Where are the Jewish volunteers?
On Dec. 9, the JCRC organized Jewish Volunteer Day @ Project Homeless Connect; a mere 150 Jewish community volunteers showed up to assist 1,700 clients in accessing services. This number included 45 seventh graders from Brandeis Hillel (hats off to them).
Where were the rest of us? We who hold tikkun olam as a core value, part of our religious and secular identity, should have been there in great numbers. Shame on us.
The excuse may be made that this was a weekday. How many of us are retired, unemployed or underemployed? Where were we? Most high school students have a community service requirement — where were they? How many of us sit on committees or boards and participate on a “higher” level?
Where are we when the call goes out to roll up our sleeves? Shame on us.
This was one of the most rewarding and eye-opening activities I have had the opportunity to participate in. I hope when we are next asked, as a community, to make a direct connection and contribution of time with those less fortunate, we will turn out in the kind of numbers that will remind those around us that we truly believe in tikkun olam.
Shelley W. Gottlieb | San Francisco
Reform — or Reconstructionist?
Rabbi Jacob Neusner’s suggested platform for a 21st century Reform Judaism (“Hello again, Reform Judaism; you’ve got the right stuff,” Dec. 18) sounds very much what Reconstructionist Judaism has been urging, at least since 1934. That’s the year of the appearance of the book “Judaism as a Civilization: Toward a Reconstruction of American Jewish Life.” That book is the seminal work of Mordecai M. Kaplan, founder of the Reconstructionist movement.
When Neusner writes that “Reform accords to halachah a voice but not a veto,” he is echoing almost literally Kaplan’s “the past must have a vote but not a veto.” Most of what Neusner calls “integrationist Judaisms” have already adopted many significant Reconstructionist concepts, much to their credit.
I have long said that many of today’s Jews are Reconstructionists and don’t know it!
Rabbi H. David Teitelbaum | Redwood City
‘Lack of respect’ for scholars
Interesting juxtaposition of articles in the Dec. 18 issue: the report on the Conservative movement biennial with “change atop their agenda” and a new strategic plan, and Rabbi Jacob Neusner’s op-ed proclaiming the demise of Conservative Judaism and his return to Reform.
As a Bard College alumna, I’m embarrassed that Rabbi Neusner is senior fellow at its Institute of Advanced Theology. The theses he presents are far from advanced. He states that “Reform Judaism founded modern learning in Judaism.” Really? Does he dismiss Heschel so easily? Or Mordechai Kaplan? Both modern scholars and professors at JTS. And the lack of respect he shows Kaplan, using Kaplan’s well-known phrase that the past has “a voice but not a veto” with no attribution, as if he’d authored it.
Neusner goes on to applaud having been brought up Reform, to affirm what was “personally meaningful and to dismiss as irrelevant what did not fit.” Seems the fundamental Jewish duty of properly citing sources is “irrelevant” to him. This way of thinking frightens me — will we end up with only our teachers’ personally meaningful brands of Judaism? We must have full access to our traditions to understand them and make our own informed choices.
Sara Yakira Heckelman | San Francisco
Not a ‘Catholic country’
I don’t think that Kathi Twomey Wahed (Letters, Dec. 18) is correct in her assertion that Switzerland is a Catholic country. Switzerland, just like the USA, has freedom of religion. Looking on the Web, I found that 41.8 percent of the population identifies itself as being Catholic — a large number, but not a majority. Protestants comprise 35.3 percent of the population.
In the U.S., the numbers are 23.9 percent Roman Catholic and 51.3 percent Protestant.
Although the Christian right insists that this is a Christian country, we nevertheless have freedom of religion even though the majority of the U.S. population is Christian.
Leonard W. Williams | Sunnyvale
Diller singled out?
What was the intent of having the term “ex-Diller” in the title for “Now with Code Pink, ex-Diller teen prepares for Gaza Freedom March” (Dec. 18)? Rae Abileah was affiliated with BBYO, AJWS and Peninsula Temple Sholom, so why was the Diller Teen Program singled out in the headline?
The Diller Teen Program had nothing to do with the content of this article, and it seems inappropriate to identify one program, out of the many she was involved in, with Abileah’s personal journey of activism.
Doria Charlson | Stanford
Diller Teen Fellow, Cohort 11
Auschwitz theft irony
The recent theft of the famous sign from the gate of Auschwitz-Birkenau presents an interesting paradigm. Auschwitz is owned by Poland. The museum rightly felt that the stolen sign belonged to it and must be returned. Yet thousands of Holocaust survivors are denied by this very museum the opportunity to have their loved ones’ suitcases returned to them!
One famous case is that of Michel Levi-Leleu of France, who sued in 2006 for his father’s suitcase because the museum
doesn’t return anything to survivors. A less famous case is one involving my family.
Why are Jewish survivors rights to their family’s items inferior to the rights of the museum? Poland signed the European Convention on Human Rights and does not respect it!
Mordechai Pelta | San Francisco
Still no resolution
A few weeks ago we offered a proposal for “resolution and healing” to the SFJFF concerning the “Rachel” program debacle. They responded by offering denial as opposed to resolution in an op-ed Dec. 18.
