The Sept. 18 front-page article “Some Jewish leaders grow wary of term ‘Zionism’” correctly noted that portions of the Jewish community are questioning the use of the word. For most, the reason has nothing to do with their support for Israel and everything to do with the deliberate distortion of the term “Zionism.” For many Zionists, it simply refers to the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in our native homeland, Israel.
Nearly everyone quoted in the article defined it as some variation of that theme. The lone dissenting voice in the article, who called Zionism “the policy of Jewish supremacy in Israel,” is a former interim co-executive director of the anti-Zionist organization Jewish Voice for Peace. She has long been clear on her opposition to Israel’s existence as Jewish state. Her position is hardly representative of American Jews.
A June AP-NORC poll found that by a margin of 73 percent to 16 percent, U.S. Jews said they support “Israel as a Jewish state.”
Nevertheless, after years of activists using the term “Zionist” as a slur and a synonym for colonialism and oppression, some Jews understandably hesitate to embrace the label. That does not mean they have abandoned Israel or Jewish self-determination. It means Israel’s opponents have successfully distorted a word to the point that even many people who believe in its central principle are uncomfortable saying it. Jews should not allow Zionism’s fiercest opponents to define Zionism for them.
Adam Raskin, Potomac
The writer is the senior rabbi of Congregation Har Shalom.
The human work behind AI’s discoveries
Daniella Greenbaum Davis’s Sept. 18 Friday Opinion commentary, “I put a chatbot to work on my grandmother’s Bergen-Belsen mystery,” cited the Jewish Public Library Archives as the resource from which artificial intelligence found what she could not uncover on her own.
As the director of the Jewish Public Library Archives and Special Collections, I’d like to give credit to the very human effort that made Greenbaum Davis’s search finally come to fruition — and not to AI.
The author discovered the Yiddish publication Unzer Sztyme online, but reviewing hundreds of pages and finding translation assistance was an “impractical” process. Fair enough. So, how did AI succeed? Did AI scan all the documents and translate them? Unequivocally, no.
In the time between the author’s defeat and AI’s success, a nonprofit digitized and translated copies of Unzer Sztyme, making it accessible for all researchers interested in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, in the words of those who survived it. As of today, its translation to English is still ongoing. The project is led by scholar Aaron Krishtalka, and Elly Trepman — son of the publication’s co-editor, Paul Trepman — is a consultant.
Memory institutions are dynamic; just because a search didn’t yield a result yesterday doesn’t mean that the same will be true tomorrow. There is a danger in crediting search algorithms and AI for their findings and ignoring the often labor-intensive work that allows these rarities to be found.
Archives desperately need the public’s support to survive. I hope this both sheds a light on the library’s work and reminds researchers that there are many factors that lead to their success.
Maya Pasternak, Montreal
Faith doesn’t require a church
Byron R. Johnson and Thomas S. Kidd’s Sept. 20 op-ed, “Are Americans abandoning churches to be ‘nones’? This is the reality,” about declining U.S. church attendance addresses that particular issue for the Episcopal Church and similar denominations, saying that it “has only gotten worse.” But where they see worse, a growing groundswell of the public sees better.
Increasing numbers of Americans are bypassing the middleman of religion. They are pursuing a more direct, wholesale approach to spiritual life. Many are avoiding the complications and confusion of catechism, cassocks and cathedrals. Instead, they feel increasingly confident sidestepping worship of the barefoot bearded man in the sky. The power of the old story is fading. Many (consciously or unconsciously) are just heeding scripture directly, following 1 Corinthians 16:14, which instructs, “Let all that you do be done with love.”
The change is a natural progression. That which is complex over time naturally gives way to what is simpler. Easy is good. What is plain and simple always generates appeal.
Rocky Semmes, Alexandria
How loud is too loud?
Though the Sept. 19 news article “Noise pollution poses dangers beyond just your ears” helpfully highlighted the hidden risks of noise pollution, it should not have used an 85 dBA threshold for safe noise exposure. The 85 dBA National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-recommended noise exposure limit is designed for an eight-hour workday, not the public’s 24/7/365 lifetime noise exposure. The Environmental Protection Agency’s safe noise exposure limit to prevent hearing loss, calculated in 1974, is an average of only 70 decibels. The actual safe noise exposure level may be much lower, only 55 dBA for a single noise event and a daily average of 60 dBA. Furthermore, noise poses nonauditory health risks as well, including stress, cardiovascular disease, increased mortality and brain changes in children.
Quiet is a vital natural resource. A quieter world will be a better and healthier world for all.
Daniel Fink, Los Angeles
The writer is program chair of the Quiet Coalition and is an expert consultant to the World Health Organization’s make listening safe program.
Letter submissions
Send letters to [email protected].
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.
The post I’m a rabbi. I won’t let Zionism’s critics define the word for Jews. appeared first on Washington Post.
