fbpx

GET HOME DELIVERY! CLICK HERE »

ADVERTISE
pick up locations
HOME DELIVERY
donate

Jewish Journal

Connect. Inform. Inspire.

September 7, 2011

10 years after 9/11, what has changed?

Leave a Comment / Cover Story, Is Featured?, News, United States /

Even before the 110-story cloud of smoke cleared 10 years ago, America, and American Jews, grappled with a new desire to seek out the enemy — on the one hand to thwart him, and on the other to find out who he is, why he hates us so much and what we can do about it.

That desire has shaped a dichotomous response over the last decade — one of war, pumped-up security and more limited freedoms on the one hand, and of dialogue and a desire to open oneself up to help repair the world on the other.

Both the American government and watchdog institutions, particularly Jewish ones, increased their vigilance of Muslim extremism, and at the same time Jews challenged themselves to reach out to Muslims and to build personal and political relationships.

Often, the divergent goals of vigilance and building bridges played out within the same organization.

“Engaging people with hearts wide open, but also with eyes and ears wide open, was one of the main lessons for us and a key component for moving forward from 9/11,” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

After 9/11, the Wiesenthal Center continued its vigilance of

anti-Semitism both among white supremacist and Muslim radicals, but it also created a new position, director of interfaith affairs, and founded a Web site called “Ask Musa,” which teaches basic Judaism to Muslims. The center forged relationships with Pakistani diplomats, and after the al-Qaeda bombing in Bali in 2002, it hosted a multifaith conference against terrorism there, with the Indonesian president as a featured speaker. It also held a multifaith solidarity remembrance in Mumbai to commemorate the 2008 attacks there.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has a similar two-pronged approach.

After 9/11, ADL created a center on extremism that monitors Muslim radicals. At the same time, it puts out curricula and runs programs on tolerance, including a special curriculum in honor of the 10th anniversary of 9/11. ADL has also worked closely with Muslim leadership to combat anti-Muslim bigotry and to monitor instances where local communities object to mosques being built.

Amanda Susskind, director of the Pacific Southwest Region, said this dual approach is what attracted her to the ADL, after 9/11 prompted her to leave practicing law and enter public service. She believes monitoring hatred while building bridges and tolerance is not contradictory.

“The Muslim community groups and leaders that we work with and that we support in their fight against bigotry also speak out against Muslim extremism. These are not overlapping groups,” Susskind said.

The ADL also works closely with law enforcement, offering training and serving as a resource for information on hate crime trends. Locally, the ADL created a regular meeting between national, state and local law enforcement so they can share information with each other and get information from ADL on hate crimes.

While ADL held occasional security briefings for Jewish organizations before 9/11, in the last decade the annual pre-High Holy Days security briefing has become a must-attend event among synagogue leadership.

Certainly, security is one of the most visible changes 9/11 brought to the Jewish community.

Jewish institutions had some security before 9/11 — and most reassessed after the North Valley JCC shooting in 1999 — but the new, very real threat of al-Qaeda pushed all institutions to new levels.

After 9/11, Sinai Temple in Westwood revamped its security on the 377,000-square-foot facility that serves 1,950 member families and nearly 1,000 kids in its day school, religious school and preschool.

The temple has armed guards and 90 security cameras, and only one entrance to the building, according to executive director Howard Lesner. People entering the facility during the week have to have an appointment or someone to vouch for them. On Shabbat, everyone is wanded, and all bags are examined.

Security accounts for 5 percent of the budget, and each member and student is assessed to help cover it.

Often, security concerns run counter to the Jewish impulse of creating a welcoming atmosphere. Lesner said security has been woven into the general operations — most of the guards have been in the building for years and are familiar faces, who wish guests Shabbat Shalom or Shanah Tovah.

10 years after 9/11, what has changed? Read More »

Q & A: Can Palestine become a U.N. member state?

Leave a Comment / Is Featured?, Lead Story, News /

The Palestinians have vowed to upgrade their U.N. status, either by seeking full United Nations membership for a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and West Bank or recognition as a “non-member state.”

If the Palestinians ignore opposition from the United States and Israel and pursue full membership of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, the bid would likely fail because Washington would veto it in the U.N. Security Council.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on August 16 in Sarajevo that he would deliver the application to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at some point during the upcoming gathering of world leaders for the U.N. General Assembly session, which begins the week of September 19.

But it remains unclear whether the Palestinians will seek full membership, upgraded observer status or both.

Here are some questions and answers about the issue.

