Hope for negotiations with Iran
As the historic Iran deal goes into effect, the world is further from another war in the Middle East. I’m disappointed that Congress is still considering the Menendez-Kirk sanctions legislation that could sabotage our diplomats’ achievements. This dangerous bill would impose new sanctions and encourage Israel to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran.
I hope my senators heed the advice from national security experts and from a recent U.S. intelligence community assessment which stated that “New sanctions would undermine the prospects for a successful comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran.” Nine former U.S. ambassadors and other national security experts have warned, “The bill would threaten the prospects for success in the current negotiations and thus present us and our friends with a stark choice — military action or living with a nuclear Iran.”
Scott Grinthal | San Mateo
Don’t forget terror incitement
Douglas Bloomfield’s entire article (“3 U.S. senators become ‘Bibi’s boys,’ upending diplomacy,” Jan. 10) is nothing more than petulant whining. He criticizes Netanyahu’s anger for accusing the Palestinian leader of having “glorified the murderers of innocent women and children as heroes” and “continues its unabated incitement against the State of Israel.” So the Palestinians’ illegal continuous terrorism and incitement to terror isn’t worthy of consideration by Bloomfield. He harshly criticizes three U.S. senators – John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Barrasso — for their strong support of Israel, calling them “Bibi’s boys.” If supporting Israel makes them Bibi’s boys, then the majority of Congress (and the population) are Bibi’s boys — and girls.
Bloomfield calls the senators’ involvement in foreign policy “a truly stunning betrayal of principal, tradition and practice in legislative involvement in foreign policy.” Congress not involved in foreign policy? Incredibly stupid statement. There are other irrelevant complaints in his article, but not a single mention of Palestinian terrorism or malicious, continuous terror and incitement to terror.
Lawrence M. Weiswasser | San Luis Obispo
Cooperation in conversion
You published an opinion column by Rabbi Julie Schonfeld (“Rabbinate’s rejection of Jewish majority is outrageous double standard,” Jan. 24) about the Israeli Orthodoxy not accepting non-Orthodox conversions. Though laudatory and lofty to aim to change standards in Israel, perhaps a solution that’s more in our hands is in our country. The different branches of Judaism seem to operate separately from each other here. More cooperation might lead to a conversion solution.
About 15 years ago, I attended a conversion in the Washington, D.C., area. My friend had studied for conversion with a Reform rabbi. But at the conversion beit din, there were six rabbis quizzing her: two Reform, two Conservative and two Orthodox. Once they approved the conversion, the inclusion of the Orthodox rabbis made my friend’s Reform conversion valid in Israel. The rabbis came to this solution. Until the golden age of Israeli enlightenment around non-Orthodox conversions, perhaps this solution could be adopted here in the Bay Area. Increased dialogue between the branches would likely be enriching in many ways.
Judy Einzig | San Francisco
Wishes for Modern Orthodox school in San Francisco
The report that Modern Orthodox day schools in New York have innovated policies to include girls in more religious observances is very exciting (“School tefillin policy for girls widens Orthodox schism,” Jan. 31). For years, the Reform movement has become more traditional, and now the Orthodox movement is becoming more Reform. All of this is important to the health of Judaism. I only wish San Francisco had a Modern Orthodox day school. It would be good for Judaism and good for San Francisco.
Alan Titus | San Francisco
‘Affirmation’ idea is foolish
Sue Fishkoff, a child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, converted in order to become Jewish (“One foot in the door, tallit at the ready,” Jan. 24). That was the right thing to do.
But some people nowadays seem to feel that if they decide they’re Jewish, then, by gosh, they are Jewish. As I understand it, the Pew study found that several percent of respondents who claimed to be Jewish actually had no basis whatever for that claim. They simply “decided” that they were.
As far as I know, every religion requires certain actions from someone wishing to convert from another religion, or from no religion. So, too, do we. And I agree with Ms. Fishkoff that we ought not to put stumbling blocks before those who wish to convert. But this “affirmation” that she speaks of is a foolish proposal. What should we call people who “affirm”? Associate Jews? Auxiliary Jews? They can’t be said to be Jewish. They need to convert.
Joel Ackerman | Richmond