarding spouses/partners of same-gender rabbinic couples, or the issues that come up when you have a rabbi who is single and actively dating, can carry this conversation to the next level.
In the Bay Area, we have many lesbian/gay/transgender and single rabbis to learn from. How are the pressures and expectations from congregations, or those we serve, different or the same? What has changed, but still needs to change?
We also have the issue of partners/spouses or adult children of rabbis who find their Jewish connection in a different synagogue or Jewish organization than where the rabbi is serving. That also creates some uncomfortable or challenging decisions for the family.
Let’s keep the conversation going. I think there is a lot we can learn from one another.
Rabbi Chaya Gusfield | Danville
Rabbi Lori Klein,
board chair, ALEPH | Capitola