Detainees are not refugees
I appreciate the support for African migrants detained in Israel expressed in the Aug. 28 editorial (“Israel’s approach to migrant problem short on humanity”), echoing HIAS in the accompanying news article. However, I agree with the Israeli government’s claim that the detainees are economic migrants rather than refugees. My reason is simple.
As David Frum wrote recently in the Atlantic, “When populations flee war or famine, they generally flee together: the elderly and the infants, women as well as men.” Economic migrants, however, are predominantly unattached young men. I kindly ask the editors to look again at the photograph of smiling migrants that illustrates the article, and count the number of people who are not young men. I see only two.
Ilya Gurin | Mountain View
Skewed report on BDS
Regarding “BDS in the boardroom” by Dan Pine (Aug. 14), for 29 years I have been a certified financial planner specializing in socially responsible investing (SRI). Mr. Pine’s article is about the support for the BDS movement from SRI. His reporting was sometimes correct, incorrect, inflammatory and self-contradicting.
Mr. Pine claims that SRI is anti-Israel, then later quotes leading SRI account managers who state that they are not anti-Israel. They are anti–human rights violations, such as the occupation of Palestine and the destruction of Palestinian homes. This an example of ways in which pro-Israel “reporters” confuse opposition to various Israeli government activities with being opposed to Israel. Were the Americans who opposed civil rights violations, the wars in Vietnam and Iraq “anti-American”?
Mr. Pine suggests that SRI unfairly singles out Israel: They “seek to increase operating hurdles, to force the companies to accept unfair scrutiny or oversight unlike any other country.” Nonsense. For over 45 years SRI has engaged and divested from corporations doing business in every nation in the world. The focus on the occupation of Palestine is relatively new and small, so far.
Mr. Pine asserts that the economic destruction of Israel is an SRI goal. The SRI goal is the end of the occupation and human rights violations. I challenge Mr. Pine to find a single call for the destruction of Israel in any genuine SRI literature. It doesn’t exist.
Mr. Pine claims that SRI might become a real threat to Israel. His article states that the majority of Israelis want a two-state solution. The real threat to Israel is its anti-democratic behavior, along with human rights violations and the subjugation of an entire people.
Lincoln Pain | Berkeley
Iran deal and bad tuna
The proposed Iran nuclear agreement is a bad deal. Even people who support it say they do not trust Iran. Iran broke previous agreements and has been caught cheating before. Inspections are therefore essential, but the inspection provisions are inadequate: 24 days advance notice for some inspections, and no inspections of military research facilities.
The agreement too quickly releases sanctions of $50 billion or more, which Iran can use for continued terrorism in Gaza, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, etc. If the agreement fails and the sanctions have been lifted, then military action will be more necessary than it was before the agreement. Supporters can’t justify the facts, so they have resorted to personal attacks on the opponents. Senators and representatives of both parties should vote no on the proposed agreement.
Jackie Mason said this about the agreement: “Do you know that in the restaurants of New York, they have an inspection system? You can surprise any restaurant without notice that you can walk in and inspect them. … We’re not protected from a bomb, but we’re protected from a bad quality of a tuna fish.”
Norman G. Licht | San Carlos
Do the right thing
Choosing sides on the Iran agreement is a decision fraught with uncertainty, but is ultimately an act of free will.
The agreement was argued with the best interests of the U.S. in mind, not the best interests of Israel (and why should it have been negotiated any other way?).
This is not acceptable to Israel or to many of her supporters in the world. But it is also not acceptable for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to bully America with his “existential threat to Israel” hyperbole, and Sen. Schumer’s argument that the deal was “made not in the best of America’s interests” is disingenuous.
Not supporting something that is in Israel’s best interests does not make one anti-Semitic, just as not supporting something in America’s best interests does not make one disloyal to America. Don’t reject this agreement out of a bogus concern for American interests or out of fear of being accused of “misplaced” loyalty.
