‘Judaism lite’ should not be glorified on cover
I had some difficulty initially identifying my discomfort with J.’s decision to devote the cover to a progressive rabbi who marries a minister — who then decide to raise their daughter as a Jew (“A match made in heaven,” Sept. 16). It finally dawned on me when I thought of the young child going to “Mommy’s church,” listening to talk of “Mommy’s savior” — then returning to their “kosher home.” This is clearly a recipe for cognitive dissonance in a young child. The chance of her growing up to be a committed Jew seems slight, with a Daddy who helps Mommy celebrate the “birth of [Christianity’s] rabbi” in her church.
That two people from different backgrounds can find happiness together is not in doubt. However, at a time when we’re losing a younger generation of Jews to intermarriage, glorifying a rabbi who practices “Judaism lite” really doesn’t seem like a responsible thing for J. to do.
David L. Levine, M.D. | San Francisco
At U.C. Berkeley, hate wins
U.C. Berkeley’s decision to reinstate its student-designed course “Palestine: A Settler Colonial Inquiry” after initially canceling it represents a capitulation to hate (“U.C. Berkeley reinstates Palestine course that angered Jewish groups,” Sept. 19).
The course is unabashedly anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist. The syllabus (www.decal.org/file/4554) calls for examining Palestine “from the 1880s to the present, through the lens of settler colonialism,” a perspective that delegitimizes Israel by ignoring 3,000 years of Jewish history in the land while characterizing Israel’s present-day Jews as “settler colonialists” rather than as people living in their ancestral homeland.
Lest anyone suggest that this refers only to Israeli settlements in the disputed West Bank, the syllabus labels Israel before 1967 — when Jordan ruled the West Bank — as the “Zionist Settler-Colonial State, 1948-1966.” The syllabus includes selections from anti-Israel polemicists as well as the United Nations’ infamous 2009 Goldstone report, whose own lead author subsequently repudiated it, while ignoring the Israeli perspective altogether. Moreover, the course’s final proposal and presentation requires the student to “articulate decolonial alternatives” to the present situation — presumably meaning that the student should plan Israel’s elimination.
In 2012, a fact-finding study by the U.C. President’s Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion found that Jews at U.C. campuses were targeted with “language and imagery which they believe would not be tolerated by faculty and administration … if similar themes and language were directed at other groups on campus” (www.tinyurl.com/uc-campus-climate).
The reinstatement decision exemplifies this. The course violates both the U.C. Regents’ policy on course content, which prohibits using a class for political indoctrination, and the Regents’ recently adopted Principles Against Intolerance, which condemns anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism. It is hate indoctrination and has no place at a respected public university.
Stephen A. Silver | San Francisco
Academic freedom a cover for promotion of agenda?
According to Hatem Bazian, the U.C. Berkeley Ethnic Studies 198 course’s faculty sponsor, “The faculty own the curriculum” and he is alarmed to see “university administration acting without due regard to the faculty expertise” (San Jose Mercury News, Sept. 19).
This is of interest, because in 2014, Tarek Fatah (founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress) wrote in the Toronto Sun that Bazian “appears to be using his position of authority to make 100 students — mostly non-Muslims — tweet about Muslim victimhood in America, irrespective of how it’s defined or whether it exists.”
How is “due regard … for faculty expertise” determined? Is the U.C. Regents Policy on Course Content mere window dressing? Do the readings for the Berkeley ES 198 course indicate that academic freedom is being used as cover for the promotion of an agenda? This is a legitimate concern, since Bazian is a co-founder of Students for Justice in Palestine.
Julia Lutch | Davis
‘Apartheid’ makes no sense when analyzing Israel
Op-ed contributor Donald Cutler was captivated by Jay Michaelson’s article in the Forward discussing apartheid aspects of Israel, all because the mystical two-state resolution has not yet been achieved (“When it comes to Israel, never read the comments section,” Sept. 16). Of course, according to both Cutler and Michaelson, it’s mostly Israel’s fault. In reality, these apartheid prevarications don’t make any sense.
Apartheid came into existence as a system of minority ruling over majority with the single goal of maintaining and exploiting the cheap labor. Israel would be more than happy to live without the Palestinian economic input. As for control of Arab life in the West Bank, those who are concerned about the “innocent” Palestinians should come down from their ivory towers and realize that the historic facts don’t support their instant emotions.
There is a customary law of war’s consequences when a conquered territory may be returned to a former enemy only upon confirming that there are no more threats of aggression coming from these territories. Israel offered on numerous occasions to return almost the entire West Bank and resolve other contentious issues in exchange for a genuine peace. But unfortunately the other side always remained unmoved, preferring “the high road” of eradicating Israel.
Mr. Cutler professes to ignore commentaries and letters. That’s perfectly OK. I’d just like to remind him and like-minded people the famous maxim: “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.”
Vladimir Kaplan | San Mateo
J. must endorse Hillary
It is time for the J. editorial board to come out for Hillary Clinton for president. No ethical Jew could vote for Trump, and not voting for Clinton supports him.
What we all know about Trump: He is opposed to any gun control, he is a climate change denier, he bilked consumers out of thousands of dollars for a worthless real estate course, he insulted women, he mocked a war hero, mocked the disabled, mocked Gold Star people, called for a ban on Muslims entering America, etc.
Need more be said? We must join together to stop him!
Harry Lieberman | Berkeley
Editor’s note: As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, J. is not permitted to endorse or oppose any candidate.
‘Objectivity illusion’ a seductive trap
Asking us for respectful communication about Israel, Donald Cutler’s wise plea for humility could have come from Prophet Micah himself. He writes “we must be open to the idea that we do not hold a monopoly on reality.”
Stanford psychologist Lee Ross suggests avoiding the perilous, powerful trap of “naive realism” — the seductive sense that we’re seeing the world as it truly is or should be, without bias or error. “The Objectivity Illusion” is Chapter 1 of Ross’ 2015 book “The Wisest One in the Room.” As with quality talmudic engagement, Ross prescribes respectful inquiry while realizing that any one of us sees only a tiny portion of life.
Also, in April 2016, Financial Times published “Delusions of Objectivity,” reminding us how George Carlin described the trap of closed-minded sureness: “Anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac.”
During the coming High Holidays of self-reflection, let us (and humankind) consider insights of the late Stanford neurosurgeon Paul Kalanithi, M.D.: “Human knowledge is never contained in one person. It grows from the relationships we create between each other and the world, and still it is never complete.”
Libby and Len Traubman | San Mateo
Snake oil argument disregards reality
Ori Nir’s op-ed is a new snake oil offer to U.S. Jewry, mostly based on selective factoids and questionable arguments (“American Jewish progressives must act to defend their values in Israel,” Sept. 16). He urges U.S. Jewry to sway Israel’s policy toward reconciliation and peace under the guise of concern for Israel as a liberal democracy … Never mind Israeli voters’ choice. Similarly he promotes Peace Now’s objective to establish the Palestinian demand for statehood … Never mind the PA’s charter calling for Israel’s annihilation, or Hezbollah’s 60,000 and Hamas’ 10,000 missiles aimed at Israel’s population.
More troubling is Mr. Nir’s anecdotal story about his daughter’s outrage at the Museum of Tolerance location. Israelis, NGOs and Palestinian activists argued in front of Israel’s Supreme Court that the museum is built on a Muslim cemetery. The court rejected this claim, and Israel’s progressives branded the verdict as biased, all the while applauding the same court’s verdict ordering Israel to demolish the Amona outpost in the West Bank.
I guess “damn the torpedoes, full-speed ahead” applies to Mr. Nir’s proposition.
Sam Liron | Foster City