Ethics vs. history in discussing ‘occupation’
I agree that the perspective of Breaking the Silence shouldn’t be silenced nor suppressed (“Breaking the Silence: traitors or patriots?” Nov. 22).
However, I found their talk at Kehilla Community Synagogue on Nov. 23 long on moral myopia and short on moral realism. Their supposition that ending the occupation by a unilateral act will effect a reconciliation does little service to history, or to the study of ethics.
Serious ethical studies, from John Stuart Mill to Marcus G. Singer (and many more) understand that you cannot make comprehensive moral judgments without considering the far-reaching consequences of any given action. Intrinsically, the occupation is ethically culpable. However, it remains, for an unfortunate reason, in a regrettable reality.
Ultimately, it is, of course, exhilarating to bathe in the moral high ground of military politics. But the kindhearted people who deplore the Israeli occupation should remember that we are all occupiers of what was once another people’s land. As a matter of fact, in this country, “occupation” is an oxymoron as we had no need for it. We simply obliterated the original tenants!
Would those opposed to the “occupation” be willing to give up their homes and property and donate them to the American Indian Movement in the name of moral purity? I think not.
Marc Winokur | Oakland
Israel is not a thief
Yehuda Shaul’s Breaking the Silence talk in a nutshell: the Israel Defense Forces is not the guilty party; it’s the society that sent the IDF to the “Occupied Territories.”
Not once did Shaul (one of the founders of the group Breaking the Silence) mention how these “territories” came to be “occupied,” nor anything about the multiple offers Israel made to end this “occupation” — only to be rejected over and over.
About Shaul’s role peddling his defamatory book, translated into multiple languages, he said he doesn’t “understand the relationship between Israel and the international community.”
Why should we allow Israel’s critics to portray Israel as a thief that can be made to surrender stolen property? That is shameful. It was the Jews who put Jerusalem and Hebron on the map in the first place. (Shaul had special disdain for 850 Jews living in the middle of Hebron’s 180,000 Muslims.) We should be sponsoring speakers who articulate that Jewish sovereignty in Israel is moral and just.
Many people are fond of citing Hillel’s ethical statement, “If I am only for myself, then what am I?” But too many of us forget the rest of this wise saying, “If I am not for myself, who will be? And if not now, when?”
Sheree Roth | Palo Alto
‘Lack of response’
It’s hard not to contrast the outcry that followed allegations of racism in a dorm at San Jose State two weeks ago with the virtual silence that followed well-documented reports of Jewish students at U.C. Berkeley who have been repeatedly subjected to simulated “military checkpoints” during “Isarel Apartheid Week” on campus.
The facts are indisputable. The Jewish community’s lack of response is, frankly, shameful.
David L. Levine | San Francisco
Iran deal is a victory
The nuclear deal brokered by the United States and Iran in Geneva is historic. Just as the agreement to peacefully disarm Syria of its chemical weapons demonstrated, diplomacy makes the world a safer place.
Now comes the hard part: U.S. diplomats are working to secure a final agreement to prevent war and a nuclear-armed Iran. I hope my senators and representative will publicly support these efforts and oppose calls by some in Congress for more sanctions.
As former U.S. national security advisers, Zbigniew Brezinski and Brent Scowcroft, have pointed out “additional sanctions now against Iran … will risk undermining or even shutting down the negotiations.” Sabotaging diplomacy would jeopardize the unprecedented progress our diplomats have achieved to guard against yet another war and nuclear-armed nation.
The Friends Committee on National Legislation has more on supporting this unprecedented deal: www.fcnl.org/iran.
Chuck Fisher | Oakland
Uranium in the cranium?
The Iran deal is a pure and simple example of PC on an international scope. Instead of making hard choices of increasing pressure on Iran, the Western powers signed with Iran an agreement that solves nothing but gives reason to the West to feel good.
Iran has agreed to oxidize its stock of the enriched uranium to 3 to 5 percent in exchange for relaxed sanctions. No centrifuges are required to be destroyed. So all 19,000 of them will be able, at any point, in a matter of several weeks, to re-process the low-grade uranium to a fission level. No wonder that Benjamin Netanyahu called this agreement a “historic mistake.”
To realize where this agreement leads, one should look no further than August 2005, when the world was ecstatic about Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. The common theme was: “Now we will see how the Palestinians can govern themselves. And if they fail it will be a fault of their making.” Then the Palestinians elected to be governed by Hamas, and the world has happily returned to the old business of blaming Israel.
When the Iran deal fails, the PC enthusiasts will blame everybody but Iran.
Vladimir Kaplan | San Mateo
‘Faulty’ U.S. policy
Your editorial (“Iran deal risky, but has to work,” Nov. 29) rightly expressed skepticism abut President Obama’s recent accord with the Iranian regime, but failed to note the most serious problems with that policy.
Enriching uranium to 5 percent purity, which the agreement allows for, is the most difficult part of the enrichment process, further enrichment being ever more simple.
Also, our ability to monitor the processes is itself questionable given that a determined government can deceive inspectors in its own territory if it wishes to do so. Thus we have allowed Iran to build up its nuclear capacity ever closer to “break out” at a time of its own choosing.
Assuming that our own government will honestly review the events in Iran is itself problematic given a plain investment in the “success” of the policy. We should firmly petition our elected representatives to oppose this faulted policy.
Steve Astrachan | Pleasant Hill