And now what, professor?
Now that she has found her place among the delegitmitizers of the Jewish state, what, pray tell, does professor Hasia Diner have in mind for the 6 million Jews of Israel whose state is invalid? (“American Jewish historian no longer a Zionist — she says it’s a trend,” Aug. 5).
Should they “go home” to Poland, Germany, Iraq and Morocco?
In an Aug. 1 op-ed in Haaretz announcing her conversion to Israel denier, co-written with fellow historian Marjorie Feld, professor Diner says, “The ideal of a religiously neutral state worked amazingly well for the millions of Jews who came to America.”
That is, Israel should become a multicultural state with Jews and Palestinians living happily alongside one another.
Diner must have missed the Hamas charter. “The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews … The stones and trees will say, ‘O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’ ”
And what of the anti-Semitic canards propagated by Palestinian Authority and PLO leaders (such as: rabbis plot to poison Palestinian water … Jews have a plan for world domination … the 19th-century forgery “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” screed is legitimate … “there is no Jewish people”)?
And the savageries committed against non-Muslims throughout the Arab world today?
The “naive delusion” Diner speaks of is not the creation of the Jewish state, affirmed by the world community in 1947. Rather, it is the suggestion that Jews can safely exist in the Middle East in a state not their own.
Adam Cole | San Francisco
Historians’ beef against Zionism is full of hot air
According to professors Hasia Diner and Marjorie Feld, Israel (a) hasn’t fulfilled their dream of being “Eden on earth,” (b) is a “product of imperialism and ethnic cleansing” and (c) demonizes the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. Their Aug. 1 op-ed in Haaretz also noted the “sense of repulsion” felt when entering a synagogue that “has planted a sign reading ‘We Stand With Israel.’”
So the pair has decided to disassociate themselves from Israel and her supporters, to which I am gladly saying, “Good riddance!”
I’d like to remind Diner and Feld that the United Nations Partition Plan, Resolution 181, establishing Israel, was adopted not under a Western colonial dictate, but by a majority of Soviet bloc, Central and Latin American countries, the United States and some European countries.
As historians, Diner and Feld should know that the Jewish state was attacked in numerous wars by genocidal Arab countries, not the other way around. As a result of these wars, Israel has conquered some lands. Lost territories, historically, have been the punishment of the aggressors.
Furthermore, the historians must also have known that the conquered lands may be returned to the aggressors only after there is no threat of more attacks. So far, there are no promising signs of peaceful intentions from Hezbollah, Hamas or Fatah. Thus, all the crocodile tears and lamentations about Israel’s colonial nature are totally hollow.
Vladimir Kaplan | San Mateo
Differing opinions need to be respected
Thank you for publishing two opinion pieces on the importance of intellectual diversity.
The June 3 piece by Stanford University student Elliot Kaufman (“Intellectual diversity: missing in action at Stanford”) expressed the pain of voicing minority opinions about affirmative action. He wrote that classmates “would rather I stay silent.”
Then, on June 24, Rabbi Doug Kahn wrote a piece headlined “Sharply polarized political climate a threat to Jews,” which was about the importance of listening to multiple perspectives and developing a consensus through an exchange of views.
Both writers expressed the need for respect of differing opinions.
In that light, I was surprised at J.’s Aug. 5 editorial personally attacking Hasia Diner for her political opinions (“Jews turning against Israel isn’t a trend, it’s a tragedy”).
When J. writes that the opinions are “not what we expect from an intellectual of your caliber,” there is a surprising lack of respect. J. is saying that people who disagree with it are not smart.
It is one thing to disagree with someone’s opinions and to challenge them intellectually, but it is another to belittle the person and impugn their intellect. J. appears to seek conformity and groupthink.
Alan Titus | San Francisco
Afikomen worth finding
Thanks for David Wilensky’s excellent article on Afikomen Judaica in Berkeley. It is of utmost importance that we support this wonderful Jewish place, where beautiful presents, books and gifts cover the length and breadth of Jewish history, religion and traditions.
