Letters to the editor

The Zionism debate ...

Re “Is anti-Zionism hate?” (Ben Ehrenreich) Opinion, March 15

I was confused by Ben Ehrenreich’s argument against Israel.

He argues that “founding a modern state on a single ethnic or religious identity in a territory that is ethnically and religiously diverse leads inexorably either to politics of exclusion ... or to wholesale ethnic cleansing.” Yet the nations surrounding Israel are exactly such states, founded on an Islamic rather than a Jewish identity. Few people take issue with that.

That being the case, I cannot agree that “the problem is Zionism.” The problem exists quite independent of Zionism -- and if Israel’s secular founders used Judaism as the basis for their new nation’s identity, they were only taking as their own a model already in use.

James C. Samans

Arlington, Va.

I was shocked to hear that over the last few decades “it has been all but impossible to cry out against the Israeli state.”

I invite Ehrenreich to visit Israel and pick up a newspaper, turn on the television or listen to the radio. There is no shortage of freedom of expression in this little country, and plenty of opinions on how to respond to the international movements bent on the destruction of Israel.

Or Ehrenreich could read The Times, which consistently offers a platform for opinion writers like Ehrenreich to criticize Israel -- often as if Israel’s limited response to rocket attacks from Gaza were the moral equivalent of the Nazis starting World War II and slaughtering millions.

Nathan D.

Wirtschafter

Hashmonaim, Israel

::

Our world has been shaken by war because of our tendency to unite ourselves on the basis of nationality and ethnic identity -- from the two world wars to Serbian atrocities to the blood bath in Rwanda. It’s about time we learned our lesson.

As Ehrenreich points out, Israel is no different. That the more Western Israelis can speak our language, while the Palestinians struggle to make their voices heard in our media, does not change this fact: that all are human and all deserve safety and justice and freedom.

If Zionism cannot accommodate this fact, then we must cast if off as another failed mistake.

Serene Taleb-Agha

Moraga, Calif.

... and its many voices

Re “Is anti-Zionism hate?” (Judea Pearl), Opinion, March 15

As an American Jew raised in a large, loving Zionist family, I have seen the blindness that allows otherwise ethical people to champion a state that has stolen another people’s homeland, a state in which non-Jews are despised, third-class semi-citizens.

Judea Pearl’s essay reflects the Zionist rationalization for 61 years of colonial aggression: Because the Jewish faith was born in Palestine, the Jews apparently had a right, after 2,000 years, to claim the Palestinian homeland as their own and send its terrorized population fleeing into refugee camps.

Zionism does not deserve the support of any American who is committed to justice and democracy.

Steve Kowit

San Diego

::

Pearl’s comparing of French or Spanish collectives with Israel is flawed. Do the ancient Celts living in central Europe thousands of years ago have the right to come back and establish a country there now?

And citing a “relentless drive for peace” is even more ridiculous. Incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s program is to stall and evade any peace talks.

Dan Kraus

Thousand Oaks

::

Pearl writes that “the vital tissues of Jewish identity today feed on Jewish history and its natural derivatives -- the state of Israel, its struggle for survival, its cultural and scientific achievements and its relentless drive for peace.”

Actually, the vital tissues of my Jewish identity feed on bagels and lox.

Ray Sherman

Duarte

::

After attending the Near Eastern Studies Symposium on the bombing of Gaza, which Pearl discusses in his Sunday essay, I wrote the organizer to say that the symposium had made me proud of UCLA. All of the panelists were against Israel’s attack, but indignation and outrage formed no part of their presentation. Instead, they analyzed events, put them in historical perspective and evaluated their impact on the future relations of Israel with Palestinians, Arab Israelis and the rest of the world.

I heard no chants of “Zionism is fascism.” Far from being a “hate-fest,” the program educated.

Several weeks later, I heard the consul general of Israel speak at the UCLA Law School. Both events were marked by the seriousness of the audiences and the quality of their questions. They were exactly what one hopes from university gatherings.

Joyce Appleby

Los Angeles

The writer is a professor of history emeritus at UCLA.

::

These two opinion articles addressed anti-Semitism as separate from anti-Zionism. Pearl finds the latter more dangerous than the former. Ehrenreich suggests that anti-Zionism is nothing more than legitimate criticism of Israel.

The Anti-Defamation League views anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism -- and certainly one of its most pernicious.

We agree with Ehrenreich that there is a place for legitimate criticism of Israel. The anti-Zionist movement, as it has become today, seeks to delegitimize Israel as a nation and singles out Jews alone as a people who are not entitled to a homeland.

This position has been co-opted as a front for those who want to blame Jews for the perceived wrongdoings of Israel. It is not mere criticism of Israel but a movement to displace Jews from their internationally recognized homeland.

And it is just the beginning. As we saw during the recent Gaza conflict, there were numerous incidents of people allegedly protesting Israel and Zionism who wound up assaulting Jews and vandalizing Jewish institutions.

Don’t be fooled by the term. Anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism, and both are dangerous.

Amanda Susskind

Los Angeles

The writer is director of the Pacific Southwest Region of the Anti-Defamation League.

Dog fight

Re “Rescued dog dogma,” Opinion, March 15

Having spent 25 years immersed in the dog world as an animal shelter volunteer coordinator and president of the nonprofit humane group Volunteer Services to Animals, and working to train and place many rescues of all breeds, I can tell you that Judith Lewis is right on target. She too has seen it all and realizes that the bottom line is proper temperament.

My current dog is a Doberman that came from a good breeder of the sort Lewis describes. Gunner is a neutered champion and is a working therapy dog with an exemplary temperament.

The animal-loving public needs to realize that both well-bred dogs and rescues can be wonderful pets.

Sandy Driscoll

Los Angeles

::

Bravo to The Times for publishing an article that explains the importance of being careful in your search for a dog to join your family.

Rarely is an article published these days that is not from the animal-rights-extremist, rescue-only view. Not all families are up to the challenge of raising some shelter dogs.

Responsible breeders are a valuable resource in this society. Having a dog with a known background for health and temperament is important for many people.

Diane Jones

Santa Barbara

::

Lewis makes generalizations to accommodate her love of pure breeds.

She states that “there will never be enough humans to save every abandoned dog.” About 4 million puppy-mill dogs are bred and 5 million dogs are destroyed in shelters every year, according to the Best Friends Animal Society. Putting an end to puppy mills could quickly lower the homeless dog problem.

Her argument that good breeders’ dogs never appear in shelters doesn’t hold up. I’ve seen a “lost” and never claimed Great Dane.

People change their minds about caring for a pet, not because of the breed but because of behavior they have failed to address.

Bad behavior comes from lack of proper training, not lack of papers.

Valerie Bromberg

Laguna Hills

Re “Rescued dog dogma,” Opinion, March 15

A taunt or a tribute?

Re “Battling over a school’s symbols,” March 15

Some would have us believe that naming sports teams after Native Americans is an insult to them.

I feel it is a tribute: It’s showing admiration for a people who gallantly fought for their way of life and their lands against imported diseases and superior weaponry.

They fought against people who had no regard for their lives, their way of life and, most important, their beliefs. Yet Native Americans still survive.

Irving Leemon

Northridge