Don’t let fears be self-fulfilling
The Aug. 14 opinion pages of J. hit a home run. Thank you to Sue Fishkoff for opening the conversation to a broad spectrum of perspectives on topics most controversial. The op-eds by Julie Dorf and Chuck Sher and letter from Amos Nur go to the heart of existential threats not only to Israel, but to all of Judaism … that is “what hath fear wrought?” The letters from John Rothmann and Vladimir Kaplan express perspectives in counterpoint to the op-eds, almost as if the contributors to the page were speaking with one another.
If you read J., you are by definition at least an observer of our communal activities. My plea as a J Street activist and facilitator of intra- and intercommunal dialogues is for each one of you observers to join the conversation with deep reflection on the sources of your strongly held opinions. Let the voice of Hillel prevail in our relations with one another and in our relations with others, that our fears not become self-fulfilling prophecies.
Molly Freeman | Berkeley
Changing the culture of today’s synagogues
I read with interest your article about the various synagogues that are creatively struggling to find a new membership and revenue model that reflects the new American Jewish reality (“Now trending: Voluntary dues at your local congregation,” Aug. 14). These models, as well as some of the institutions included in the article, are included and explained by Rabbis Kerry and Avi Olitzky in their recently published “New Membership and Financial Alternatives for the American Synagogue” (Jewish Lights).
It is important to note that the authors remind us that a change in the membership model itself will be insufficient. Such change has to accompany a change in the culture of the synagogue. Pay attention to the section of the book titled “Twenty-Five Reasons to Support a Synagogue.” That alone makes the book worthwhile, since synagogues have to ask the questions these rabbis are asking: “Why be Jewish in the context of a particular synagogue community?”
One small correction would be that I am leading this work as the rabbi-in-residence at the Jewish federation, not in my capacity as the executive director of the Northern California Board of Rabbis.
Rabbi Marvin Goodman | Foster City
Weak reasoning by opponents of Iran deal
I do not take a strong position for or against the Iran agreement, but I found one argument in a letter printed Aug. 14 seriously flawed (“Real threat to Israel is ISIS, not Iran”). Amos Nur claims that the U.S. needs to take a softer line on Iran in order to coax it into an alliance against ISIS. This position is mistaken for three reasons.
First, it supposes that Iran is fighting ISIS as a way to get into the good graces of the United States. This is clearly false. ISIS, a Sunni organization, threatens Iran’s entire, carefully cultivated network of allies: Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah. On the other hand, although ISIS clearly threatens Israel too, it has so far held back, probably because it realizes that Israel is a more formidable enemy than either Syria or Iraq. Whereas, if Iran had nuclear weapons, all of its enemies would be cowed and this calculus would be moot.
Second, this position supposes that we cannot firmly oppose Iran on the nuclear issue while tacitly supporting its war against ISIS. To Western ears, this sounds like double dealing. In much of the world, it is diplomatic business as usual. Such a double approach is a mark of strength and a sign that we hold firm to basic principles over temporary considerations.
Finally, ISIS should be a temporary consideration. If this coalition works, ISIS can be destroyed in a year or two, whereas the nuclear agreement runs for 15. I urge supporters of the nuclear agreement to find better reasons than this one.
Ilya Gurin | Mountain View
Want a different answer? Ask a different question
The J. editorial “Ugly discourse on Iran could have unintended consequences” (Aug. 21) notes the wide-ranging opinions within the Jewish community on the Iran agreement, including the differing public opinion polls. The major reason for the difference in polling results lies in how the questions were asked.
Simply asking whether one supports the agreement with Iran yields strong negative responses because few, especially within the Jewish community, trust Iran.
But if the question is more specific, then the answer becomes more nuanced. For example, in the survey conducted by J Street, the question was: “The U.S. and other countries have announced a deal to lift economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons. International inspectors would monitor Iran’s facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement, economic sanctions would be imposed again.”
The answer to this question among American Jews was 60 percent for the agreement and 40 percent against it. Similarly worded questions asked recently among all Americans was 56 percent for and 44 percent against.
Jon Kaufman | Berkeley
How to avoid back injury
I read with interest Dr. Jerry Saliman’s excellent article “My aching back: What’s a person to do?” (Aug. 7). I would like to add two points.
First, Dr. Saliman’s wife’s injury was partly caused by lack of rest in between her three strength training workouts. Rest, one of the most important aspects of weight training, gives the body a chance to repair and develop the new muscle you have challenged it to build. From 24 to 72 hours is recommended
Second, most adults do not engage in strength training at all. There are three benefits: increased muscle mass, bone density and metabolism. As we age, the muscles begin to shrink, and if we want to remain active and independent into our 90s, the ongoing development of muscle mass is critical. Further, bone density begins to degrade at around age 35; strength training helps prevent osteoporosis. Metabolism also begins to slow as we age. The only way to change our metabolism is to perform strength training. The U.S. surgeon general recommends once or twice weekly.
Janice Litvin | Walnut Creek
And don’t let the door hit you on the way out
In the local voice op-ed by Chuck Sher (“It’s time to reclaim our Jewish moral heritage,” Aug. 14), he writes that “as a Jew” he is “increasingly alienated by what is being done by the Israeli government in my name.”
I do not believe the Israeli government is using Mr. Sher’s name. This Mr. Sher does not have to remain Jewish if he is so upset with Israel. He feels the Palestinians and Hamas are victims being attacked and that they are “virtually defenseless.” Clearly Mr. Sher does not wish Israel to exist!
I beg Mr. Sher to stop being Jewish and join another tribe.
Harry Lieberman | Berkeley