To those who cast Israel as oppressor
Hasia Diner’s disillusionment with Israel has a familiar ring to it (“American Jewish historian no longer a Zionist — she says it’s a trend,” Aug. 5).
Some of my peers have similarly fallen out of love with their idealized vision of Israel and have ended up disdaining her. Nothing turns love to hate as quickly as the feeling of betrayal that comes from disillusionment.
But there is another layer to the psychology at work here. When everybody hates you— and who can deny the international scapegoating of Israel? — the natural human response is to distance oneself from the hated group and take the safe and popular side. We used to call this internalized oppression; that is, buying into other people’s negative definition of who you are.
It’s also much more comfortable to wholeheartedly take one side in a dispute, especially if that side gets you social approval and lets you feel you are championing human rights.
It’s particularly easy for younger American Jews to feel critical toward Israel; most have grown up in safety and have no personal experience of the bitter legacy of anti-Semitism, and very little historical context with which to think critically about the anti-Israel rhetoric they hear. And since the rhetoric so cleverly frames the story as victim vs. oppressor, who wouldn’t want to be on the side of the victim?
I have two wishes for the Hasia Diners of the world. The first is that they come to accept the real Israel, with all her imperfections, and not judge her by a harsher standard than any other country. The second it that they ask as much of the Arab world as they ask of Israel.
Malka Weitman | Berkeley
Academic fluffery
The “three views” section (Aug. 12) featured opinion pieces by three left-wing academics, Steven J. Zipperstein and Ari Y. Kelman of Stanford University and Marc Dollinger of San Francisco State University. Each was responding to the storm of controversy around the recent piece in Haaretz written by Jewish studies professors Hasia Diner and Marjorie Feld, in which they announced their renunciation of Zionism.
Remarkably, none of the three essays contained a single favorable word about Israel itself. Or a single word of challenge to the anti-Zionist narrative of Israeli oppressiveness and Palestinian victimhood. Or a single word of affirmation for the right of Jews to live in the land of their forefathers.
Their criticisms of Diner and Feld were mild in the extreme, focusing more on their style than their substance. Dollinger even called them heroes for the “risks” they took in expressing their opinions.
If these left-wing academics are examples of today’s Jewish “thought leaders,” responsible for educating young people, including Jews, about Israel and the Middle East, then American Jewry is in deep, deep trouble.
Martin Wasserman | Palo Alto
Israel’s accomplishments put it on the right path
In his op-ed “Essays overstated, but cut close to the fear bone” (Aug. 12), Stanford professor Steven J. Zipperstein writes: “Indeed, one can readily imagine a scenario whereby in a decade or two Israel is more similar in its political rhythms to, say, Hungary, than [to] Western democracies … Occupation is now just short of 50 years.”
In regard to the “occupation,” Hillary Clinton summed it up when she said, “If [late Palestinian leader] Yasser Arafat had agreed with my husband at Camp David in the late 1990s to the offer [then Israeli] prime minister [Ehud] Barak put on the table, we would have had a Palestinian state for 15 years already.”
Zipperstein’s concern that Israel will go the way of Hungary does not coincide with reality, considering that Israel leads in gay rights, women’s rights, universal health care, startups and worldwide emergency rescue, was voted among the top 10 happiest countries in the world, has a high birthrate, a high literacy rate, has mastered desalination and recycling such that all its water needs are fully met, is highly innovative in solar, wind and other renewable energy sources, has strong economic and diplomatic ties with India and China, has restored economic and diplomatic ties with a host of African countries and so much more.
Harold Lindenthal | Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Something borrowed?
The Aug. 12 issue of J. reprinted a Haaretz article by David Green about Helene Mayer, a part-Jewish fencer who competed for Germany in the 1936 Olympics (“In 1936 Games, a Mills College teacher with Jewish roots won a silver for Nazi Germany”).
In 2002, Milly Mogulof of the East Bay published “Foiled: Hitler’s Jewish Olympian; the Helene Mayer Story.” Much of Green’s article reads as if it was influenced by Milly’s book. The irony is that David Green is our son’s good friend, and David Green’s in-laws were our closest friends in Israel. Kol Yisrael Chaverim.
Mel Mogulof | Walnut Creek
School choice should not involve the government
Regarding the article “Trump call for school choice revives hot-button issue” (July 29), JTA writer Ben Sales described Trump’s views regarding potential government support of private schools and how some feel the issue may affect Jewish day school attendance.
He described concerns about whether such a policy could bring with it constraints on how Jewish day schools operate, as well as the dilemma of requiring the public to support what they may disagree with. However, he failed to mention the important principle that has long guided the views of many concerned Jews on this issue — making free and appropriate public education available to all children, regardless of means, race, creed or color, is a bedrock principle of these United States.
Our public schools serve a vital function and need all the public support they can get. Sending children to private schools automatically reduces the strength and financial support of our public school system, and while it is a choice that parents have the right to make, it should not be subsidized by the government.
Miriam Menzel | San Francisco
Let’s get real: We have heard the Palestinian story
In their Aug. 5 letter in J., Libby and Len Traubman quoted “an enemy is one whose story we have not heard.”
We have heard the story of the leaders of Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah, and, unfortunately, it is terrorism and the goal to destroy Israel.
No amount of goodwill between individuals will change the need to condemn these leaders. Until these leaders are replaced, there cannot be a two-state solution, as a Palestinian state would create a new base for terrorism against Israel.
There are many examples of Palestinian terrorism: for instance, look at what happened after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. For evaluation of Palestinian leaders, what is needed is realism.
Norman G. Licht | San Carlos
Guns are needed
I thought the argument of guns raising the rate of suicide was silly (“Choose life, says Torah — not guns,” July 14), but then I read an online comment posted in response to a letter in J. (“Clarification on op-ed about guns,” July 29).
Congratulations, a new low in anti-gun rhetoric has been established.
The commenter at jweekly.com posited that the Second Amendment is meant to apply to militias. He’s right! However, he probably hasn’t thought much about what a militia is.
His confusion evolves from the fallacy that a militia and a standing army are the same thing. They are not. A militia is a local, rapid-response group composed of everyday citizens, meant to fight off or perhaps delay a common enemy, often with a small force. Circa 1775, this enemy was the British. Note: The Battle of Lexington only had 80 militiamen.
The Second Amendment is about communities protecting themselves. While we don’t really have to worry about foreign invaders, or our own government (note this may not always be the case), being armed, as a community, it is important — so important it was No. 2 on the list of constitutional amendments.
Being wholly reliant on the government for protection is a bad idea. In times of extreme duress (not just foreign invaders or a dystopian future, but think Hurricane Katrina where people were basically on their own for a few weeks), communities need to protect themselves from lawlessness. The big earthquake will occur in California, and when it does, we may need to form temporary militias for protection.
You may find yourself shoulder to shoulder with your neighbor. It would be nice to be aided by a gun, and the constitution guarantees that right for that specific purpose.
Aaron Rubin | Pleasanton