Mourning Sooze Protter
We join with others in the Bay Area and beyond in mourning the loss of Sooze Protter. Sooze’s death leaves behind a legacy and countless ways that her work impacted those in the Jewish community and beyond. We remember Sooze for her work as a disability rights activist, Jewish educator and teen mentor and coach.
In the early days of Jewish LearningWorks’ inclusion work, Sooze was central to our formation and outreach to serve Jewish institutions through the Include program. In particular, Sooze was a passionate advocate for physical access to Jewish spaces and helped us to see things through a sharper, less ableist lens. We thank her for her tireless efforts and just demands to be able to enter places of worship and learning.
Sooze was also at the forefront of teen wellness, coaching teens and working with their families to teach about disability, brain development and the amazing opportunities for finding joy and connection in their lives. (She took a particular joy in encouraging teens to sit in her wheelchair and speed around educational spaces.) Her openness, the matter-of-fact way in which she taught about complex and challenging issues, and her sharp sense of humor brought lightness and a refreshing sense of candor to many a seminar. She also served as a role model and teacher for LGBTQ youth who found in Sooze both a mentor and support person.
We are sorry to have to say goodbye to a dedicated activist and central partner to us in our inclusion program.
May her memory be a blessing.
Liora Brosbe, senior educator, Jewish LearningWorks
Dana Sheanin, CEO, Jewish LearningWorks
David Neufeld, director of inclusion 2010-2020, Jewish LearningWorks
Thinking versus reacting
The recent letter entitled “UC has two options for dealing with violent mobs” negates all other options. The most basic model for decision-making clearly describes three steps: 1. Clarify the extreme positions. In this case, either (a) give in to the mob or (b) use whatever force is necessary to shut down the mob.
There are still two more necessary steps: 2. Generate additional options based on desired impact, outcome and feasible — between the two extremes. 3. Evaluate all options against desired outcomes, risks, benefits, cost, time, etc.
Skipping steps 2 and 3 appears to be quite prevalent these days. However, zero-sum, binary or win-lose thinking should always be a last resort and is almost never realistic or reflective of reality.
The administration at UC Berkeley is fully engaged, competent and sensitive to Jewish concerns. They are actually working on these options. Let’s be thoughtful and stop just reacting.
Bruce Goldberg
Oakland
UC Berkeley Hillel board member
Christ could help fix the ‘wrong story’
In his interview with UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ, news editor Gabe Stutman might have explored further the unique prejudice she sees due to opinions forming around the Middle East conflict as, she says, “…a political and historical story that those supporting the Palestinian cause often embrace. I think it’s a wrong story” (“Does Cal have an antisemitism problem? The chancellor responds,” March 15).
A university should be a place where the pursuit of truth is a noble goal. Anti-Israel propaganda depends on ignorance. Students don’t know what became of Judea and Samaria or how Palestine became Palestine.
On Oct. 8, the National Students for Justice in Palestine released a “Day of Resistance Toolkit” praising the “historic win for the Palestinian resistance” and urging campus chapters to participate in a “national day of resistance.” It advised them to “ground our campuses and communities in a narrative which centers the legitimacy of resistance” and to frame the massacre of civilians as a “natural and justified response to decades of oppression.”
Narrative is not necessarily truth. The Supreme Court ruled the teaching of creationism as a science in public schools to be unconstitutional for a reason.
Zionist voices are being shouted down because those who deny the Jewish people’s historical and legal ties to the land of Israel do not want you to hear about flaws in the Palestinian narrative.
Sheree Roth
Palo Alto
Where is Cal’s ‘great’ moral counsel?
In Gabe Stutman’s Q&A with UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ, assistant vice chancellor for communications Dan Mogulof speaks of the university’s “great” legal counsel. But what of its moral counsel? And what of the exercise of compassion, care, conscience and courage of its leadership, irrespective of its counsel?
The responses to Stutman’s interview questions show disregard for the civil rights and welfare of disabled students, faculty and staff — irrespective of their faith, ethnicity and background — by insisting that the use of the side entrances to Sather Gate is a sufficient accommodation.
It does not meet the standards of equitable accommodation under the ADA because of the undue hardship and limitations of freedom of movement it causes and the risks to safety during peak hours of pedestrian traffic.
The administration obfuscates clear, explicit anti-Jewish discrimination, harassment and racism that is pervasive and frequent and that has been reported repeatedly to the administration in accordance with its reporting guidelines.
The administration’s policies and practices embolden harassment and abuse and create an enabling environment for them that undermines public safety, social cohesion, student welfare and the rights of minorities, contributing to their marginalization and distress and to inequality and injustice at Cal.
It continues to act contemptuously toward Jewish people and disabled people as individuals and as a community. It fosters an unsafe, unwelcoming, exclusionary environment intolerant of diversity and hostile to equity where freedom of self-identification, expression and movement is routinely inhibited and denied to individuals with disabilities and from religious, ethnic and shared-ancestry protected categories of identities, in violation of the university’s civil rights obligations.
The dissonance between the human rights, civil rights and human rights law that I teach and the university’s systemic violations of them is intolerable and indefensible.
Noam Schimmel
Lecturer, International and Area Studies
UC Berkeley
Proud of JCRC’s work
We were proud to be part of the Jewish Community Relations Council Bay Area’s celebration this year. We have been supporters of the JCRC for many years, but have been even more appreciative of its hard work building bridges across various religious, LGBTQ and ethnic groups to confront racism, anti-Asian hate and now antisemitism in the Bay Area since the tragic events of Oct. 7.
This year’s celebration on March 10 highlighted the connections between the Jewish community and the Asian American community. The keynote speakers were an Ethiopian Israeli, a Black and Jewish poet, and the chair of the Oakland Chinese Chamber of Commerce.
