fbpx

February 16, 2011

The rise of the silent majority

When I was invited last August to talk to the Los Angeles Press Club as a Daniel Pearl Fellow and the audience asked me many questions related to the future of Egypt after Hosni Mubarak’s rule and the possibility of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover, my answers were focused on one key term, “the Silent Majority.”

I have recalled that rich discussion at the Press Club many times during the 18 days of the protests — the most important three weeks in Egypt’s modern history.

I was so proud to witness the uprising of the “Silent Majority” of Egyptians against Mubarak’s regime, not only because I consider myself one of them but also because the young rebels managed to make their message very clear — we don’t belong to any political party or religious group, we only want a better Egypt.

In order to understand the term “Silent Majority,” I would like to remind you of the results of the Egyptian parliamentary elections in 2005, which showed the Muslim Brotherhood earning almost 20 percent of the seats, while Mubarak’s National Ruling Party was represented by more than 72 percent of the seats after a violent and chaotic election that was believed to be rife with fraud, especially in the second stage, in order to prevent the Brotherhood from getting more seats.

The message from Mubarak’s regime to the West and to the George W. Bush administration was clear: “It is either us or an Iranian-style extreme Islamic regime.” To me, it was a protective step, a response to the calls for reform made by the United States to the Arab regimes after 9/11.

Mubarak’s national party’s main mission in the last 30 years was to weaken and block any opposition party from working in the street, even as, at the same time, the Brotherhood’s influence was growing, because historically the Brotherhood had developed its own way to work and communicate with people, despite being an officially forbidden group.

However, the representation of the ruling party and of the Brotherhood in the Parliament has never been a real representation of the majority of Egyptians, who preferred to be silent and to boycott any kind of elections and political referendums to the constitution due to the widespread fraud and violence planned by the regime in every single election. In the 2005 elections, this boycott was so clear, as only 23 percent of the people who had the right to vote — which is about 40 million — participated, which means that about 9 million people voted in a country with a population of over 75 million.

The silent majority mainly belongs to the middle class, people who’ve had a fair share of education, enough to understand that elections under Mubarak’s regime were just a big joke; the Egyptian state-owned media has always blamed the silent majority for not participating, but it was never able to explain why participation in free elections — as it is the case for elections in sports clubs and professional syndicates — exceeds 90 percent. In their silence, the Egyptian street sent a message to the regime, too: “We will never be numbers in your so-called democratic win.”

As a journalist who covered 2005 parliamentary and presidential elections, and as a member of the silent majority, I knew very well that Mubarak never cared about our opinion; he always believed that his people were not mature enough to practice democracy. He cared only about his relationship with the United States. In his last two years, he knew well that the United States needs him for many reasons as a key ally in keeping peace, along with Israel, in the war against terrorism and in resisting Iranian influence in the Arab world. None of those reasons included democracy or had anything to do with his shameful record of human rights.

On the other hand, Egyptian young people found in the Internet a natural escape from a frustrating reality. The number of users has grown rapidly since 2000, and by the beginning of last year, Egypt had more than 17 million Internet users, all of them educated and with basic computer skills. More than 4.3 million of the users joined Facebook.

Although the Egyptian revolution was the first in history to start with a Facebook event, I don’t believe that it was a Facebook revolution; I prefer to call it a social media revolution, or a networking revolution.

The rise of social media in Egypt wasn’t only about Facebook, it was also related to the spread of blogs and the increasing usage of YouTube and e-mail.

What social media did for Egyptians was simply to give them the ability to communicate and express opinions freely, establish media organizations online and assemble peacefully; most of those fundamental rights were prohibited by the regime, which didn’t take what was happening online seriously.

On April 6, 2008, Egypt had its first national strike since the 1970s, organized by a group on Facebook, and at the same time, issues such as torture in police stations and sexual harassment were being brought to public awareness through blogs. As a result, the independent media could no longer ignore those issues, especially when they were backed up by videos on YouTube, with millions of views. The state-owned media also couldn’t ignore those cases when they moved to courts, because of videos taken by cell phones.

By 2011, the social media boom in Egypt had reached a peak. Some pages on Facebook, such as that of Khaled Saeed, who died after being tortured by the police, had more than 400,000 members; the highest circulated newspaper in Egypt doesn’t sell more than 300,000 copies.

In the 2010 parliamentary elections, which witnessed new frauds by Mubarak’s party and resulted in a more than 90 percent dominance of the regime over the total number of seats, it wasn’t just the result that caused a scandal, but also so many incidents of fraud and violence were uploaded to YouTube and circulated via Twitter, Facebook and the blogs that 2010 became a significant moment of transformation for educated Egyptians, who decided to produce their own media and consume it using alternatiive tools of publishing and distribution.

The exuberance and outcome of the 2011 revolution was surprising to everyone, including the rebels themselves. However, nobody can deny the early signs related to networking among the millions of angry young people who have felt the humiliation of living under Mubarak’s reign.

I am now so optimistic that the generation that managed to topple Mubarak by peaceful protests will be able to build a new Egyptian society, relying on democracy and human rights.

Nasry Esmat is an Egyptian journalist and board member of the Euro-Mediterranean Academy for Young Journalists (EMAJ). He was a Daniel Pearl Fellow in 2010.

