Tolkin vs. Prager
One would expect Michael Tolkin’s counterpoint (“Prager’s Tactics Are Lacking,” Oct. 11) would be a response to Dennis Prager’s question as to the silence of Hollywood when it comes to Israel (“Hollywood’s Silence on Israel,” Oct. 11). Instead of responding to this fundamental and painfully true question as to why the Jewish Hollywood elite has remained silent, Tolkin uses his response to verbally attack one of Israel’s strongest and most outspoken friends.
Is Tolkin aware of the numerous awards and honors bestowed upon Prager for his staunch support of Israel? Is Tolkin aware that Prager broadcasted his radio show from Jerusalem for 10 days this past April? Is Tolkin aware that Prager’s son studied in Israel last year? Is Tolkin aware that Prager has lectured throughout the country, to Jewish and Christian audiences, on the moral importance of demonstrating support for Israel in this time of crisis? Is Tolkin aware that Prager does not “drive Jews away,” rather he has inspired countless Jews to take their Judaism seriously and return to Jewish tradition?
Certainly The Jewish Journal could have found a more proper, respectful and sensible “Counterpoint” to respond to the credible issues raised by Prager, rather than publishing an article that calls Prager, and all of us in the United States that stand in support of Israel during this time of crisis, “cousins of the rich leaders of Hamas who strap the bombs on the children of the poor.” Shame on you, Tolkin.
Rabbi Moshe D. Bryski Executive Director Conejo Jewish Academy
Michael Tolkin’s gratuitously cruel attack is misinformed. First, Dennis Prager does not argue from a right-wing perspective — he has often admitted being just as wrong as the left in promoting the Oslo Peace process, which has led to such horror in the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians.
Second, Prager did not say artists were the progenitors of the death camps. He said that Hollywood activists have not been speaking out against terrorism directed against democratic Israel.
Third, who is Tolkin to speak for all artists? Maybe he puts artists on a pedestal. I consider some of them honorable, some not. Some are liberal, some not. Tolkin seems to assign artists a group-think, and that only he speaks their language.
Fourth, the personal attack on Dennis regarding his family is below the belt. It is also wrong; his son lived in Israel during much of the recent terrorism.
Fifth, Prager and what Tolkin admiringly calls “right-wingers,” do not call for harsh treatment of Arabs. I hear them wishing to liberate Arabs from their dictators.
Tolkin owes apologies for presenting the worst of his conflicted, alienated Jewish self.
Larry Greenfield, Los Angeles
Michael Tolkin responds: In my response to Dennis Prager’s attack, I kicked below the belt. I’ve been told that Prager did have family in Israel during dangerous times. This was stupid of me, because it could have been easily checked, and as always, one’s point is best made sticking only to the text.
NPR and CAMERA
I had the opportunity to speak with Jeff Dvorkin personally many months ago when I called his office to express concern about a report I found particularly unbalanced (“CAMERA Is Out of Focus,” Oct. 4). Dvorkin informed me that he had listened to this report personally and that he did not believe the report to be biased. Therefore, he went on, the bias must be mine. It is this kind of arrogance and failure to examine critically that is so frustrating. NPR has received many respectful, thoughtful and reasonable criticisms, yet I have seen no improvement in balanced reporting, including in its recent seven-part series on the history of the Middle East conflict.
Tracy Kedar, West Hills
I am glad that CAMERA is there to hold their feet to the fire and keep in check the distortions spread by NPR. I hope and pray that no Jewish money will go to support NPR.
Avi Zirler, La Canada
The Silencing of the Left?
I respectfully disagree with Rabbi Gary Greenebaum’s comment about questioning the legitimacy of the peace camp’s position or seeing it as a naïve point of view (“The Silencing of the Left?” Sept. 27). The main goal of the peace camp is to eliminate the major obstacle that is preventing the peace process from moving forward, which is the continued existence and expansion of the settlement movement in the occupied territories.
Public opinion polls have consistently shown that Israelis themselves have grown more dovish on this issue since the start of the current Intifada, with 60 percent more expressing a willingness to evacuate settlements in the context of a peace agreement. It is neither illegitimate nor naïve for the American peace camp to continue to draw attention to this position. Rather, our challenge is finding a way to translate public backing on specific peace-related issues into broader political support — a difficult goal, but one that we will continue to pursue.
Richard Gunther , Los Angeles