They speak of dialogue, but sow discord. Their phrase “let’s move on” means let’s condone what happened and suffer a likely repeat in the future.
The extended public discussion during these last six months has defined SFJFF more accurately to many thousands of people in our community. They have never apologized for their actions, but only for underestimating the controversy. SFJFF board president Dana Doron did not express regret for providing Cindy Corrie a platform, only for how SFJFF marketed the event. She made a commitment to anticipate and manage community outrage better in the future, rather than a new policy to avoid events that cater to a rabidly anti-Israel audience. There is no longer doubt as to their politics and intentions.
We represent many in the pro-Israel community and our concerns endure as time moves on with no resolution.
SFJFF’s attitude toward Israel is best expressed by a paraphrase of a famous quote from Oscar Wilde: Israel “has no enemies but is intensely disliked by some of her friends.”
Michael Harris | San Rafael
Larry Goldberg | Tiburon
Stein needs to step down
I want to refute Dana Doron’s op-ed from Dec. 18. First of all, though I am not personally in agreement with Larry Goldberg and Mike Harris with respect to their position, their solution to expand the film festival board will mollify many people, and therefore is a viable one. It is a compromise solution whereby more opinions will be voiced and certainly more input in film selection will be achieved.
But “ ‘quelling’ the fires” will truly happen if and when SFJFF executive director Peter Stein resigns. I think that nothing less will truly solve the problems that have been manifested this year. After all, it was his decision to bring Cindy Corrie to San Francisco. With the justification that “controversy” would be what the greater community needed, he ignored the good advice of many people and proceeded in a very defiant manner.
I would like to be able to agree with Doron that the reputation of the SFJFF is of the highest caliber, but unfortunately, that reputation has been sullied.
Susan H. Somerville | Oakland
SFJFF promises weak
I agree with Dana Doron (“SFJFF: We’re sorry, we’ve learned … let’s move forward,” Dec. 18) that the strength of our Jewish community is “our ability to have difficult conversations about our differences, and our ability to come together as one people with many voices.” So why does she object to the voices of Lawrence Goldberg and Michael Harris? It is their voices and others that will propel us forward with multiple opinions expressed.
Yes, as Doron says, “SFJFF has twice apologized publicly for underestimating how the ‘Rachel’ screening and a post-film appearance by Cindy Corrie would so painfully expose and exacerbate existing divisions in the Jewish community around discussions of Israel.” But to this date, Doron seems not to understand that the problem was the content, and the one-sided anti-Israel hatefest the content provoked.
The plans for an expanded board are vague (would she involve JCRC prior to choosing programming or after?) and her references to ongoing “controversial programming” appear to promise more one-sided presentations under the guise of an “independent arts organization.”
Julie O’Neill | Morgan Hill
Contra Costa fest responds
Dana Doron claims that the SFJFF “engendered” over 100 Jewish film festivals, including the Contra Costa International Jewish Film Festival. As a former chair of that festival, and current board member, I would like to respond.
At no time did the SFJFF help us in any way — not with financial support, programming support or publicity. They always viewed us as competition, going so far as to sabotage our efforts to obtain films. On several occasions we were told by distributors that we could not get a film because SFJFF demanded to show it first. This is absurd! We show films that premier in San Francisco all the time — why shouldn’t SFJFF show films that we premiere? Our festival is held during the winter, far from San Francisco, and should have posed no threat to the SFJFF, held in the summer.
The Contra Costa International Jewish Film Festival drew over 5,000 attendees in each of the past several years. This is no thanks whatsoever to the SFJFF.
We welcome the entire Jewish community to join us for our 15th annual festival, opening Feb. 20, 2010 at CineArts in Pleasant Hill.
Efi Lubliner | Lafayette
Board needs overhaul
Is Dana Doron serious when the SFJFF says it is sorry and has learned? She failed to note that Rachel Pfeffer, former head of Jewish Voice for Peace, remains on the festival’s board.
Pfeffer reflects the incessant anti-Israel agenda of JVP, which has called for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against the land where nearly half the Jewish people of the planet live. Remember, Pfeffer pushed for both the screening of the Rachel Corrie film as well as the appearance of Cindy Corrie, who thereupon was able to spout her virulently anti-Israel ISM (International Solidarity Movement) screed.
So long as Pfeffer remains on the festival’s board, the SFJFF will remain an insult to the Jewish community, with any apology from its board members being the epitome of disingenuous.
Dan Spitzer | Berkeley
Fest silencing critics?
Dana Doron of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival can’t be taken seriously if she believes that the SFJFF has apologized to the Jewish community. The festival apologized for not understanding how divisive their actions were. They didn’t apologize for promoting anti-Semitism with the “Rachel” event. They want to move on. That can’t happen unless they acknowledge the gravity of their errors.
The federation and the SFJFF should be ashamed. They want to heal wounds by trying to silence those who speak out against their lame excuses about diversity and freedom of speech.
Anti-Jewish sentiment is rising and is being assisted by groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace, who would like nothing better than the elimination of Israel. Ms. Doron, don’t insult us anymore. Admit that you used poor judgment in giving anti-Semites a platform. We know that you underestimated the opposition to the film. That was ignorance. You need to apologize for showing the film, because that was just wrong.
Gil Stein | Aptos