A warm reception
Thank you for not falling into the trap of sensationalized journalism that the San Francisco Chronicle did in reporting on the AIPAC policy conference.
I’d like to emphasize, however, what happened during Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s speech. I was there and, without question, she was received more warmly than her colleagues (while everyone was treated with great respect).
I’ve been to 20 AIPAC conferences and other than President Clinton I don’t remember anyone receiving a warmer reception than Pelosi.
There were almost 6,000 people in the room, and her one comment on Iraq drew cheers from approximately 50 people and boos from two dozen people at most. The other 5,900-plus in the room didn’t react at all, and understood that AIPAC’s agenda is not the war in Iraq but a strong friendship between America and Israel.
AIPAC remains fiercely non-partisan. Some of the speakers clearly didn’t abide by that, and used the opportunity to promote their agendas. That was unfortunate but beyond our control.
Sam Lauter | San Francisco
3 major issues
After a misleading article in the San Francisco Chronicle about the AIPAC conference in Washington, D.C., I’m glad your March 16 story set the record straight on the speech by Nancy Pelosi.
I was there and can report the speaker was greeted by enthusiastic cheers before, during and after her speech by the 6,000 people in attendance. I don’t call that a cool response.
The Iraq war seems to be the elephant in everyone’s room (no political pun intended). However, the AIPAC conference was not about Iraq. Instead it concentrated on three major issues:
n Continued economic aid for Israel.
n Using all political, economic and diplomatic means to insure that the oppressive regime in Iran does not develop a nuclear arsenal.
n Strengthening the resolve by all involved that the Palestinian leadership recognize Israel’s right to exist and put an end to terror in order bring about a two-state solution where Israel and Palestine can live side by side in peace and security.
I believe that peace is possible in the Middle East, especially when we have courageous leaders like Pelosi and many of her colleagues on both sides of the aisle leading the way.
Ron Berman | Kentfield
Pollard’s crime
Let’s get real about the life sentence meted out to Jonathan Pollard (March 9 j.) for transmitting vital classified documents to the Israeli government. Here was a civilian Navy intelligence officer, a Jew no less, taking it on his own initiative to commit espionage with a foreign power, albeit an ally, and expect a lesser sentence for that act of treason.
It wasn’t his place to send documents to Israel, considered classified, about the potential hostilities of Iraq, Syria, Iran and other Arab states.
One only has to recall a pair of atomic spies, also Jews, that were convicted and sentenced to death in the early 1950s to understand the gravity of Pollard’s crime.
Morris Pollard, Jonathan’s father, should thank his lucky stars that his son is only under a life sentence and not on death row.
Steven Foerder | Redwood City
Self-righteous?
As I watched the so-called “mass protests” against the Iraq war across the Bay Area, two things struck me the most — the self-righteousness of the protesters and their complete absence of tolerance for views of those who disagree with them.
The lack of young people’s participation was evident as most of the protesters were clearly reliving the protests of their youths — against the Vietnam War.
In their sign-waving stupor, these aging 50-somethings have refused to recognize the major differences between the Vietnam War and the Iraq war and the similarities to another conflict of the past — WWII.
Perhaps the youth of today are not as ideologically and pathologically pacifist as their parents, and are more like their grandparents — the great generation that defeated Nazism.
Many young people in the Bay Area support the war in Iraq as part of a broader war against terrorism, and understand that premature withdrawal from Iraq will be detrimental to American interests and will conflagrate the Middle East.
This San Franciscan voices the opinions of many of his generation not swayed by the ritualistic drum-beating of those seeking to relive the causes of their youths.
Vadim Rotberg | San Francisco
Genocidal words
Now it’s in the open. A member of the Egyptian parliament from President Mubarak’s own ruling party stated in parliament that nothing short of a nuclear bomb would “work” with Israel.
His comment was made in connection with preliminary archaeological work by the Israel Antiquities Authority to replace a damaged pre-existing access ramp about 200 feet away from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
Thirty years ago, Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt whereby it surrendered a huge area, including oil fields, back to Egypt, in exchange for peace. This was the classic “land for peace” event of all time, unprecedented in human history.
Israel’s recent reward from Egypt is not only the facilitation of weapons and explosives traffic into Gaza, as a result of which Israeli civilians are bombarded daily with rockets, but a genocidal statement by a member of the Egyptian government.
If this is the message coming from Israel’s peace partners, somebody please explain to me why a peace treaty with any Arab government is worth more than the paper it’s written on.
My biggest fear was that the fundamentalists would overthrow Mubarak. I’m glad that I don’t have to worry about that any more.
Desmond Tuck | Palo Alto
2 cents added
Regarding the March 16 letter by Agnes Rothblatt, I would like to add my two cents worth again as a Homewood Terrace alum: There is a very strong need today for homes of this kind.
In re-instituting these types of childrens' homes, we can keep what was good, and improve on whatever was not done right in the past.
We have parents today who should have no right to raise children. Often, they don’t even know where their youngsters are.
Walter Ballin | Chico
‘Words matter’
The Arab-Israeli conflict is a struggle over hearts and minds as well as territory. In this struggle, words matter. Thus, I object to seemingly innocuous word choices in two articles in a recent j.
In the article headed “Palo Alto nonprofit works to rebuild Palestinian homes,” Stacey Palevsky refers to “Israelis, Arabs and Palestinians.” But Palestinians are Arabs.
Referring to Palestinians as if they are distinct perpetuates the Arab reinvention of the conflict as a struggle between the Israeli Goliath and the Palestinian David.
But the inconvenient truth is just the opposite, as 5 million Israeli Jews are surrounded by 300 million Arabs and 1 billion Muslims who would like them gone.
The article headed “Famed attorney lays out plan for peace,” by Stephen Mark Dobbs, refers to the “security wall” and “the wall.”
Israel’s security barrier, which has contributed substantially to its remarkable success defending against terrorism, is over 90 percent chain link fence. Much of the concrete wall section is on the green line, over which Israel has internationally recognized sovereignty.
Thus does j. perpetuate another mythology and advance the Arab agenda, which is to convince the uninformed that the security barrier is an apartheid wall.
Benjamin Pollock | San Francisco
CopyrightJ, the Jewish news weekly of Northern California