Jewish institutions should invite ‘both sides’
There is a simple answer to the question of “Hosting Israel critics? Jewish institutions damned if they do, damned if they don’t” (Feb. 28).
Let’s invite everyone. It would be unfair to invite one side and not the other. So, for example, if groups that support expelling Jews from their homes, don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist, or believe in BDS, are invited to speak and debate, then groups that support expelling Arabs from their homes, say there is no such thing as “Palestine,” or believe in boycotting Arab businesses, should be invited to speak and debate, as well.
The Ramaz School, an Orthodox prep school in Manhattan, and the Jewish Union at Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., should invite both sides. Now if one side objects, maybe that side really doesn’t believe in an open debate.
Neal Wohlmuth | San Francisco
‘Open Hillel’ is a preposterous idea
Does it seem reasonable that Hillel (“Cal alums’ letters calls for an ‘open’ Berkeley Hillel,” Feb. 28), a charitable organization that supports Israel and works for the support of Jewish students’ spiritual and religious development, rejects speakers or organizations hostile toward Israel?
Why should supporters of Hillel donate to have anti-Zionist speakers lecture to our students?
Berkeley Hillel should not reject the mission of Hillel and become an “Open Hillel.” If it does, it should not be permitted to use the name “Hillel.” It would not deserve that name.
Berkeley Hillel students would have no difficulty finding students and organizations that are rabidly anti-Israel. Berkeley is a hotbed of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. So those students who feel they must be “evenhanded” have a number of options.
It is difficult to understand why some Jews find we have to be so kind to those who wish to harm us. Ecclesiastes states, “He who is merciful to the cruel will eventually be cruel to the merciful.” Hopefully the real Hillels will continue to support our students, some in a very hostile environment, and be a strong supporter of the State of Israel.
Dr. Larry Wanetick | Walnut Creek
Uphill battle vs. BDS
You’d think that a meeting that lasts 12 hours must address urgent contemporary issues. Vladimir Putin taking over Crimea? Syria slaughtering its citizens? Uganda’s criminalizing gays? Global warming?
At a 12-hour meeting at UCLA, the sole topic was Israel: Divest or not divest? The anti-Israel BDS crowd lost 7-5 to pro-Israel students (“Students council at UCLA rejects Israel divestment,” Feb. 28).
Winning by two votes. Good news? Yes! Big success? No. Those two hard-earned votes symbolize the uphill battle facing pro-Israel students determined to fight campus BDS, which sponsors “Israel Apartheid Week” at more than 65 universities worldwide.
Lavishly financed, BDS trains activists to recruit uninformed, misinformed students (and others) by spreading lies about Israel. Although pretending to seek “justice” for Palestinians, BDS’ true aim is to damage and destroy Israel.
June Brott | Oakland
Haaretz editor was off his rocker
Aluf Benn’s talk at the JCC of San Francisco was a mixture of wishful thinking with a utopian socialism aspiration, which is detached from the Mideast’s reality (“At JCCSF, Haaretz editor says his piece on Mideast peace,” Feb. 28).
It makes little sense arguing with such opinions; better to have J. readers infer their conclusion from these stark facts:
Mr. Benn is yearning for pre-1988 co-existence arrangement without defensive measures that led to the first intifada.
The 1993 Oslo accords legitimized the exiled PLO group as the unelected representative of the Palestinians, with a promise of elusive peaceful coexistence.
Israel Labor’s concession of 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza at 2000 Camp David — coupled with international pressure that coerced Israel to offer more concessions (for naught) under Ehud Olmert in 2008 — strengthened the Palestinians’ intransigence.
Western liberals’ embrace of the BDS campaign against Israel, with corroboration from liberals in Israel, is leading the Palestinian Authority to believe that these insidious forces will do its bidding. Hence, why negotiate?
At the end of the day, Israel will be facing two stark choices: Succumb to the world’s pressure and concede its sovereignty and security, or keep living in a hostile environment and hateful world. Am Yisrael Chai.
Sam Liron | Foster City
Presbyterian-published guide on Zionism is absurd
Recently I ordered a copy of a new Presbyterian study guide called “Zionism Unsettled: A Congregational Study Guide.” Produced by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA), it was issued in advance of the longer “Zionism and the Quest for Justice in the Holy Land,” a book scheduled for publication later this year.
When the study guide arrived, I read it with growing incredulity. All 72 pages are filled with inaccuracies and a clearly pernicious view of Zionism. From beginning to end, the reader is subjected to an unrelenting series of distortions and misstatements. The authors seem determined to discredit Israel on every page.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) should be ashamed of itself for publishing and distributing such a document.
We must react immediately on every level, reaching out to our Presbyterian friends, presenting our concerns to Presbyterian clergy with whom we have contact and provide a united national effort through our organized community. We must convey our deep distress and insist that the Presbyterian Church (USA) take immediate action to repudiate this pernicious publication.
As Ralph Waldo Emerson once observed: “The only way to have a friend is to be one.” Clearly, this study guide is not friendly and does nothing to build bridges of understanding between our communities.
John Rothmann | San Francisco
Synagogues in flux
Abra Cohen wrote a wonderful article about the Synagogue-Federation Partnership’s millennial event, which took place on Feb. 20 and was organized by the S.F.-based Jewish Community Federation and more than 30 synagogue partners (“Panel sheds light on why millennials avoid synagogues,” Feb. 28).
The piece offered an important opportunity to showcase the broader changes affecting synagogues during this time of transition in Jewish life, as well as the role that the SFP is playing to support and lead synagogue growth. Our ultimate goal is to engage our community’s synagogue leaders in a dialogue with each other about how to change the way they are doing business.
The goal of the event was not only to help synagogues be “better” about engaging 20-somethings, but also to enable shuls to rethink how they engage their membership and how they might transform themselves in meaningful, productive ways.
When we gather together again in April, we’ll focus on helping synagogues flesh out and bring their visions to life. We are proud that the synagogue community is working hard to move from the world as it is to the world as it could and should be; the millennial conversation is one piece of that larger effort.
Rabbi Marvin Goodman | Director of Synagogue-Federation Partnership
Beth Cousens and Amy Asin | SFP coaches
Times are a-changin’
In his Feb. 7 letter, Joel Ackerman stated that “some people nowadays seem to feel that if they decide they’re Jewish, then, by gosh, they are Jewish” (“Affirmation idea is foolish.”).
He apparently does not agree. Excuse me!
I am Jewish. My wife is not. Both of my kids were raised as Jews. They went to Jewish Sunday school. They went to Jewish temple. My daughter was a Hillel officer in college and went to Israel with Birthright.
Does Mr. Ackerman mean to tell me that my kids are not Jewish, and have no right to consider themselves (affirm that they are) Jewish, without first converting?
Sorry, Mr. Ackerman, but a lot of things have changed since those ancient days when the Jewish rules of lineage were originally conceived. That’s how it is, whether you accept it or not. Shalom.
Ronald Glas | Concord