However, I am Jewish, and that is why I, and other Jews, are against the agreement. I am for a secure Israel, as defined by the Israelis — the keystone upon which the future of the Jewish people depends. Living in the diaspora, or the galut, was never meant to be comfortable for us Jews.
Mikhail Drabkin | San Mateo
War with Iran — on whose terms?
President Barack Obama is saying that if the United States rejects the Iran treaty, it will mean war. If we believe the Iranian leaders’ words, war will come. The only question is, when will the war come and on whose terms?
The world did not believe Hitler in the 1930s when Germany began what became World War II. The Iranian leaders are telling us very clearly what they intend to do. Do we have to wait till they have atomic weapons to try to stop them? Had the world moved decisively to stop Hitler in the ’30s, there would have been much less bloodshed.
The United States needs to reject the proposed Iranian treaty and begin building up our military to pre-emptively strike Iran before it has atomic weapons.
Iran has been sponsoring terrorism for years around the globe. Given its past actions and present rhetoric, there is ample reason to act.
Rich Stiebel | Palo Alto
Democrats chose anti-Zionist stance
In his opinion piece “Lamenting our lost connection to Jerusalem” (July 31), Ron Feldman accuses Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of “deciding” to make Israel a partisan issue and aligning Israel with the Republican Party. This is a mistaken impression.
In the past 10 years, the Democrats have been taken over by anti-Zionist leftist radicals funded by liberal billionaires such as George Soros. Netanyahu did not choose this, the Democrats chose this, to the extent that they understood what was happening. Jews should rationally move over to support the Republicans as some do in the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Thyme S. Siegel | Walnut Creek
Preparing students for hostile campuses
If last year was a sign of what is to come, Jewish students must be prepared for some rough experiences on many campuses across the country. A number of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic organizations, such as Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine, will be holding demonstrations and cornering students with anti-Semitic and anti-Israel remarks and actions.
What are parents and students to do? First, we must educate our students about Jewish and Israeli history. They should be familiar with the fact that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, has given the world so many advances, and is the home of Muslim, Christian and other citizen minorities.
Our students also should know when free speech changes to bigotry and anti-Semitism. The State Department definition of anti-Semitism includes treating Israel as no other country is treated, denying Israel’s right to exist, using the term Nazi to describe Israel, and using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis. The University of California regents should be encouraged to accept this definition and condemn all bigotries.
Some professors, even some Jewish professors, are part of the problem in expressing anti-Israel bias. Jewish students can look up a list of 1,200 professors who support academic and cultural boycott of Israel at www.usacbi.org/endorsers. They can also look up 100 prominent professors who support boycotting Israeli academic institutions at www.jadaliyya.com.
Larry Wanetick, M.D. | Walnut Creek
Palestinians responsible for double standard
In her recent op-ed, Julie Dorf expressed her desire “to speak out against the systems of oppression and hatred” (“The same hatred stoked West Bank fire, stabbing at parade,” Aug. 14).
Human nature being what it is, all countries have some level of violent deviants. Palestinian society actually encourages violent, deviant behavior through public recognition of and public financial support for those who blow up school buses and stab people walking on the streets. The U.S. and the EU supply the funds used for these hideous purposes and thus facilitate the Palestinian system of oppression and hatred against Israeli civilians.
Dorf also tells us that, “As Jews, we must not allow a double standard to separate our response to the killing of gays (or in this case of Shira Banki, a straight ally of the LGBT community) from our response to the killing of Palestinians.” This is a curious statement, given that there is no double standard on the part of Israel, as demonstrated by the fact that Israel incarcerates all who are convicted of murder.
The double standard here originates from those who give assent to terror and violence by Palestinians, responding with a blind eye and silent voice, while Israel’s citizens face wanton murderers on a daily basis who will receive a salary while in prison and will have parks or schools named after them.
Ms. Dorf, have you ever seen Israelis dance in the streets or pass out candies upon hearing of the death of a Palestinian?
Julia Lutch | Davis