‘Super Jewy’ is super offensive
Growing up Jewish in Pennsylvania in the 1960-1970s, it was common to be addressed as “Jew” or “dirty Jew” by some in my neighborhood and school with antisemitic views. And there were plenty of those people in my community who freely shared their views on this subject.
I absolutely cringe today when I see a term like “super Jewy” used in this publication. The Nov. 7 article about the Super Mensch restaurant said its name was “super Jewy.” What does that even mean? If a non-Jew called a restaurant super Jewy, would Jews consider that antisemitic? Would they call the ADL or write a letter to the editor of a newspaper?
The Contemporary Jewish Museum in S.F. uses @Jewseum as its name on Instagram. Would it be OK if non-Jews referred to it that way? Or my personal favorite is when some of the kids of parents I know on the Peninsula referred to Camp Newman as Jew Camp. Oy, would my relatives roll over in their graves if they heard this. I always asked my friends if a non-Jewish friend of their child called it Jew Camp, would they think this was hateful?
In our increasingly antisemitic world, let’s not feed that fire with harmful and hateful words that may give antisemites the green light. There is enough hateful rhetoric going around today — one just has to read J. every week to see what I am talking about.
The Nov. 28 issue’s doughnut cover, which another letter writer complained about, was beautiful and a nothing burger. But “super Jewy” was highly offensive to me.
M. Rosenberg | San Francisco
Teens knew what they were doing
Why are you questioning why those students formed a swastika? (“What motivated the teenagers who made the ‘human swastika’ in San Jose?” Dec. 11) They made their motivation very clear. A swastika is a symbol of Jew hatred and a call for genocide of the Jewish race. And for those who didn’t know what a swastika means, the students made their motivation even clearer by posting a quote from Hitler about the “annihilation of the Jewish race.”
This is not a mystery.
You might as well ask what motivated Hitler and the Germans who supported him.
As for transgressive behavior, as the experts in your article suggested, antisemitism is acceptable today, not transgressive.
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”
Stacy Leopold | San Rafael
Dialogue is ‘classic camouflage’
One year ago, retiring U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon noted the U.N.’s “disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticizing Israel,” which “hampered the ability of the U.N. to fulfill its role effectively.”
Surely aware of this, Rep. Ro Khanna nevertheless claimed he deferred “in part” to a U.N. commission to justify his dangerous statements regarding genocide.
He is or should be aware of these words from the Hamas covenant: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it.…” That’s a plainly stated intent to commit genocide.
After the local synagogue events (“Ro Khanna defends his positions on Israel, ‘genocide’ at two South Bay synagogues,” Dec. 10), he carefully posted on social media his hope that with dialogue, understanding and engagement, there’s a way to “healing and peace.”
Dialogue is the classic camouflage for failing to do anything substantive. And even a signed piece of paper does not mean that there will be peace in our time if one party still intends to obliterate the other. We did not engage in “dialogue” with those who bombed Pearl Harbor or who murdered everyone in their way as they attempted to conquer Europe for their Reich.
When you are facing a group that wants you dead, unless you destroy them, they will destroy you.
Julia Lutch | Davis
It’s a double standard, not genocide
In her Dec. 12 letter, Helen Finkelstein wrote “opposing genocide is not antisemitic,” meaning genocide by Israel, which is a false accusation. Israel has tried to reduce the deaths of civilians in Gaza by warning before strikes and urging the Palestinians to leave, but Hamas wanted them to stay as human shields.
Genocide is defined as organized systematic destruction of a group, but the killing of civilians by Israel is accidental and regretted, so not genocide. However, the atrocities committed by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, were intentional. The Hamas charter has as its goal the obliteration of Israel, a Jewish state. Rep. Ro Khanna, who should know better, made the same mistake of charging Israel with genocide, and when questioned said he defers to the U.N. — but the U.N. has a long history of anti-Israel bias.
One of the definitions of antisemitism by Natan Sharansky is a “double standard, singling out Israel while ignoring worse civil rights abuses elsewhere.” Finkelstein, Khanna and others should be aware: There has not been genocide by Israel in Gaza, but there has been blatant genocide by Hamas.
Norman G. Licht | Palo Alto