LETTERS: November 27 – December 3, 2009

A Different View of History

In Rob Eshman’s homage to Amos Oz (“The Prophet,” Nov. 20), he wrote:

Along with his 17 works of fiction, Oz was, and is, an homme engagé, a co-founder of Peace Now who spoke out in favor of the two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians immediately following Israel’s heady victory in the Six-Day War. It took about 35 years before Israel’s prime ministers and America’s presidents, from both the left and the right, would all agree with him.

The Israeli government after the Six-Day War sought to make peace with the Arab world by exchanging land for peace (sound familiar?). The Israelis extended their hands in friendship. The Arabs, still seething from not only the current war but for the previous 19 years of Israel, compounded by the embarrassment of 1948, met in Khartoum, Sudan, to discuss the Israeli offer. Historians refer to their answer as “the three nos” — no peace, no recognition, no negotiation with Israel. Pretty clear, wouldn’t you say? Logic follows that if the Arabs had given three yeses instead, the Palestinians could have done whatever they would have wanted to do with their own land as long as they kept to a peace treaty — two states, a confederation with Jordan, Gaza, whatever with Egypt, etc.

So, Oz is not the prophet you make him out to be, at least not on this issue. It was the same Arab intransigence that we are still dealing with today that prevented a possible two-state solution. 

Larry Hart
West Hills

How the Job Changed Netanyahu

Rob Eshman’s editorial, “Bibi Then and Now” (Nov. 13) points to significant changes in the policies of the Netanyahu government. It also reflects the truism of an old adage: where you stand depends on where you sit.

Zenon Neumark
Los Angeles

Pluralism Engenders Growth

Rabbi Boteach’s article (“British Court Dares to Claim Who Is a Jew,” Nov. 13), criticizes the recent British court decision that opened Jewish school admission to children of Jews-by-choice not converted in Orthodox ceremonies. This is a classic debate about whether a religion should be defined by unchanging legal rules or the practice of an evolving civilization. On the one hand, formal strictures limit the Jewish people to a “pure” but ever-shrinking remnant. On the other, Jews-by-choice are committed individuals [who] enhance our religious culture and ensure our survival as a people. Although the Orthodox rabbinate may prefer a monopoly, Jewish civilization is not moving in that direction, because most of us prefer pluralism and growth rather than formalism and non-existence.

Peter L. Reich
Costa Mesa

Two Groups in Israel

I find it incredibly unfortunate that Bernard Linder (Letters, Nov. 13) attempted to conflate the activities of the Cubs of Judea in the occupied territories with the activities of Ayalim. In fact, there are fundamental differences between the two organizations.

In the name of unity of Israeli students of all persuasions, Ayalim has confined all of its activities to inside the green line in the Negev and Galilee. With unity as its mission, Ayalim has also integrated religiously observant and non-observant students in its groups. In fact, achieving unity among students of different political views is a central tenet of the organization.

Lawrence Weinman
Los Angeles

Vampire Lust

Rabbi Wolpe is absolutely right (“Five Reasons Vampires Aren’t Jews,” Nov. 13) when he says, “Maybe we can allow one powerful trend to be about someone else for a change.” I only wish The Jewish Journal would have followed the rabbi’s sage thinking and not run such a trendy, kitschy and visually offensive cover.

In a week when The Jewish Journal’s editor spends Friday night in dialogue with one of Israel’s leading intellectuals, Amos Oz, Mr. Eshman would have been wiser to have placed his own excellent editorial about Bibi Netanyahu as the cover story. I hope Oz —or any thinking reader of The Jewish Journal — does not get the impression that L.A.’s Jews actually consider the Jewish identity of vampires more important than the future of the Jewish state, for such a thought would be — in the spirit of the cover story — dark and blood chilling.

Rabbi Daniel Bouskila
Sephardic Temple Tifereth Israel
Los Angeles

Congratulations to your cover designers, who have beaten even their record of bad taste with last week’s vampire cover. As The Journal increasingly leaves authentic Jewish content in the trash, with its crazed quest for the approval of teenagers (chronologically and otherwise), one thinks wistfully of the magnificent cover created to commemorate the loss of Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon in the Columbia disaster.

It’s still up on my wall.

Now, as the poet said, “Oh, what a falling-off is there.”

Sara Meric
Santa Monica

I was disgusted by the vampire cover of last week’s issue.

Are you that desperate for readers? The sensational picture of the evil woman with blood on her lips is beneath our Jewish dignity. I thought I would see some letters of protest this week, and when there were none, I realized that I had to be the one to speak out.

I am certain that any anti-Semite who saw the vampire journal had a great time showing it around. I know it’s OK for everything to “hang out” these days, but can’t The Jewish Journal be a bit more circumspect at least about what is on its cover?

Harriet Glaser
Pacific Palisades

THE JEWISH JOURNAL welcomes letters from all readers. Letters should be no more than 200 words and must include a valid name, address and phone number. Letters sent via e-mail must not contain attachments. We reserve the right to edit all letters. Mail: The Jewish Journal, Letters, 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1510, Los Angeles, CA 90010; e-mail: {encode=”letters@jewishjournal.com” title=”letters@jewishjournal.com”}; or fax: (213) 368-1684.