‘Inherited memory’ is not all about trauma — come see
As a docent at San Francisco’s Contemporary Jewish Museum for the new exhibit “From Generation to Generation: Inherited Memory and Art,” I was dismayed by the Dec. 2 headline “Familial memories become contemporary art in CJM exhibit” and the article’s apparent theme, the Holocaust and other traumatic narratives (e.g., the Armenian genocide, the aftereffects of slavery/racism, the Vietnam War).
These are not correct for the exhibit as a whole. As the exhibit title suggests, all of the international artists created pieces of contemporary art that grapple with memories that are not their own (oral and written stories, traditions, songs or incidents) or have been passed down (inherited). However, the inherited memories in many of the art pieces are not based on family, nor are they traumatic. Some realized by the artists are collective, based on culture or popular culture. Some are imagined. Some are humorous or even weird.
I fear that many people who read the J. article will not want to visit the CJM to see “another” Holocaust-related and/or trauma-related exhibit. This is just not true. See for yourselves.
Deborah Kohn | San Mateo
No ‘double standard’ when it comes to Israel
I hear that when I criticize Israel for its treatment of Palestinians or its illegal occupation of territory, I am holding Israel to a “double standard.” But I didn’t create the standard that Israel is held to.
By giving Israel more foreign aid than any other country in the world — even though there obviously are populations at least as needy — my government has set the standard. Indeed, federal law (the Leahy law) prohibits the U.S. from giving military aid to nations that violate human rights. I’m just calling our country to hold Israel to the standard imposed by law.
Clyde Leland | Berkeley
Ellison is wrong person to lead the DNC
Rep. Keith Ellison’s bid to chair the Democratic National Committee must be rejected.
Ellison has one of the most anti-Israel records in Congress. In 2014, the House voted 395-8 to approve emergency funding for Israel’s purely defensive Iron Dome missile-defense system while Israel’s cities and towns were under attack from Hamas rockets and mortars during the Gaza War. Ellison voted to deny Israel that help. (Bay Area Rep. Zoe Lofgren voted no, too.)
Ellison has also defended anti-Semites. Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, for instance, has called Judaism a “gutter religion” and Jews “wicked deceivers of the American people,” yet Ellison has called him “a role model.”
In 1995, Ellison wrote a column in the Minnesota Daily that called Zionism “a debatable political philosophy” and attacked University of Minnesota President Nils Hasselmo for criticizing Stokely Carmichael’s hateful comment that “Zionism must be destroyed.” Also that year, Ellison organized a rally at the university during which Khalid Mohammed — already infamous for having said in 1993: “Everybody always talk about Hitler exterminating 6 million Jews. … But don’t nobody ever asked what did they do to Hitler?” — was invited to speak; he vowed: “If words were swords, the chests of Jews, gays and whites would be pierced.”
Ellison publicly renounced the Nation of Islam in 2006. Yet in 2010, he promoted the vile anti-Semitic canard that Jews control United States foreign policy, insisting that it “is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people,” meaning Israel, while promising his supporters that if they become involved, “everything changes.”
Clearly, Ellison is the wrong person to lead the Democratic National Committee.
Stephen A. Silver | San Francisco
Two states? No chance
Everyone agrees that the answer to the Arab-Israeli conflict is a two-state solution — except the Arabs.
Beginning with the Peel commission in 1937, the Arabs have repeatedly said no to a two-state solution — in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 2000 and 2008. After the Six-Day War in 1967, they refused the offer to get everything back in return for a total peace.
Having to defend herself against repeated Arab-instigated wars, Israel is surrounded by naysayers. In Gaza, Hamas has a charter calling for the killing of all Jews (not just Israelis) and is training a whole generation of “martyrs” in UNRWA schools to destroy Israel. To the north is Hezbollah, an agent of Iran also dedicated to end Israel.
And in Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank), we find the Palestinian authority, led by a Holocaust denier, President Abbas, now in the 10th year of a five-year term. Their charter, which has never been changed, calls for the destruction of Israel. They teach that the Jews never had connection to Palestine, and that there never was a Jewish temple in Jerusalem and, more importantly, that all of Israel is “occupied” Arab land to be “liberated” from the river (Jordan) to the sea.
Listen to what they tell their people in Arabic, and not what is said in English in the polite halls of the West. A two-state solution? Israel is at fault for the lack of peace? The world is flat? Pick your favorite fantasy.
Marvin L. Engel | Piedmont
Settlements are folly
The year 2017 will mark 100 years since the Balfour Declaration, 70 years since the United Nations partition plan, 50 years since the Six-Day War and, from any perspective, will be a critical juncture in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Mounting political pressure is being applied by the Israeli political right and ultra-nationalist parties to legalize illegal outposts and expand settlements. Politicians such as Naftali Bennett of the Jewish Home Party are doing all they can to advance the goal of legitimizing the unilateral annexation of the West Bank, and they see a golden opportunity in the perceived support of the incoming Trump administration.
As a lifelong supporter of the State of Israel, it is clear to me that such policies will undermine Israel’s security concerns and its values as a Jewish and democratic state. They will also destroy any possibility of a negotiated two-state or regional solution. This outcome is neither a rational or pragmatic policy, and will lead to very negative outcomes for Israel.
The U.S. Jewish community cannot stay silent at this critical juncture in history. We have a responsibility to speak out in clear and strong terms when our collective interests and values are being undermined by the more extreme elements of the current Israeli leadership.
Don Raphael | San Francisco
Off-target editorial
It’s already too late for a two-state solution. The Arabs already have a Palestinian state in Gaza. We see how well that’s going. What makes J. think that another such state in Judea and Samaria will be any more successful? (“Two-state solution is still the best and only option,” editorial, Nov. 25)
Had the Arabs really wanted a two-state solution they would have agreed to the United Nations Partition in 1947 or the offers made by Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert.
Before Israel can truly discuss the idea of a Palestinian state, the Arabs themselves must speak with one voice for peace.
While the concept of “two states for two peoples” is an admirable goal, it will come about only if it is the goal of both sides.
Do I have an alternative proposal? No, because the problem is not with Israel. The Jewish state has made peace with Egypt and Jordan, surrendering territory to achieve diplomatic recognition and relative peace. Leaving Gaza and Lebanon didn’t bring peace; it just emboldened the Arabs, with them seeing the withdrawals as a sign of weakness.
In an ideal world, the two-state solution would end the conflict, but the world is far from ideal. The Palestinian Arabs’ goal remains the elimination of Israel. Until the Arabs truly wish to have a state alongside Israel, the two-state solution is no solution at all.
Gil Stein | Aptos