The rise of the silent majority Read More »

$4.6 million + 1,000 = Super Sunday

On Feb. 13, nearly 1,000 volunteers from the Los Angeles community helped raise more than $4.6 million for the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles’ annual Super Sunday campaign, working both on the traditional phone-a-thon and, for the first time, simultaneously at community service projects across the city.

The day of combined fundraising and service on “Centennial Super Sunday,” marked Federation’s 100 years in the greater Los Angeles community. The service projects drew volunteers from throughout the region.

“This is an annual event that we’ve been doing for a very long time, and [the funds] will go to the work we do locally and the work we do in Israel,” Jay Sanderson, president of the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, said in an interview outside the phone-bank room at the Federation offices while wearing the day’s giveaway T-shirt, which read, “Today, I helped the world.”

Some of the volunteers were veterans of the effort, including Julie Platt, a longtime volunteer with The Federation, who spent hours making calls.

“I was born with a pledge card in my hand,” Platt said.

City officials, including Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Assemblyman Mike Feuer and L.A. City Councilman Paul Koretz, dropped by to help. Indeed, a few tables away from Platt, Villaraigosa called people who had given large sums to The Federation in previous years, clearly enjoying himself while telling them that it was the mayor calling and asking for donations.

“I’ve been supporting The Federation and all its good work here in Los Angeles among Jews, among the broader L.A. community and Israel, since 1994,” Villaraigosa said. “I come almost every year, and I get on the phone.”

A second phone-a-thon also took place at the Jewish Federation Valley Alliance in West Hills.

Sherry Barone, an engineer from Marina del Rey, was volunteering on the phone-a-than for the first time, and she stressed the need to “reach out to our local community.”

There were 12 community service opportunities involving Federation-sponsored programs, such as KOREH L.A. and Project Chicken Soup. 

Jonathan and Elise Hay had moved to Los Angeles recently from the East Coast and said that spending the day helping paint a fence and tend a garden at Richland Avenue Elementary School, near Barrington Avenue and Olympic Boulevard, was an opportunity to meet other people in their community.

We “usually do Sunday chores,” Jonathan Hay added. Today we wanted to “do something for others.”

Debi Huang, mother of a Richland Avenue Elementary School first-grader, hadn’t heard of The Federation at all; she learned through the school about the opportunity to help out for the day.

Huang, who blogs about the environment, spent her day in the school’s large garden — some of the garden’s food is donated to the Westside Food Bank — clearing out brush to make room for a wildflower garden and preparing a pumpkin patch for a bounty next Halloween.

In addition to the gardening work, more than 30 volunteers helped paint and put together a mosaic at the school’s entrances.

“It’s totally changed the look of the campus,” Principal Karina Salazar said toward the end of the day. Richland Avenue is one of the nearly 100 schools that participates in The Federation’s KOREH L.A. visits.

Volunteers also helped out at Project Chicken Soup, delivering food to people with AIDS and HIV. In the San Fernando Valley, people helped renovate the Hillel at California State University, Northridge.

At the Westside Jewish Community Center (WJCC), many participated in a partnership involving the center, IKAR and, of course, the Federation. Urban farming company Farmscape helped volunteers plant a garden in the courtyard outside the WJCC.

“I’m sitting at a computer all day long, [and] this is a way to get out,” said Guy Handelman, 27, an assistant film editor who shoveled dirt at the JCC to clear a space for the garden.

Brian Greene, executive director of the Westside JCC, said the food grown in the garden will be donated to food banks and help feed senior citizens living in the residential center at the JCC.

At Federation headquarters, downstairs from the hubbub of the phone-a-thon, families with young children participated in an arts project with a community-oriented scope that extends to Israel. The children finger-painted on fabric that older volunteers will use to make 12 quilts to send to at-risk youth at a school in Jerusalem.

Hagit Arieli-Chai was there, along with her two daughters, ages 7 and 12, and a 12-year-old friend of her daughters. Arieli-Chai said she wanted to do something “age appropriate” with the children, while her daughters’ friend said she wanted to “help Israel … and the community.”

Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky stopped by the phone-a-thon early that morning, and he emphasized the large role the Federation plays in the community.

“This is a particularly difficult year, and many of the agencies that The Federation funds are going to get hit very hard by the state budget cuts,” he said. “So this particular year … Super Sunday means a lot.”

$4.6 million + 1,000 = Super Sunday Read More »

Grads of JVS program banking on a brighter future

Sandra Vasquez has a longer job history than many 28-year-olds. When she was 10, she began working with her father, a contractor who didn’t speak much English. She served as his translator and all-around assistant. Vasquez is the first member of her family to graduate from high school, and she went on to earn an associate’s degree and complete two quarters at University of California, Santa Cruz.

A health issue forced her to drop out, but it didn’t stop her from working. She got a job at a Santa Cruz Home Depot, where she drew on her past experience in order to satisfy the store’s most demanding customers: professional contractors.

She’s not wearing the orange apron anymore, though. On Feb. 9, Vasquez and her 17 classmates from the Jewish Vocational Services’ (JVS) BankWorks program were dressed in conservative suits, muted-colored shirts and sensible dress shoes. It was graduation day, and the students looked like the future bank tellers that they’re all hoping to be.

“I wanted to be here to acknowledge a program that works, a program that changes lives,” Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in a speech to the 20th BankWorks class, their families and representatives from city and state agencies that support the program.

