Subversive action via ‘responsible’ investing
In his Sept. 4 letter, Lincoln Pain challenges Dan Pine “to find a single call for the destruction of Israel … in SRI (socially responsible investment) literature.” Why? The article never said SRI calls for the destruction of Israel — it’s not so blunt. It calls for divestment from Israel and the companies doing business with Israel.
Mr. Pain’s letter states that “for over 45 years SRI has … divested from corporations doing business in every nation in the world.” Would it be true for France, for example? Just because it’s France?
Accusing Israel of “anti-democratic behavior” and “human rights violations” is ridiculous. Putting Israel in the same category as Sudan, Myanmar, Syria or China is beyond the pale.
Many thanks to Dan Pine for writing “BDS in the boardroom” (Aug. 14), showing that BDS via subversion of socially responsible investment might not be as visible as campus BDS, but is much more effective.
Anastasia Glikshtern | San Francisco
Iran deal is ‘wonderful’
The alternative to the Iran deal is war with the killing of U.S. soldiers and Iranian civilians, a path that increases the recruitment of people into extremist, terrorist activities. The diplomats who negotiated a deal that prevents Iran from developing a nuclear weapon are saving American lives and helping the pro-democracy movement in the Middle East. These diplomats are American heroes. They got a tight agreement without costing lives. We need to support our team and the wonderful deal they have accomplished.
Marc Pilisuk | Berkeley
Courageous Democrats bucking the party line
I want to acknowledge the brave stance of congressional Democrats who have opposed the Iran deal. I have repeatedly received emails from Democratic Party sources praising the courage of members of Congress who support the party’s line [favoring the deal], yet it is my opinion that the truly courageous are those who, after thoughtful consideration, have decided to break with their party’s position and do what they feel is right. They have unfortunately received vitriolic criticism.
Regardless of how I feel about the Iran deal myself, I am distressed that this has become a partisan issue and that members of Congress feel compelled to vote along party lines. That is not what we expect when we elect our public officials. We hope they will vote their conscience.
While I strongly identify with the positions of Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer, I believe that our only two true “justices” are Kennedy and Roberts because they have been able to look beyond their personal beliefs and political leaning and vote according to how they interpret the laws.
I liken the congressional Democrats [opposing the deal] to these two justices: having the wisdom and the conviction to vote as they see right. I commend their strength and courage and wish others would follow their example.
Janet Abelson | San Mateo
Loophole in agreementlets Iran drag its heels
I must clarify one point in Norman G. Licht’s excellent criticism of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, aka the Iran deal (Letters, Sept. 4). While properly stating that comprehensive inspections are necessary, he notes that the protocols are inadequate due to “24 days advance notice…” Sadly, the reference to a 24-day notice period for inspection of undeclared sites is not really accurate.
For inspections at undeclared sites, the IAEA must provide Iran with the basis of the concern. If the IAEA finds Iran’s explanations unsatisfactory, it must then make a written request explaining the reasons for access and make relevant information available to the Iranians. Iran can then propose an alternative means of resolving the issue. The 24-day notice period begins only after the IAEA rejects the Iranian explanation. The Iranians can drag this process on for months.
Nor is the inspection issue the only substantial problem here. Allowing Iran to purchase ballistic missiles in eight years and creating an affirmative international commitment to assist with the safeguarding of Iranian nuclear assets should give pause.
Anyone concerned with denying Iran a path to nuclear weapons should ask their elected representatives to reject this disastrous deal and instruct Secretary Kerry to go back to the negotiating table with Iran.
Steve Astrachan | Pleasant Hill
AIPAC: Give up the ghost
I have been an AIPAC supporter for decades. AIPAC’s core mission of building a strong bipartisan consensus in Congress for Israel resonates strongly.
After news broke last week that a 34th senator had declared support for President Obama’s Iran deal, making a congressional veto override a moot point, a letter came out from AIPAC’s director urging members to “pick up the phone” and “continue to engage” Congress to make the case for a better deal “until every vote is cast.”
Leaving aside what a “better deal” looks like (I’ve not heard a single suggestion of what that means), this is one of those occasions where AIPAC has lost me.
Now is the time to rebuild the trust between Israel and the U.S. administration. Now is the time for Israel to present a long shopping list to the U.S. for military equipment and intelligence-sharing that enhances Israel’s qualitative conventional military advantage.
Our Arab neighbors have been doing this for months. We’ve been backing a losing horse since Bibi’s ridiculous congressional speech in March. This has to stop!
It’s time to give up the ghost and move to a better future for Israel and the U.S. based on shared values and trust.
Steve Lipman | Foster City
A great save
To all who were involved in saving the Jewish communal pension plan (“Pension reinvention,” Aug. 28): You are mensches of the highest order. Todah rabbah!!!!
Lisa Tabak | Oakland
Film inappropriate for Jewish festival
The San Francisco Jewish Film Festival has frequently come under fire for selecting films whose Jewish bona fides are questionable. A case in point was a film shown this year, “The Armor of Light.” The program stated the film was about evangelical Christian minister Rob Schenck, who was born into a Reform Jewish family but converted to Christianity as a teen. Schenck tries to square the common evangelical positions of being anti-abortion, yet pro-gun. There is no Jewish content in the film but plenty that is the antithesis of what most Jews hold dear.
The second issue is that neither the film’s subject nor its director, Abigail Disney, are Jewish. Abigail Disney, who hails from the famously anti-Semitic Disney family, attempted to divest her Disney family shares from [the Israeli company] Ahava. She could not legally do that, so she sends her profits to organizations which can be more effective in “ending this illegal exploitation.” So she is also part of the much-reviled BDS movement.
The film’s only merit was in the real star and surprise guest, Lucy McBath, whose teenage son was killed in Florida and is now a powerful voice for gun control. However, even she urged us to return to our “churches” and preach the anti-gun gospel. “The Armor of Light” made us cringe.
Natalie Krauss Bivas
Caryn Huberman Yacowitz
Rinah Mullens | Palo Alto
No longer shocked by extremists
Yonkel Goldstein should not be surprised concerning the attacks on mosques, churches and Palestinians (Letters, Aug. 7). These attacks go back at least 75 years ago when the Irgun, the “grandfather” of the Likud, attacked Arabs, killing hundreds of Arab men, women and children.
Furthermore, Douglas Bloomfield should not be surprised that Jewish extremists may be threatening Yitzhak Herzog (“When Israelis murder children, words are no longer enough,” Aug. 7). During the 1940s, the Irgun and the Stern Gang threatened to kill any Jew they thought betrayed them to the British.
I was born in 1947, and things have not changed at all.
Jean Tome | San Francisco
Build Iran arguments on foundation of truth
Elected representatives have a duty to keep the public fully and accurately informed. When it comes to issues of national security, their responsibility takes on greater significance. No issue fits into this category more than the nuclear agreement with Iran. Since the security of Israel is highly affected, the Jewish community has understandably taken keen interest in the debate.
One of the most critical elements of the agreement is inspections. Rep. Jackie Speier, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, has this on her website: “It would subject these facilities to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on two hours’ notice.” A search of the agreement finds no such statement.
Heated public discourse is both understandable and necessary. However, in order to debate the issue on its merits, accuracy is essential. Speier is preventing honest discourse with her inaccurate comment. She should post a retraction or be held accountable for misleading the public on a matter of such importance.
Dan Calic | Israel