I also appreciate the information and guidance that Rabbi Chaim and Nell Mahgel-Friedman so readily share.
Celia Menczel | Walnut Creek
Hebrew Free Loan can help
Thank you to J. for the article “Lenders help first-time homebuyers take the plunge” (July 15). We at Hebrew Free Loan know all too well how unattainable a first-time home purchase can be, given the current sky-high real estate market.
Prospective homeowners will be glad to learn about the government loan programs the article described, which make home purchases possible with down payments as low as 3 percent.
I also want to make sure that your readers know that Hebrew Free Loan is an additional resource for first-time homebuyers. We provide interest-free loans of up to $25,000, which can be used to cover the additional expenses associated with buying a home. Closing costs, moving expenses, home repairs, furniture and appliances are all expensive, especially once people have used most of their savings for the down payment.
I encourage Jewish residents of Northern California to contact us if they are in need of financial assistance to fulfill the dream of home ownership.
Cindy Rogoway | San Francisco
Executive Director, Hebrew Free Loan
It’s the ‘Promised’ Land for a reason
Andy David’s Aug. 5 op-ed (“Jewish homeland won international support 94 years ago”) was factually correct, but Israel’s consul general to San Francisco and the Pacific Northwest missed the most important point of all.
The Jewish right to the land of Israel is not based on the fact that we need it for our security, or that many nations have already recognized our right, or even that we possessed the land in ancient times.
Rather, Israel’s legitimacy is based on the principle that the world is governed by God rather than man, and that He promised the land to the Israelites as an everlasting possession in return for our promise to keep His commandments.
Israel will never be secure in the land or prevail over its enemies as long as it denies the very source of its existence.
It’s highly ironic that the people who introduced monotheism to the world seem to be the only ones today who are embarrassed to acknowledge it. When Israel fears God more than it fears its enemies, and trusts God more than it trusts its friends, it will know how to deal with the many threats it faces.
Martin Wasserman | Palo Alto
A few suggestions for others PA can sue next
The July 29 brief “Palestinian Authority to sue UK over Balfour Declaration” yet again demonstrates the extreme hatred of Jews by the PA. Had the billions of dollars allocated to the PA by the United States, United Nations and European Union been used to build infrastructure and improve their economy, a thriving state might have arisen.
Instead of suing the United Kingdom for its 1917 declaration, which noted that Britain “views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” it would make more sense for the PA to sue Turkey — the successor to the Muslim, Ottoman/Turkish Empire (~1300–1922) — for not granting that nonexistent PA ethnic group independence for the 600 years of Ottoman rule, during which contemporary Israel, Jordan and Syria were ruled as the “Damascus administrative area.”
Or perhaps the PA should sue the Central Powers of World War I (Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire) for having the audacity to lose that war! Had they won, there would have been no England to “view with favor” anything for the Jews.
Or perhaps the PA should sue the United Nations, for it was the U.N. itself that, in 1947, voted to partition “Mandate Palestine” into separate Jewish and Arab states (as well as partitioning British India into separate Muslim and Hindu states).
Fred Korr | Oakland
Don’t be P.C. at Israel’s expense
Rabbi Jill Jacobs is misguided and a sad example of how political correctness is killing us (“Anti-BDS law tramples on free speech, could provoke backlash,” op-ed, June 24).
How any Jew, let alone a rabbi, can justify, in the name of free speech, not fighting against the BDS movement against Israel is beyond my comprehension.
Rabbi Jacobs is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of Israel who have no trouble using unfair BDS bullying tactics against the only democracy in the Middle East. Comparing the boycott of lettuce and grapes to the boycott of the only Jewish homeland on Earth is ridiculous. Does Rabbi Jacobs support the boycott of Jewish products and Jewish institutions by the Nazis in the 1930s as an exercise of free speech?
Until Israel receives acceptance as a Jewish state, one that is recognized as a homeland for the Jewish people, there will not be peace. BDS tactics will not change this reality. Rabbi Jacobs should support any action that would defeat using BDS to undermine and eliminate the Jewish State of Israel.
Jeffrey Newhouse | Santa Cruz