Extinguish the hatred
What can be the response to the killing of the four Jews in Toulouse, which is similar to the previous killings of the Jews in Mumbai? Elie Wiesel said we should “do everything to become more Jewish.” The j. editorial said we should “remain proud, open Jews” (“Tragedy unites us in grief and outrage,” March 23).
Those responses are fine; however, Jews, and leaders of Jewish organizations, need additional response: publicly condemn, and try to counteract, every case of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hate, spoken or written, and admonish that such hate can provoke violence against Jews.
The hatred of Israel and Jews must be protested everywhere, especially at college campuses.
Norman Licht | San Carlos
P.A. condemnation rings hollow
The horrific murder of Rabbi Jonathan Sandler, his two young sons, Gabriel and Arieh, and 7-year-old Myriam Monsonego, outside a Jewish school in Toulouse, France, was not motivated by politics. It was motivated by hate.
As for Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s condemnation of the massacre as a “terrorist crime,” this was a welcome first step. But the statement also reeked of hypocrisy.
During the past four years, the “moderate” Palestinian Authority has named a public square in Ramallah, two girls’ high schools, a computer center, a soccer championship and two summer camps in honor of Dalal Mughrabi. Mughrabi was a Palestinian terrorist who murdered 38 people — including 13 children — in the 1978 “Coastal Road Massacre,” the deadliest terror attack in Israel’s history.
And since the Palestinian Authority rejected both an Israeli peace proposal and President Bill Clinton’s bridging proposals at Camp David in 2000, Palestinian terrorists with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah have deliberately targeted young Israelis in schools, homes, buses, malls, pizzerias, a disco, an ice cream parlor and at a Passover seder, killing more than 1,000 Israeli civilians, including dozens of children.
Stephen Silver | San Francisco
AIPAC’s inconsistency
An exciting moment on March 5 at the AIPAC conference included a proposed amendment to the national council stating, “AIPAC supports Israel’s commitment to democratic values and the rule of law, including the protection of minorities and the dismantling of illegal settlement outposts.”
This reasoned amendment, proposed by Ameinu progressive Zionist delegate Judith Gelman, would have reassured a doubting public that AIPAC stands behind the democratic principles that guide Israeli law.
What are we to make of AIPAC’s rejection of this amendment?
At the same time, among the adopted action principles for 2012 passed by this same national council is the need for global recognition of Israel as a Jewish democratic state.
We should be concerned with AIPAC’s lack of consistency and its “democracy when convenient” approach. The Jewish community should insist on an AIPAC that reflects and represents our centrist, democratic values.
Naomi Jatovsky | San Francisco
Build Israel, don’t destroy it
Peter Beinart arrogantly hypothesizes in his March 18 New York Times op-ed (“To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements”) that American Jews need to change the language of debate; to boycott what he terms “non-democratic Israel” (beyond the Green Line) in order to “save” Israeli democracy.
Adopting the language of Israel’s detractors is reprehensible, misguided nonsense.
What right do American Jews have to dictate what is right and what is wrong to Israel, especially when we don’t pay taxes, send our kids to the army or make most of the sacrifices most Israelis make? What gives us (and Beinart) the right to dictate from afar what Israel’s policies should or should not be?
I’ve long felt that American Jews have a voice, but not a veto, when it comes to Israel. Israelis should make their own decisions and live with the consequences of their decisions. Americans must be supportive and lend our voices to strengthening Israeli democracy. We should advocate on Israel’s behalf, defend Israel locally and abroad and work for change that benefits Israeli democracy in constructive ways — not engaging in specious, counterproductive boycotts to make some misguided point.
We don’t need to destroy Israel to save it. We should pick up our tool belts and build.
Steve Lipman | Foster City
He’s a manager, not a defender, of wildlife
I’m not a hunter. I can’t see how anyone could kill a beautiful beast like a mountain lion except in self-defense.
That being said, I disagree with Dan Pine writing in his column that California Fish and Game Commission President Daniel Richards is “supposed to be the state’s top defender of wildlife” (“Cougar-killing official should listen to Torah’s respect-for-life words,” March 16). He is not.
What Mr. Richards is is the state’s top manager of wildlife. Let’s make that clear. If Mr. Richards’ position with Fish and Game gave him the title of “defender” of wildlife, how could his commission issue such things as fishing and hunting licenses? The Fish and Game commission’s responsibility is to manage our state’s wildlife resources. Period.
Mike Zelinsky | San Francisco