‘Who’s a Jew?’ can’t be too casual
Last week’s issue of J. had three pieces about people with fewer than two Jewish parents, and this has (rightly) been a favorite topic of late. But I’m frustrated to see J. consistently treat those who insist on halachic definitions of Judaism as sticks-in-the-mud.
On one hand, people who feel genuinely connected to Judaism, for whatever reason, should be welcomed with two open arms. What’s happening with Latino Jews in Modesto (“Bienvenido a Modesto,” May 27) is wonderful in many ways. And of course it’s rude to ask strangers personal questions about their family ancestry when they first walk in the door (although not all of us recognize this).
But certitude is important, too, when dealing with people who have suspected crypto-Jewish ancestry going back centuries, as well as people of known mixed parentage.
“If people are sitting in the synagogue, they must be Jewish,” one article quotes (“Children of intermarriage explore identity challenges,” May 27). This is a fine principle of chesed [lovingkindness], but technically not accurate according to any organized Jewish group that I know of.
Even non-tribal religions such as Christianity and Islam require formal acts of conversion that are legally binding. Can’t our rabbis find a way to welcome people with fewer than two Jewish parents while also discreetly guiding them through a conversion process if necessary?
Ilya Gurin | Mountain View
‘Trashy journalism’
The article “Battle of the Jewish sons-in-law” (May 27) was the kind of cutesy, gossipy, trashy journalism that makes it very difficult to take the J. seriously.
At a moment in our history when we have a candidate who is using prejudice and fear to drive his campaign, and who, while not overtly anti-Semitic, is not disavowing the support he is getting from the Nazi-inspired right (see Jonathan Weisman’s column in the New York Times “The Nazi tweets of ‘Trump God Emperor’ ”), it is time for all Jews and Jewish publications to speak out against him and everything he stands for.
I don’t want to believe the old calumny that the Jews in Germany would have been OK with Hitler had he only picked a different scapegoat.
Danny Yanow | San Francisco
Palestinians for peace? Really?
The May 14 op-ed written by Terry and Carol Winograd (“A Palestinian ‘Voice for Peace’? Yes!) failed to prove that there is an equivalent Arab version of Jewish Voice for Peace.
According to JVP’s website: “JVP was the first major Jewish peace group to demand that American military aid be withheld until Israel ends its occupation. We also are the only major Jewish group to support the Palestinian civil society call for boycotts, divestment and sanctions.”
Here are the so-called peace groups cited by the Winograds, with comments about each from NGO Monitor:
Parents Circle Family Forum. “Many bereaved families in Israel have spoken out against PCFF for its demands of an acceptance of the Palestinian narrative of exclusive Israeli guilt, a corresponding rejection of the legitimacy of Israeli narratives.”
Combatants for Peace. “While claiming to ‘allow each side to understand the other’s narrative,’ CFP activities reflect a strong affiliation with the Palestinian agenda and narrative, placing most of the blame for the conflict on ‘the occupation.’”
Alliance for Middle East Peace. “In contrast to the stated goals of working toward ‘peace’ and ‘coexistence,’ ALLMEP members include a number of highly biased and politicized NGOs that promote agendas based solely on the Palestinian narrative of victimization and completely omit Israeli perspectives.”
Sheree Roth | Palo Alto