Correspondence

By JEWISH REVIEW

article created on: 2010-02-25T00:00:00

How could you?! To the editor: How could you allow the reviewer of “Ajami,” Michael Fox, to claim that “The source of the tension, the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, is rarely alluded to…?

At least you could have put a disclaimer, such as you had re AIPAC faintly praising article, that the paper does not support the Arab contention contained above.

Any Jew, American, fair minded person would not agree that Israel is occupying “Palestinian” land. You need a history lesson.

Ellee Celler
Jacksonville

Re: J Street, may we go from fear to strength

To the Editor:

On Feb. 4 I attended a large and enthusiastic gathering of local Jews to launch a Portland chapter of the political organization J Street.

J Street was created to represent a Jewish voice in Washington that has not been heard until now; I welcomed its founding with great pleasure, since the voice it offers seems to be compatible with mine.

J Street insists that the Israeli politics of waiting cannot continue; Israel is demonstrably less safe now than 10 years ago.

Peace may seem farther away than ever right now; there may not be a partner with whom to negotiate; but who are we, ethically, if we stop seeking a peaceful solution? What is this ongoing conflict doing to us?

Fears have been expressed by some people in our local Jewish community about J Street—that they are not really pro-Israel; they’re dangerously dividing American congressional support for Israel; they endanger the safety and security of Israel.

I dare say that the same fearful negativity has often been expressed when Jews have been called to remember our ethical heritage during frightening times.

Similarly, the American people used fear as an excuse while civil and democratic rights were trampled upon by the former White House administration in the name of American safety and security.

J Street is pro-Israel and pro-peace; the two-state solution it supports is not an aberration nor an abomination, but the hope of many Israelis, as well as American Jews who care about Israel.

Jewish tradition is founded upon respect for different voices representing divergent positions; we depend upon makhloket (honorable disagreement) to keep our halakha honest. J Street represents another voice to balance AIPAC and others from which it differs.

It is a disservice to ourselves and our heritage to dismiss J Street, to discredit it, and to allow its efforts to be vilified. What are we teaching our children if we cannot welcome an honorable opposition? What are we saying about who we really are, and what we are becoming?

May we go from fear to strength and become strong enough to trust each other and make room for all our passionate, caring voices.

Rabbi Ariel Stone
Congregation Shir Tikveh
Portland

Can’t entirely oppose
BDS advocates

To the editor:

I read with interest Robert Horenstein’s op-ed titled “With peace brokers like Britain, Israel has a real problem” (Jewish Review, Feb. 15). I considered what he said carefully, as he discusses issues with which I have wrestled in the past as well as now.

Mr. Horenstein attacks the British government’s response to the Goldstone report. He also criticizes the British government’s recommendation that supermarket chains clearly label all products originating in Israeli West Bank settlements.

Although I disagree both with his presentation and conclusion, I share Mr. Horenstein’s concerns regarding the status of Israel as a sovereign democratic state.

I fear for both Israel’s international legitimacy and its actual physical existence. As an Israeli, I want nothing more in the world than an independent, safe and just country where I can live by my friends and raise my family.

I have some familiarity with the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement mentioned in Mr. Horenstein’s article. Its supporters are a diverse group of people, who raise some very important questions. Some of them hold a very intelligent and well thought out philosophy, and some hold a very simplified and over-generalized view of the conflict.

Some of its supporters call for very specific campaigns, such as boycotting Ahava and other products produced on settlements, and some call for sweeping sanctions on everything Israeli, including academic institutions. Although I strongly disagree with the latter group, I cannot support a blanket disapproval of what is, after all, a non-violent protest.

As consumers, we all enjoy our right to protest peacefully with our wallets. I want to buy free-range eggs and demand that they are properly labeled. I prefer to buy local whenever possible and read the labels carefully. If I learn that a product is manufactured in a sweatshop, I will avoid buying it, and might boycott the company all together. And when in Israel, I, as well as many other Israelis, try to avoid purchasing products made on Jewish settlements, just as those who visit West Bank settlements will often encounter signs encouraging people only to buy from other Jews.

We can and should debate the different issues raised by the BDS movement in a respectful manner, for they are certainly of great importance. However, we must remember that the BDS movement is not the primary issue.

As long as there is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict with opposing groups, there will be people putting pressure on rival sides as part of the struggle.

Peaceful pressure is legitimate and is part of the process. When an acceptable and just solution is found, the BDS movement against Israeli products will either naturally disperse or lose its power. We need to recognize that as long as Israel maintains its hold on parts of the West Bank and expands its settlements, its moral standing will be compromised.

As long as this is the case, there will be those who choose to promote their ideals by making use of their power as consumers. There will be those who make very selective and intelligent use of this tool, but there will also be those who make sweeping generalizations.

I believe that the best way to deal with the BDS issue is by ensuring that Israel’s moral footing is strong and secure. And I believe that this cannot be achieved without a complete ending of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.

Jonathan Moss
Portland

J Street not in opposition to other organizations

To the editor:

Thank you for your excellent coverage of the J Street Portland kickoff. The 100 plus kickoff attendees in Portland and the 59 attendees in Eugene share a commitment to expanding our community’s conversation about Israel, so we are glad to see a variety of views expressed in the Jewish Review’s pages.