However, our interaction with Jewish Voice for Peace, which took credit for organizing a demonstration outside the event, was shocking. One of the “peaceful” demonstrators spat in our friend’s face, and another yelled antisemitic slogans about Jews and money (“Jewish anti-Zionist group protests JCRC Bay Area’s 75th anniversary gala,” March 12).
We have no problem with people expressing different political views. But what hope is there for peace in the Middle East or anywhere else if people don’t recognize the humanity in each other?
The irony of their protest is that a good number of people who were yelled at want an end to the war and return of the hostages, do not support Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and believe in a two-state solution with safety and dignity for the Israelis and Palestinians. Many of the attendees have marched for Black Lives Matter and for other groups of color and yet were tagged as racists.
Jewish Voice for Peace has long complained that its voice has been shut out by the established Jewish community. Its behavior outside JCRC’s event makes one wonder whether its leaders and members are capable of the complexity and nuance that meaningful bridge-building and dialogue requires. It is easy to feel despair right now as so much of the world believes in simplistic slogans without an interest in understanding complexities as demonstrated by the shameful conduct of Jewish Voice for Peace. Its blind hatred certainly added to the deep despair we were already feeling.
However, experiencing that vitriolic behavior firsthand made us an ever-more fervent supporter of the JCRC’s efforts to build bridges.
William and Harriet Prensky Pomeranz
San Francisco
Jews with guns worry me
I just read the story about the Jews who are taking lessons in shooting pistols (“Feeling triggered: Local Jews join post-Oct. 7 event to practice shooting,” March 8).
Should I be worried that they are planning to shoot people who demonstrate for a cease-fire?
I have never been fearful about being attacked as a Jew, so do I now need to be fearful about being attacked by a Jew? If Jewish newspapers stopped sensationalizing protests against the Israeli attack in Gaza, maybe things would calm down in the Bay Area.
Lois Pearlman
Guerneville
Gazans need food now
President Joe Biden is building a pier in the Mediterranean where ships can dock to unload food aid for Gaza. This will take weeks, if not months to build. Meanwhile, there are seven crossings into Gaza and trucks are lined up to bring food into Gaza but are being blocked by Israel. It is unconscionable that Netanyahu will not open those crossings and feed the starving people in Gaza now.
Danny Yanow
San Francisco
Disappointed with UC Berkeley coverage
I’m disappointed in the incomplete coverage of the Feb. 26 incident at UC Berkeley (“‘I’m screaming for help’: Jewish students face violence at UC Berkeley Israel talk,” Feb. 27). As a Jewish person, it is truly disturbing to know that, on top of longstanding antisemitism, more people are angry at Jewish people at this moment.
And yet, we cannot pretend that the reasonless antisemitism of years past is the same as the righteous anger that people feel toward anyone (Jews included) who supports Israel’s terrorizing behavior in Gaza and the West Bank. I don’t deny that there is antisemitism in the movement for Palestinian freedom. There is antisemitism in all movements, unfortunately. We can’t ignore that, but we must also look at other dynamics.
An article about this incident ought to explore, rather than write off, the central conflict at the heart of this incident: Is it OK or not for violent people (for example, anyone who has participated in the murder of civilians in Gaza) to speak at UC Berkeley? And if so, what degree of protest is reasonable?
These are complex questions that should not be glossed over. The protesters, who are protesting in the name of 30,000 civilians killed in Gaza by the Israel Defense Forces, are not irrational senseless actors. Their views should be contended with, even if one does not like their means of protest.
Likewise, supporting a violent regime (Israel) that is in the process of killing thousands of Palestinian civilians is not a neutral stance.
This incident cannot be written off as a case of neutral students being attacked by a senseless mob. We must understand the reasons that “mob” is so furious and ask ourselves where we stand when it comes to thousands of men, women and children being killed in our name as Jewish people.
In many ways this article was very thorough. I just wish that the reporting had contended with the complex questions underlying the protest. If we are to have understanding and anything approaching peace, we as Jewish people must contend with the reasons that people are angry with Israel and the IDF.
Charlotte Halloran-Couch
Berkeley
War’s conclusion must be unambiguous.
The United States should fully support Israel’s defensive, existential war against an adversary that is dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state and the annihilation of the Jewish people. Hamas is hostile to America and its interests through both its totalitarian ideology and its alliance with the radical Islamist regime in Tehran. This threat must be neutralized.
We should also try to understand our own role in the origins of the current crisis. In December 2008, Israel launched a major assault into Gaza to topple the Hamas regime. The mission, which then-President George W. Bush supported, was dramatically successful. Then President-elect Barack Obama intervened: “The loss of civilian life … is a source of deep concern to me. … I’m going to have plenty to say about the issue.”
The Israeli offensive was terminated without explanation.
Another critical juncture came in 2014 with a dispute over the importation of large quantities of cement into Gaza. Israel objected fearing that the material would be diverted to military use.
U.S. Ambassador Dennis Ross prevailed upon Israeli leadership to allow the cement into Gaza. He later explained, “They countered that Hamas would misuse it, and they were right.”
Sadly, President Joe Biden’s administration has continued this ill-conceived policy direction by relaxing President Donald Trump’s strict sanction enforcement against Iran. This decision has substantially augmented the Iranian regime’s revenue, which in turn it has used to support its terror proxies like Hamas.
The war’s conclusion must be unambiguous. Hamas, which uses its own population as human shields, must be gone. Iran’s encirclement strategy must fail. Israel must be secure, and the people of Gaza must be freed from Hamas to hopefully build a better future for themselves and their children
Steve Astrachan
Pleasant Hill