BDS ‘not homegrown movement’
Dan Pine has a reasonably good take on the BDS movement in his June 12 column, but he’s off the mark on one very key issue.
Pine writes: “The Jews of BDS seem to believe the worst of Israel without necessarily wishing the worst on Israel.” That may or may not be true of the Jews of BDS, but it’s certainly not true of the overall BDS movement.
The BDS movement is not a homegrown, grassroots movement. It was begun by and is supported by the International Solidarity Movement, a totally anti-Israel organization formed and run by Palestinians. Its aim is to gather international support for the Palestinians against Israel — to weaken and eventually destroy Israel. Jews participating in the BDS movement either don’t know this or don’t want to know. If the former, there should no longer be any excuse for their ignorance. If the latter, then their intent clearly is to wish the worst on Israel.
Joel Ackerman | Richmond
Facebook investors nix BDS
At the Facebook annual meeting June 11, I rose and told the board that scholars at the Simon Wiesenthal Center have determined the BDS campaign against Israel to be anti-Semitic. I asked them to assure investors that the corporation was not, in any way, involved in the campaign. They assured me that they were not. Investors gave them strong and loud applause. Many investors stopped me to shake my hand. I had expected to be booed when I spoke, but it did not happen. The BDS crowd is not having any luck extorting money from Mark Zuckerberg and the board of Facebook.
Jim Patterson | San Francisco
Former U.S. State Department diplomat
‘Hysterical attacks’ on Iran moratorium
Sir Roland Franklin, in his June 12 op-ed, urges that negotiations with Iran cease lest the signing of an agreement lead to World War III. He argues that a 10-year moratorium on Iranian nuclear development will start an arms race because it will guarantee that in year 11 Iran will have nuclear weapons. He contends Iran is likely to subvert any agreement and that the religious fanatics who rule Iran will not be dissuaded from using nuclear weapons. He may be right, but he may be dead wrong. Even Yoda had difficulty seeing the future — which is always changing — and those of us less attuned to the Force should be circumspect in our prognostications.
It is equally possible to imagine a future in which attacks on Iran are only partially successful, but have the effect of strengthening Iran’s resolve to develop nuclear weapons and to exact revenge. Or, if an agreement is signed, perhaps the elimination of sanctions will strengthen Iranian moderates, thereby weakening the zealots’ control over the country.
We do know that extremism begets extremism. We cringe when the PLO is followed by Hamas and Hezbollah, which is then followed by al-Quaida, ISIS and al-Nusra. Videos of Jews screaming for the death of all Arabs on Jerusalem Day, however, and the rise of Israeli politicians such as Sharon, Netanyahu, Liberman, and Shaked must be viewed by Arabs as evidence of an increasingly menacing Israel.
I don’t know whether the anticipated nuclear agreement will be strong enough for Israel to take a chance on. Once we know its terms, each of us can decide, and urge those responsible to take appropriate action. But I do know that we should resist hysterical attacks against it because they foreclose even a remote chance of breaking this cycle of violence.
Yonkel Goldstein | San Carlos
NPR journalist ‘has a list’?
I’ve never heard of Diane Rehm’s show on NPR, but her implied libel of Bernie Sanders accusing him of being an Israeli citizen was about as stupid as it gets. Rehm later apologized, explaining that she saw him identified as an Israeli citizen on a “list” she had.
“We have a list”? What is this, Nixon, Alger Hiss’ pumpkin with a side of Joe McCarthy? To imply that because one is Jewish and a supporter of Israel, regardless of citizenship, one has sinister motives and possibly dual loyalties is nonsense. I thought that went out with Charles Lindbergh and the America Firsters pre–World War II. Good for Bernie Sanders for calling her on it.
Rehm said she took as her source an anti-Semitic Facebook post. This is problematic on a number of counts. Regardless of the source, how can a journalist imply disloyalty by placing a black mark of Cain on a politician simply by implying he may be supportive of Israel. This is what happens when journalists who don’t know anything play it fast and loose with the facts and attempt to imply sinister motives where none exist.
The more I read about this, the sadder I get!
Steve Lipman | Foster City
S.F. leaders’ mixed racism history
Interesting article about how San Francisco’s Jewish leadership helped fight racism (“City Hall celebrates San Francisco’s storied Jewish heritage,” May 28). The article mentions former San Francisco Mayor Adolph Sutro. A 2012 San Francisco Chronicle article says Sutro was sued in 1897 by John Harris, an African American, because his white friends were admitted to Sutro baths, “but he — alone among his friends — was denied admission” (“Sutro Baths was test case for blacks’ civil rights,” www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Sutro-Baths-was-test-case-for-blacks-civil-rights-3588731.php). The article also says: “Edgar Sutro, Adolph’s son, who had taken responsibility for the running of the baths, told the Call newspaper that ‘it would be ruinous to allow negroes [sic] in the baths, because the white people would be unwilling to mingle with them.’”
The fight against racism wasn’t quite up to speed in 1897.
Jim Musselman | San Francisco
Not clear-cutting, but still destructive
Regarding Josh Wilson’s May 15 response to letter writers: There is a commandment in the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:19) that forbids the wanton destruction of trees during wartime. This concept was later broadened to encompass humanity’s responsibility to shield all nature from unnecessary harm.
Wilson writes about “habitat restoration plans for Glen Canyon” and “replacing selectively cut trees with native oak.” The proposed “restoration” involves cutting down 120 “invasive” trees.
More than 100 “invasive” trees in the canyon already have been eliminated during recent projects. In addition, there are reports of around 100 trees cut down before 2012. Admittedly, this cannot be called clear-cutting. But the plan for Mount Davidson is clear-cutting: 1,000 out of 1,221 trees in a 3.5-acre area — 82 percent in that area — are to be eliminated, along with another 600 trees in two other areas.
It is also very close to clear-cutting for Sharp Park, where 15,147 trees, which absorb and store CO2, clear the air and provide home and food for wildlife, will be gone when the Significant Natural Resource Areas Management Plan is implemented. In some places cutting down would amount to 75 percent of the existing trees, in others 50 percent. There are absolutely no replacement trees mentioned in the plan.
Svetlana Savchuk and Valentin Ignatovski
San Francisco