The bulk of the funding for the tuition-free BankWorks program comes from seven banks, and recruiting teams were also in attendance. Following the ceremony, they would be interviewing all — and hiring most — of the BankWorks graduates.

In the past five years, more than 450 people have made it through BankWorks’ rigorous eight-week training course, designed to prepare participants for careers in the retail banking industry. Among the graduates, 80 percent are hired by one of the banks that help sponsor the program. And six months after graduation, 60 percent of those hired are still employed.

In other words, for the graduates, the banks and the city of Los Angeles, it’s a win-win-win. “If you can marry a need of the business community and a need of the community at large, you have the formula for a really successful program,” said Les Biller, who together with his wife, Sheri, helped JVS establish the program. Federal stimulus dollars also contributed to the program, although those are running out.

In his speech, Villaraigosa noted some hard facts about the employment situation in Los Angeles, including the current unemployment rate (12.5 percent), the peak unemployment rate of a year and a half ago (14 percent) and the year that the unemployment rate is projected to return to normal (2016).

Most of the BankWorks graduates were represented by those statistics at some point. The group includes a former cashier at McDonald’s, a former photo specialist from Walgreens and a slew of former salespeople. Most had been quite successful at their jobs before being laid off when the economy turned sour.

Vasquez regularly met and exceeded sales goals at the Home Depot in Santa Cruz, but she moved back to Los Angeles last year to take care of her mother, who was recovering from surgery. She took a temporary job with the U.S. Census, and when that ended in October 2010, she filed for first-time unemployment benefits. That month, about 450,000 other people across California did the same.

“It was weird,” Vasquez said of receiving those benefits. “I know it’s the money saved up for us, but it still feels awkward.” So when she heard about BankWorks, she didn’t hesitate. “I kept on calling,” Vasquez said. “I probably made four phone calls in a week.”

Thousands make that first call to BankWorks. Between 300 and 500 interview over the phone. About 30 started in Vasquez’s class, and 18 completed the program. It costs about $4,000 per student to run, a sum that includes not just training but other support as well. For instance, if a committed student needs a bridge loan to pay that month’s rent, JVS will help them out.

“Every one of you has a story,” Villaraigosa told the graduates. “It’s the story of climbing up a mountain and sometimes falling back down, but the good ones keep climbing up.”

Even after the pictures were taken and the certificates had been handed out, there was more climbing to do. The banker hopefuls walked down the hall for a speed-dating-style interview session. Recruiting teams from Bank of America (BofA), Citibank, City National Bank, Pacific Western Bank, US Bank, Union Bank and Wells Fargo were in attendance.

“You get an associate with a different work ethic and a different motivation level,” BofA Business Support Executive Karla Lee said of the graduates. BofA would love to hire 50 BankWorks graduates every year, Lee said. The jobs they’re interviewing for offer salaries between $11 and $12 an hour — higher than the minimum-wage jobs the graduates held previously.

Bank teller positions also offer opportunity for professional growth. Lee, who focuses on strategy, risk management and other initiatives for BofA, also presented a $50,000 check from BofA to JVS. She started her career with BofA in Seattle 10 years ago — as a teller.

Grads of JVS program banking on a brighter future Read More »

The business of a balanced life

“How many of you want to make a fortune?” health care entrepreneur Jeff Margolis asked a roomful of bright, eager MBA students at the Jewish Leadership Initiative (JLI) Conference in Santa Monica on Jan 30.

A flurry of hands went up.

“How many want to save the world? Do something really meaningful?” Margolis, the founder of TriZetto Group Inc., a health care technology firm and a frequent lecturer at Wharton and Harvard prodded. “And in what order? Should you make your money first and then do something meaningful?”

One student had an answer: “How about coming up with a business model that makes saving the world profitable?”

“You mean like Mark Zuckerberg?” Margolis asked, only half-jokingly.

That was perhaps the most telling — and topical — of questions lobbed about at the JLI’s second annual conference, which brings together Jewish business and law school students, young professionals and the business titans they hope to someday become for an afternoon of learning and networking. 

This year’s conference attracted more than 200 aspiring business leaders as well as top executives and entrepreneurs from around the country, including Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, the Tennis Channel chairman and CEO Ken Solomon, and Jeff Smulyan, chairman of Emmis Communications Corp., an Indianapolis-based broadcasting company that publishes Los Angeles magazine, among others. 

During six 45-minute sessions, seasoned business vets offered their best advice on how to become rich, powerful and philanthropic, and they also handed down a mix of practical tips (“Have a long-term plan”) and spiritual philosophy (“The measure of your success will be how you get through adversity”). The usual emphasis on tikkun olam figured in, along with broad strokes about the value of Jewish values and living a balanced life — this, despite the glaring fact that not a single female presenter appeared.

“You are an ambassador of your culture, whether you ask for it or not,” Solomon said during the opening keynote. Being a Jewish leader demands right action, he said, citing how, when Israeli tennis champion Shahar Pe’er was barred from a tournament in Dubai, his company refused to broadcast the games. “We heard about this,” he said, “and we felt it abrogated all human rules of sportsmanship and dignity.”

Despite considerable professional success — Solomon has held top posts with the Walt Disney Co., DreamWorks and News Corp. — he maintains that his nonprofit work is his most rewarding. Last February, the Obama administration appointed him to the President’s Committee on Arts and Humanities. “It’s the non-business stuff I’m most proud of and most committed to,” he said.