However, we would like to correct a misconception about J Street and our relationship to other Jewish and community organizations that was evident in Chuck Freilich’s opinion piece (Jdate, not J Street, Jewish Review, Feb. 15).

J Street is a pro-Israel, pro-peace organization, We were not formed and do not stand now in opposition to any Jewish community organization. We are working on both a community and a national level to broaden and invigorate the conversation about how best to secure Israel’s future as a democracy and as a Jewish homeland, an act which not only strengthens the US-Israel relationship but also the overall health and well being of our community.

In contrast to Mr. Freilich, we believe that advocating to our elected leadership for active U.S. engagement in reaching a negotiated, two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not just within our rights as U.S. citizens, but is also our obligation as people who care deeply about Israel.

Given the similarity of J Street’s perspective to that expressed by outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, it can hardly be asserted that J Street supporters who express this perspective to their legislators threaten the purpose we all ascribe to the “special” relationship between the United States and Israel, that is, Israel’s long-term well being.

Joshua Shulruff
Chair, J Street Eugene

Israelis must decide own fate

 

To the editor:

In the words of the Prophet Isaiah “for the sake of Zion I will not remain still, and for the sake of Jerusalem I will not remain silent.”

Recently in Portland there was a meeting bringing the members of Brit Tzedek v Shalom together with J Street. They are seeking to force Israel to have a divided Jerusalem and demanding that the United States force a two state solution on the Israeli-Arab issue. This is not only unjust but dangerous for the state of Israel.

Before one can digest the demands of J Street, allow me to refresh your memory with regard to the “Palestinian” question.

There is no letter P in Arabic, but rather Ph or F, representing the name Philistina. Palestine is a Roman word with its foundation based on the land of the Philistines.

Prior to the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, the Egyptian government moved hundreds of their citizens up to the Gaza Strip as a deterrent for Israel moving its forces south. These Gazans were Egyptians from before 1948 and would still be Egyptians today had Israel not conquered the Gaza Strip in 1967, a war based on the actions of then Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser.

Prior to the Six Day war of 1967, those living in Judea and Samaria (also known as the West Bank of the Jordan) were Jordanians. The late King Hussein never thought of a Palestinian state, it was all part of Jordan.

The idea of making East Jerusalem the capital of a Palestinian state really perplexes me. Can anyone name a Muslim country that has a holy city as its capital? The answer is no. Nowhere in the Islamic world would you find that. Saudi Arabia’s capital is Riyadh and its Holy cities are Makka (Mecca) and Medina. Afghanistan’s capital is Kabul and Kandahar as its holy city.

If the Arab countries never declared a Palestinian state after 1948, which would include Gaza and the West Bank (because they really are Egyptians and Jordanians), why would they be supportive today, if not to undermine Israel?

Instead, why not acknowledge that Egypt and Jordan are responsible for these people, and make demands of those countries to embrace their brothers and sisters back into their rightful governments, rather than jeopardizing the security and safety of Israel’s citizens by trying to force a split city of Jerusalem.

Bottom line, it will still be the Israeli government who must decide the plight of its citizens and not the declaration of Americans living in America who are willing to put the Jewish state at risk.

Another Muslim state is not the answer. There will be peace in the region when the Arabs remember the words of the late Prime Minister Golda Meir who said, “We will have peace when Arabs love their children more then they hate us.”

Then, and only then, will the words of the prophet Isaiah come to fruition, “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.”

Rabbi Arthur Zuckerman
Cong. Shaarie Torah

‘Ardent Zionist’
not so negative on J Street

 

To the editor:

I am an ardent Zionist. Israel is one of my passions; I care deeply about its people. However, I disagree strongly with Dr. Chuck Freilich’s negative attitude about J Street and his assertion that Jewish-Americans concerned about Israeli policies should simply sit quietly in the corner when speaking to their own elected officials here in the United States. (Jewish Review, Feb. 15)

While I believe that Americans in general do not have the right to lobby the Israeli government, it is not only my right as an American but my sacred duty as a Jew to lobby my government to make the world a better place.

Whenever I undertake any form of political advocacy, I begin with a berachah (a blessing) specifically to remind me of that duty to repair the world. I will not stand quietly in silent agreement with someone simply because it is expedient.

Rather than trying to limit debate, J Street is committed to changing the direction of American policy in the Middle East through broadening the public debate in the United States about Israel.

Members of J Street favor constructive engagement among all the parties and strong American leadership to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict peacefully and through diplomacy.

Dr. Freilich’s comment about AIPAC not being politically slanted is disingenuous.

AIPAC is broken because it no longer represents the American Jewish community in a fair and balanced way. It does not offer every Jewish-American a seat at the table. In fact, the reason AIPAC is so threatened by the emergence of J Street is because J Street represents a different view of American advocacy toward Israel.

Those seeking new relationships may want to visit JDate, but those seeking thoughtful avenues for pro-Israel advocacy that don’t require you to leave your own voice at the hyperlink should probably visit J Street.

Rabbi James Greene
Temple Beth Sholom
Salem