Other Views on the Greening of America
Rob Eshman’s open admission about a failed venture in green investment was a welcome change of pace from an editor who has generated some heated controversy among readers (“My 2011 Nissan Solyndra,” Oct. 28).
“A fool and his ideology are soon parted.”
Ideology demands that its adherents close their eyes to the facts on the ground, which are ever changing, and the force of tradition and history, which is never changing in its efficacy.
Green technology to save the environment and to wean us off of foreign energy is a nice sound bite, but “we” can effect its occurrence. Purchasing power is an individual act in a free market, the one mechanism which can instill economy and efficiency while dispossessing consumers from rampant fraud and deception.
If we really want to break free of the House of Saud for our energy needs, the U.S. Congress must release drilling permits to explore for more energy off-shore and in Alaska. The United States can also invest in nuclear power, which, contrary to the green-extreme hype, is actually very safe and reliable, but requires intense and consistent investment. France relies on nuclear power for three-fourths of its energy usage, so why not here?
Arthur Christopher Schaper
Rereading the “This Week” column by The Jewish Journal’s publisher and editor-in-chief, I mean no disrespect, but pray tell me what do Eshman’s two pieces about his Nissan Leaf automobile have to do with Jewish issues or news?
Eshman holds a very important position in our community, but this article hardly adds to anything of Jewish importance for our people. It’s no secret that auto manufacturers deceive us. So who cares if Eshman was lied to by the Nissan advertising. My daughter was lied to by Toyota. So what’s new?
Quite frankly, your letters to the editor were of so much more interest than Eshman’s piece. The release of Gilad Shalit was well discussed by your letter writers. And the “Pathway to Peace” letter was so informative — outstanding. Gave us food for thought ... but Eshman’s piece was for the birds.
Israel vs. the Economy
I read with sadness the last paragraph of Bill Boyarsky’s City Voice column (“L.A. Sukkah Sit-in Shows Jews’ Passion for Politics,” Oct. 28). He stated: “How decisive an issue Israel will be in November likely will depend on the economy and how angry and insecure voters react to what Obama and the Republicans say about that.” This after clearly conceding that the Obama administration has been less than warm to Netanyahu and Israel.
I can’t understate it. This viewpoint terrifies me.
I’m a Holocaust survivor, saved from a certain death by a courageous mother who hid with her infant daughter in bombed-out ruins in Budapest. Perhaps my viewpoint is based in paranoia, but I believe that more likely it’s based in our very real history.
Throughout history, Jews have never been truly safe for very long, no matter where we lived. It didn’t matter how well behaved we were. It didn’t matter how much we had conformed. It didn’t matter how much we had assimilated. Eventually, when something bad happened to the general populace of our host country, it was the Jews who were turned on, scapegoated, driven out or massacred.
So, what does this fact have to do with the upcoming presidential election? Simply, my firm belief that had Israel existed in the 1930s as it exists today — strong and determined to defend Jews throughout the world — millions of those who perished in the Holocaust would have survived. And my family, Hungarian Jews who were the last to be annihilated, would have survived. Because Israel would not have stood by, as did all of the rest of the world, including the United States, and allowed it to happen.
So when I hear American Jews talk about how their electoral decision in the 2012 presidential election will be determined more by their economic comfort than by how the current administration is standing by or not standing by Israel ... it terrifies me.
Unrestricted State Would Be Security Nightmare
Rob Eshman wants us to petition our government to accept a U.N. resolution for a Palestinian state (“You and the UN,” Oct. 14). Beyond the absurdity of the United Nations dictating a state without the involvement of the peoples involved, an unrestricted state would be a security nightmare for Israel.
But I will agree that a negotiated restricted state, a la Netanyahu, would have some benefits for Israel. The restrictions would include: no army, selected Israeli monitored outposts within the Palestinian state, and no foreign agreements or treaties without Israeli consent. It is hardly believable that the Palestinians, not even willing to acknowledge the right of the Jewish state to exist and, further, demanding the “right of return” for Palestinians into Israel proper, would be agreeable to such a restricted state.
Eshman sympathizes that the American Jewish pro-Israel groups mean well, but they’re just dead wrong.
My response is that I’d rather be dead wrong than have a dead Israel!
Rancho Palos Verdes