Smulyan, who named Emmis Broadcasting after the Hebrew word for “truth” (emet), also lauded the virtues of non-business pursuits. “You all want to take great vacations, have nice homes, nice cars,” he said, but he encouraged the group to “believe in something that is greater than yourself.”

“My life isn’t complete until I make a difference,” he said.

Founded as the Jewish Graduate Student Initiative (JGSI) in 2007 by Rabbi Dave Sorani and a group of students from UCLA’s Anderson School of Management, the conference aims to link up-and-coming business leaders to their Jewish counterparts across Southern California. The organizers’ goal is to promote a Jewish communal connection so students might one day become community leaders and parlay their success into charitable giving.

But for now, the organization tries to provide some Jewish continuity at a time when many young Jews are disaffected from Jewish life.

“There’s nothing that catches young professionals as this stage of life,” said Estela Wolf, 32, a business strategy consultant for the financial consulting firm Deloitte, who also sits on the board of JGSI. “You go from Hebrew school to confirmation, and then people are pretty much disengaged until they have kids.”

Although the conference is one of many initiatives in Los Angeles aiming to engage young Jews, Wolf was careful to distinguish it from other youth-seeking enterprises, like Aish or JDate, because of its emphasis on career development. “This is kind of on another level,” she said.

Until recently the only female on the JGSI board, Wolf said, when asked afterward, that the absence of female presenters at the conference was unintentional. “That doesn’t mean there isn’t a lack of female representation in the Jewish executive population in Los Angeles in general,” she said. “Go out there and look — it’s disproportionately male.”

The business of a balanced life Read More »

Amid turmoil, Wieseltier sees clear path in Middle East

You have to sympathize with public speakers asked to deliver carefully prepared lectures on the situation in the Middle East, where events have a habit of overtaking incisive scholarly analyses.

So it befell Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of the New Republic, prolific writer and all-around public intellectual, who was the speaker at the ninth annual Daniel Pearl Lecture at UCLA last week.

Pearl, of course, was the Wall Street Journal reporter murdered in 2002 by Muslim extremists in Pakistan. The lectures in his name were initiated by his parents, Judea and Ruth Pearl, and always draw a large, well-informed crowd.

Last year, Christopher Hitchens was the speaker, and before him the likes of Anderson Cooper, Thomas Friedman, Daniel Schorr, Bernard-Henri Levy and … uh … Larry King.

Wieseltier said he had his lecture down pat, based on the certainty that “nothing had changed in the Middle East for 60 years,” when, wouldn’t you know, the mass protests in Cairo triggered drastic changes.

When the speaker took the podium, Hosni Mubarak had just announced that he would not give up the Egyptian presidency, so Wieseltier changed his talk to criticize President Barack Obama’s lack of support for the democratic struggle of the Egyptian people, and he speculated about possible bloodshed ahead.

But again the world started spinning in overdrive, and by the morning after the lecture, Mubarak had decided to vacate the presidential palace after all.

Tiptoeing through the thicket of Middle East politics and Israeli, Palestinian and U.S. policies, Wieseltier generally hewed to a middle-of-the-road position, critical of both the left and the right.

In his talk, subtitled “The Defeat of Reason in the Middle East,” and during a Q-and-A session that followed, Wieseltier made such points as:

• A solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through partition has been obvious since the British mandate’s Peel report in 1937. “Everyone knows how to reach peace but won’t go there,” Wieseltier said.

• Regardless of ideologies and historical claims, when a people regard themselves as a nation, be they Jewish or Palestinian, they must be regarded as a nation.

• There has been remarkable development on the West Bank, where Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, a technocrat, has been creating the infrastructure of a future state, copying the Jewish model before 1948.

• The greatest danger facing Israel is the delegitimization of the two-state solution in favor of a single state for Arabs and Jews, which would result in the erasure of Israel.

• Israel’s greatest blunder was the establishment of settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. In the future, if Israeli soldiers have to shoot settlers to assert the state’s sovereignty, “I would not be terribly worried,” he said.

• President Obama has been a disappointment. He believes in his “magical powers,” has dropped human rights as part of U.S. foreign policy and has failed to support Iranian opposition groups.

• Every sphere of Israeli life, especially the economic one, works beautifully, except politics, which are in free-fall and suffer from an unprecedented lack of leadership.

After the two-hour talk and Q-and-A session, the dialogue resumed after dinner at the UCLA Hillel Center. The indefatigable Wieseltier appeared ready to go on until midnight, had not Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller stepped in at 10 p.m. to call it a day.

Amid turmoil, Wieseltier sees clear path in Middle East Read More »

UC Irvine faculty to DA: drop criminal charges

One hundred faculty members at the University of California, Irvine (UCI), have called on Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas to drop criminal charges against 11 current and former students arrested in February 2010 for disrupting a public speech by Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, on the UCI campus.

The district attorney’s office announced on Feb. 4 that it was filing misdemeanor charges of conspiracy to disturb a meeting and disturbance of a meeting against the defendants. On a video that circulated widely on the Internet, each defendant can be seen standing up and shouting anti-Israel statements at Oren while he was speaking at the UCI Student Center. One of the defendants, Mohamed Mohy-Eldeen Abdelgany, 23, who was then president of the Muslim Student Union (MSU) at UCI, is also charged with coordinating the disruption several days before the event.

If convicted, the defendants face sentences that could include probation with community service or fines or up to six months in jail.

The faculty signatories, who included several chancellor’s professors and seven professors of law, said they were “deeply distressed” by the district attorney’s decision to file criminal charges against the students. 

“The students were wrong to prevent a speaker invited to the campus from speaking and being heard,” the letter states. “And the Muslim Student Union acted inappropriately in coordinating this and in misrepresenting its involvement to University officials. But the individual students and the Muslim Student Union were disciplined for this conduct by the University, including the MSU being suspended from being a student organization for a quarter. This is sufficient punishment.”

The MSU was reinstated on campus last month after a four-month suspension following a university investigation that found the Muslim council had violated campus codes of conduct for planning and coordinating the disruption. UCI also placed the group on two years’ probation and has ordered members to perform 100 hours of community service.

The letter also states that use of the criminal justice system would be divisive and would risk undoing the healing process that has occurred on campus since the event took place. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has sparked critical and often hostile debate at UCI and has caused tense relations between Muslim and Jewish students.

“These events were very traumatic for the campus last year,” said Jon Wiener, a professor of history who signed the letter. “There was a lot of debate among faculty, students and between faculty and the administration about what kind of punishment should there be, was it too much, was it not enough. The suspension of the MSU has ended and they’ve returned to normal campus life this quarter and it’s very important to us that we have a community building process. We thought that was well under way and then the DA has sort of given us potentially a big setback by disrupting this process and throwing us back to the debate over how much punishment is the right amount of punishment,” he said.

Also a signatory on the petition, UCI School of Law Founding Dean Erwin Chemerinsky questioned the wisdom of the district attorney’s prosecutorial discretion in this case.

“Criminal prosecution is unnecessary and undesirable. It sets a dangerous precedent for the unnecessary use of criminal prosecution against student demonstrators,” Chemerinsky said.

On Feb. 9, Oakland-based Jewish Voice for Peace — whose Web site says it works to achieve a lasting peace that recognizes the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians for security and self-determination, and that it supports the boycott, divest and sanction movement against Israel —  delivered a petition with more than 5,000 signatures denouncing the charges. The group said members had similarly interrupted a speech by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Jewish Federations’ General Assembly in November 2010 without being arrested or criminally charged. 

“The targeting of a group of Muslim American students, who were already sanctioned and whose organization was already suspended by their university as punishment, is unacceptable and will only strengthen Islamophobia and attempts to stifle political speech in this country,” Jewish Voice for Peace said in a statement.

Susan Kang Schroeder, chief of staff for the Orange County district attorney, said her office would not be swayed by public opinion or special interest groups.

“The law against the disruption of a meeting has been on books for 100 years and was litigated at the California Supreme Court and it is constitutional,” Schroeder said. “We’re sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. You don’t have a First Amendment right to shut down other people’s right to speak and other people’s right to hear.” 

Arraignment of the 11 defendants is scheduled for March 11 in Santa Ana.

UC Irvine faculty to DA: drop criminal charges Read More »

Muslim criminals, Jewish activists?

Is there a different standard of justice in this country for Muslims and Jews when it comes to protesting Israeli officials?

A recent development here in Southern California indicates that there is.

In November 2010, I went to New Orleans along with a dozen Jewish students and young activists to participate in A Jewish Voice for Peace’s Jewish Youth Leadership Institute. That week culminated with five of my colleagues disrupting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the Jewish General Assembly. Inside the hall, one audience member tried to choke my friend and another ripped apart one of our banners with his teeth. Afterward, however, the protest was met with enormous warmth from the public. More than 300 Jewish students signed on to our “Young, Jewish and Proud” declaration, and we received praise from many others, including Jewish columnists and journalists. Finally, young Jews had challenged the “Israel right or wrong crowd” and had used nonviolent protest to do so.

Nine months earlier, 11 Muslim students at the University of California, Irvine (UCI), did the exact same thing when Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren visited their campus. In contrast to the way we were treated, they were met with contempt. The same voices that rushed to praise us stayed dead silent. The hue and cry over their actions has led the Orange County district attorney’s office to press criminal charges against the students.

The marked difference in reactions reveals something disturbing about American discourse on the Middle East.  

After our protest, an editorial in The Jewish Journal (Nov. 12, 2010) said the salient difference between our protest and Irvine’s was that we were young Jews who saw ourselves “as representing the best interests of Israel.” This depiction of us is surprising as we have never identified ourselves collectively as Zionist or anti-Zionist and have never expressed any loyalty to the State of Israel. But our group, which includes Israelis, does see itself as loyal to the people on the ground, Palestinian and Israeli, who suffer because of Israel’s ongoing maltreatment of the Palestinians.

This makes us quite similar to the Irvine students, except that unlike us, some of them lost loved ones in Israel’s 2009 attack on Gaza that left nearly 1,400 Palestinians dead. We were upset about the same issues they were, we were as angry at Israel as they were, and we were as disruptive to the “peace” as they were. Both protests criticized Israeli policy. We shouted, “The siege of Gaza delegitimizes Israel.” The Irvine students shouted, “Defending war crimes is not free speech.” In short, the only difference between the protesters in New Orleans and those in Irvine is that the former are Jewish, the latter Muslim. 

The reality is, we as Jews get more deference than Muslims do whether we speak about the Middle East or whether we shout about it. And frankly, the difference in reactions indicates that there are some Americans who don’t want Muslim voices to be widely heard or legitimized, and feel safer when Muslims are met with a repressive response. This should trouble all of us. How can we possibly have an honest conversation about a deeply important foreign-policy issue when the specter of law enforcement harassment and life-altering criminalization hangs over the heads of Arabs and Muslims who speak up for what they believe?

During my years working on this issue, I have been called naïve, self-hating and a traitor. I have been slurred and threatened by unbalanced people. My phone number and e-mail addresses have been posted on vulgar Web sites. But the government has never joined in to try and charge me with a crime.

Israeli policies toward Palestinians affect those students at Irvine as much as they affect us, if not more; yet when they behave in the same way that protesters have behaved in America for decades, they are punished far more harshly.

The Orange County district attorney should drop the charges against these Muslim students. Anything else is discrimination, plain and simple. l

Muslim criminals, Jewish activists? Read More »

Harman’s departure: what does it mean for Jews?

The outcome of the decision by Jane Harman to quit her 36th congressional seat in the South Bay will likely be a signpost of the changing role of Jewish politicians and the Jewish vote in California politics and government. The Jewish presence in Southern California politics remains strong — after all, this is still a heavily Democratic state with two Jewish women as U.S. senators and a reliably Democratic loyalty among Jewish voters. And yet in the future the Jewish role in California politics may be less dependent on solidly Jewish districts electing Jewish candidates and more on the impact of Jewish political participation and the choice of elected officials, whether or not they are Jewish, who will appeal to Jewish voters and activists.

The 36th is a heavily Democratic district, but it is much less Jewish than Henry Waxman’s 30th District, which abuts it to the north. The odds are Harman will not be succeeded by another Jewish pol, let alone one so popular with AIPAC. She could even be succeeded by a Jewish candidate whose views on Israel are the polar opposite of Harman’s — Marcy Winograd, a progressive Democrat who has been openly critical of Israel. Supporters of the Jewish homeland would probably prefer to have a non-Jewish member who is more pro-Israel. (Indeed, when Winograd challenged Harman in the 2010 Democratic primary, Waxman came strongly to the incumbent’s defense.)

So far, the two leading candidates to succeed Harman seem to be Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn and California Secretary of State Debra Bowen. Hahn immediately announced her candidacy, and Bowen jumped into the race on Feb. 15. According to the newly mandated primary format, all candidates will run in one group, and if no one wins a majority, the top two finishers, regardless of party, will meet in a runoff.  Hahn has already won the endorsements of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Assembly Speaker John Perez, while Bowen boasts strong name recognition and support among Democratic voters from her years in the California Assembly, Senate and her current statewide office.

Although the 36th District race will be closely watched, attention is already beginning to focus on the newly created, voter-approved redistricting commission. In 2002, there was some conflict between Jewish House members and Latino voting rights groups. In a process dominated by Congressman Howard Berman, the bipartisan redistricting plan kept the Latino population from being large enough to challenge several incumbents. There is no certainty that the same result will emerge from the new citizens’ commission.

Even if the number of congressional seats for Jewish candidates does contract, Los Angeles Jewish activists will be much sought after for the 2012 presidential election. The Obama re-election team is gearing up to raise massive amounts of money to match or exceed the corporate flood unleashed by the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision. West Los Angeles and Beverly Hills ZIP codes are at the heart of Democratic fundraising, which is why Westside traffic got so snarled when Obama came here for a fundraiser in August. The challenge for Obama will be to revive the enthusiasm of Jewish liberal donors after two years of compromises. While the Clintonites in the Obama White House take this Jewish base for granted, the way they take the whole base for granted, they could be in for a rude awakening.

The 2013 mayor’s race is also likely to feature a strong role for Jewish voters and candidates. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will be termed out, and the election will likely draw candidates from the Jewish Westside and Valley areas. There has long been room for Jewish candidates in the complex ethnic politics of Los Angeles. The last two close mayoral elections, in 2001 and 2005, had Jewish candidates, Steven Soboroff and Bob Hertzberg, finishing just behind the second-place candidate James K. Hahn. Such a candidate could have a better chance in 2013 of making the finals without an incumbent or well-known challenger blocking the route up.

It takes about 25 to 30 percent of the primary vote in a crowded field to make the runoff. Jews tend to cast 16 to 18 percent of all votes in city elections (with less than 6 percent of the population). This makes Jews the second-largest ethnic bloc in city elections, behind Latinos, who cast roughly a quarter of all votes.

Two potential mayoral candidates with strong appeal to Jewish voters have been mentioned. The first is County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who has represented the 3rd District since 1994 and has wide name identification and support among Jewish voters. Yaroslavsky’s district has 2 million people and covers a land area from Westlake Village to West Hollywood. There were 937,000 registered voters in the 3rd District in 2010. As one of the most established and respected figures in Southern California politics, he would be a formidable contender. He represented the 5th Council District for nearly 20 years before his election to the county board.

But even Yaroslavsky will not easily dispatch Wendy Greuel. Greuel has been a city council member and recently won a citywide election to become controller. Although not Jewish herself, she is married to a Jewish political activist and is very active in the Jewish community. She made a better showing citywide than Villaraigosa in 2009, and she did very well in minority communities (a weakness for Yaroslavsky that could hurt him in a runoff). She will also raise a ton of money from the movie industry, where she once worked, and from labor. Her alliance with the mayor gives her help with Latinos and labor. A third potential candidate, 9th District councilmember Jan Perry, also has a connection to the Jewish community.  She married a Jewish man, converted to Judaism and maintained her adopted faith after the marriage ended. And council president Eric Garcetti, who hails from one set of Jewish grandparents, describes himself as both Jewish and Latino and is a likely mayoral candidate. With Garcetti’s name recognition, powerful position at city hall and strong support among progressives and labor, he is likely to be a major contender.

But even if no Jewish candidate emerges in a dominant role, Jewish voters will be heavily contested in the mayoral campaign.

The 5th Council District, whose seat is occupied by Paul Koretz, is a big factor in any citywide race, because of its high voter registration and turnout. The district is more than one-third Jewish. The district boasted roughly 167,000 registered voters in 2009, compared to only about 61,000 in the Latino working-class 1st District. As it looks now, only the 5th District is sure to remain a Jewish seat, a far stretch from the days when six out of the 15 city council members were Jewish, with Marvin Braude representing the 11th, and Joel Wachs the 2nd. Finally, there has been some speculation that Assemblyman Mike Feuer, who held the 5th District seat and then narrowly lost for city attorney in 2009, might re-enter local politics, which would further increase the role of the 5th District electorate.

Harman’s departure may mean one less Jewish player in the game, but the impact of that loss on Jewish influence will likely be negligible. While the landscape for Jewish politics in the next two years includes fewer safe districts for Jewish elected officials, the community can be assured of holding sway on numerous fronts as its high level of civic involvement continues to stand out in the city and region.

Raphael J. Sonenshein is chair of the Division of Politics, Administration and Justice at California State University, Fullerton.

Harman’s departure: what does it mean for Jews? Read More »

A Jew visits Vietnam

I spent last week in Vietnam and Cambodia. Visiting these two long-suffering countries made me revisit some of the basic beliefs that have shaped my life.

The most important of these is communism. Nothing has shaped my political and social outlook as communism has: its mind-boggling evil — more than 125 million civilians killed, countless others tortured and enslaved — and the amoral reactions to it among so many in the West. Unfortunately, this reaction also has a lot to do with 20th century Jewish life, which I will address shortly.

I was smitten by the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese people struck me as particularly strong, dignified, intelligent and hard working.

That was one of the reasons I walked around with such anger at the Communist party of Vietnam, which ruled it during the Vietnam War and which rules it today. I regard every Vietnamese killed in that war as a wasted life, another victim of communism, the greatest devourer of innocent life since man first walked upright.

Now, of course, I am sure that some readers will be astounded by, if not morally outraged at, such sentiments. The prevailing explanation for the Vietnam War is that the Vietnamese people were fighting for their national freedom against the United States, just as they had fought against the French and Japanese.

But in order to buy that interpretation of the Vietnam War, one has to buy the following three suppositions:

a) That a Vietnamese fighting for the North Vietnamese communist government or for the Viet Cong was fighting for freedom and independence.

b) That a Vietnamese fighting for South Vietnam was not fighting for freedom and independence.

c) That the United States was not fighting in Vietnam to secure the freedom and independence of the Vietnamese people — or at least the freedom and independence of those living in South Vietnam — but for some other, nefarious, reasons.

But what if those three suppositions are all false?

They are.

a) A Vietnamese fighting for North Vietnam and its communist leaders was fighting for North Vietnam and its communist leaders, not for freedom or for independence. That some or many Vietnamese believed the lie told them by the North Vietnamese communists — that they were fighting for their freedom and independence — was no different from the many Russians who believed Stalin’s lies, the many Chinese who believed Mao’s lies or the many Germans who believed Hitler’s lies.

b) The Vietnamese who were truly fighting for freedom and independence were the Vietnamese who fought for the American-supported government in South Vietnam, something many Vietnamese bitterly learned after the communist tyrants took over the south. That is why so many Vietnamese — the “Boat People” — later fled Vietnam despite knowing that many of them would die by drowning or by being eaten by sharks, and that many women would be gang-raped by pirates. All of those risks were worth taking in order to escape communist Vietnam.

c) America fought in Vietnam for the same reason it fought in Korea — in hopes of enabling at least the southern half of the population to live in freedom. Like their counterparts in North Vietnam, the tyrants of the North Korean Communist party told their people that by fighting against America they were fighting for their freedom and independence. And just like in Vietnam, it was a lie. The Koreans who fought for Korea’s freedom and independence were the Koreans who fought on the American side, not the ones who fought for the communist side.

Why have I written this in a Jewish newspaper?

Because too many Jews did not, and many still do not, regard communism as the monstrous evil it was.

If any people should recognize great evil, it is the Jewish people. How could we have suffered the Holocaust and deem ourselves a people with an elevated moral conscience and not have been among the leaders in identifying and condemning communism as evil? How could most American Jews have agreed with those who condemned President Ronald Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire”? And how could any of us Jews, of all people, live in America, the country that has spilled more blood for the liberation of other peoples, and accept, let alone make, the charge that America fights abroad — from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq — for “imperialist” reasons or for economic gain?

Today, the Communist party in Vietnam has embraced capitalism and private enterprise and the country has begun its long trek from communism to freedom, from poverty to prosperity. So what, exactly, did all those Vietnamese die for? The answer today is the same as it was in the 1960s and ’70s — for the megalomaniacs and fanatics of the Communist party of Vietnam. Any Jew who chanted “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh” might want to consider doing teshuvah. For the truth is that those who hated Nazism but did not also hate communism did not hate evil. And hating evil is a mitzvah.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host, columnist, author and public speaker. He can be heard in Los Angeles on KRLA (AM 870) weekdays 9 a.m. to noon. His Web site is dennisprager.com.

A Jew visits Vietnam Read More »

The 22-state solution

Has the world ever witnessed such a radical and overnight transformation of one country? Have we ever seen a nation, in 18 short days, go from a place that represents darkness to one that represents hope, renewal and liberation?

I’m not talking about Egypt; I’m talking about Israel.

In the branding business, we have this thing called “truth transformation.” In a nutshell, it says that if your brand has “issues,” you can fix them only by finding a deep and meaningful truth. A legendary example is Pepsi, which made great headway against Coke by showing that “in a blind taste test, more people prefer the taste of Pepsi.”

Well, it turns out that in a blind taste test, more Arabs prefer the taste of Israel.

I’m not sure people realize yet the extraordinary nature of this transformation. Israel, the most maligned, boycotted and condemned country on the planet, the nation held perennially responsible for the frustrations of millions of Arabs across the Middle East, turns out to have what those frustrated Arabs are now clamoring for: freedom, human rights and a system that protects those rights.

Overnight, this brave and besieged little country has gone from demon to model — from being the curse of the Middle East to its potential cure. We may not see such a radical shift of perception again in our lifetimes.

And yet, hardly anyone is talking about it. I see two reasons. First, the hero country that ought to be promoting this transformation, Israel, is focused more on immediate security than on exporting its democratic gold to its neighbors. This is not unreasonable. Israel already has serious threats on its doorsteps — like Hamas and Hezbollah — and its deep wish is that the chaos of newfound freedom in Egypt will not result in a new security threat.

Second, and more important, the global forces that have worked for years to undermine Israel are now suddenly on the defensive, and they’re desperate to keep you focused on “big, bad Israel.” They can see the writing on the wall. The edifice that took them decades to build — making Israel global enemy No. 1 and the Palestinians the world’s glamour victims — is now in real danger of crumbling.

Just look at the facts. There are 330 million Arabs in the Middle East region who, according to Freedom House, live in countries considered “not free.” While those Arabs languished for decades in misery and oppression, where do you think the world concentrated its attention and its billions in aid? That’s right, on the Palestinian Arabs who represent less than 1 percent of that total.

And what did the world get in return? A split group of permanent victims who teach the hatred of Israel while refusing to make any real concessions for peace. Talk about a crummy deal.

That’s why I wouldn’t want to be with the Palestinian PR machine right now. They worked so hard to pull a Houdini and convince the world that Israel is the scourge of humanity and Palestinians the world’s biggest victims, and now look — millions of competing Arab victims come to Tahrir Square and steal the attention.

From now on, anyone who pushes for a boycott of Israel can and should be denounced as a hypocrite who couldn’t care less about Arab victims not connected with Israel. And good luck to anyone trying to claim with a straight face that pressuring Israel on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should remain the central mission of the world — not when millions of other Arab victims who have lived for so long under the “occupation” of brutal dictators are finally getting their voices heard.

And not when those Arab voices are craving the very freedom and human rights that Israel, with all its warts and imperfections, already offers.

It is also laughable now for peace-process junkies to claim that a three-state solution (Israel, Palestine and Hamastan) is “more urgent than ever,” and would help fix other Middle Eastern problems, like the threat of a nuclear Iran or bringing human rights to the Arab world.

Israel can surely keep chasing the dream of peace with Hamas and the Palestinians, which would be wonderful if it ever happened. But if the world is really serious about responding to the revolution of Tahrir Square, then the real urgency is to stop ignoring the 99 percent of Arab victims not named Palestinians.

In other words, instead of the narrow-minded “two-state solution” mantra that is repeated ad nauseam, the future of the Middle East should revolve around a more just and inclusive “22-state solution,” whereby the nations of the region would gradually be exposed to the liberating and dignifying values of democracy. Maybe the United Nations, instead of issuing another condemnation of Israel, can send a mission to the Jewish state to pick up some pointers on how they might introduce democratic institutions and economic prosperity to the rest of the Middle East.

I’m not holding my breath. The industry of maligning Israel is a deeply popular one, and the obsession with Palestinian victimhood is a global phenomenon. Still, the wrenching process of “truth transformation” has begun. The fact that the freest Arabs in the Middle East live in Israel is a truth that Israel’s enemies cannot bear. In the post-Tahrir Square era, more and more Arabs will come to see that Israel was never the enemy — but a model to aspire to.

Once the shock of that truth wears off, we’ll see how many will taste it. 

David Suissa is a branding consultant and the founder of OLAM magazine. For speaking engagements and other inquiries, he can be reached at {encode=”suissa@olam.org” title=”suissa@olam.org”} or at davidsuissa.com.

The 22-state solution Read More »