WHAT STATUS DO THE PALESTINIANS CURRENTLY HAVE AT THE UN?

The Palestinians are U.N. observers without voting rights. The European Union is also an observer, while the Vatican is what is known as a non-member observer state. Neither the EU nor the Vatican has voting rights.

WHAT DO THE PALESTINIANS, ISRAELIS AND OTHERS WANT?

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said he wants the world to recognize a Palestinian state at the General Assembly in September and support its admission to the United Nations.

U.S. President Barack Obama said last year he hoped a Palestinian state could be admitted to the United Nations by the time world leaders gather for the 2011 General Assembly.

That statement, U.S. officials say, was an expression of hope, not a call for a vote this year on Palestinian U.N. membership.

Israel is lobbying against the Palestinians’ U.N. bid. It sees the plan as an attempt to isolate and delegitimize Israel.

A number of European Union states, U.N. diplomats say, are looking increasingly favorably on the idea, largely due to frustration with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and what they see as its recalcitrance over settlements and other issues holding up peace talks.

IS “NON-MEMBER STATE” STATUS AN OPTION?

In addition to applying to become a full U.N. member state, which requires approval by the U.N. Security Council, the Palestinians could also seek upgraded observer status as a non-member state.

That is what the Vatican has and what Switzerland had before it joined the United Nations in 2002. Such status, U.N. envoys say, could be interpreted as implicit U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood because the assembly would be acknowledging that the Palestinians control an actual state.

The advantage of this option is that it would require only a simple majority of the General Assembly, U.N. diplomats say. Since around 120 countries have already recognized the state of Palestine to date, it would most likely win such a vote.

Although the United States, Israel and a handful of other states would likely vote against any Palestinian U.N. move, there are no vetoes in General Assembly votes. Dozens of nations, including many EU members, would likely abstain.

Upgraded observer status could bring benefits. If the Palestinians were to be recognized as a non-member state, they would be able to sign certain international treaties, such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which they cannot currently sign, some U.N. diplomats say. The possibility that the Palestinians could join the ICC is something the United States, Israel and others worry about.

CAN THE UNITED NATIONS RECOGNIZE COUNTRIES?

Technically the United Nations does not recognize states. Individual U.N. members do that on a bilateral basis. In reality, however, membership in the United Nations is generally considered to be confirmation that a country is an internationally recognized sovereign state.

HOW DOES THE U.N. ADMIT NEW MEMBER STATES?

Countries seeking to join the United Nations usually present an application to the secretary-general, who passes it to the Security Council to assess and vote on. If the 15-nation council approves the membership request, it is passed to the General Assembly for approval. A membership request needs a two-thirds majority, or 129 votes, for approval.

A country cannot join the United Nations unless the Security Council and General Assembly approve its application.

COULD THE PALESTINIANS JOIN THE U.N.?

In theory, yes. But as long as the United States is ready to use its veto to block a Palestinian request for U.N. membership, there is no chance of success.

Even if the Palestinians secured a two-thirds majority of votes in the General Assembly, there is no getting around the need for prior approval of the Security Council. According to the U.N. charter, membership in the United Nations “will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

If Washington changed its position and agreed to back a Palestinian U.N. membership bid, or to abstain during a Security Council vote, it would probably succeed.

Editing by Will Dunham and Cynthia Osterman

Q & A: Can Palestine become a U.N. member state? Read More »

Memorializing Sept. 11

Leave a Comment / Opinion, United States /

As we reach the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, there is a fundamental problem in the task of its memorialization and remembrance.

On Sept. 11, 2011, a decade after the attacks, there is no closure. The legacy of 9/11 remains unclear.

Permit me to explain why: There is a difference between tragedy and atrocity. In tragedy, what is learned roughly or even remotely balances the price that is paid for such knowledge. Atrocity offers no such possibility, and thus no inner space to bury the event. At most, it leaves those of us left behind searching amid the rubble to find some meaning to an event of such magnitude that it violates our very sense of meaning.

The bombing of the World Trade Center was not a tragedy; it was an atrocity. The reason that Americans could find only incomplete closure to their suffering after the execution of Osama bin Laden is because of the imbalance between the magnitude of the crime and the limited justice that could be achieved.

Why is the legacy unclear? We are still at war in two countries as a result of the attacks — if not technically in Iraq, at least psychologically. The war in Iraq was completely unrelated to 9/11, and it was started for reasons now proven to be invalid. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein was in many ways awful, but he was not involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The struggle against terrorism is ongoing and not yet won; at best, some progress has been made. So the legacy cannot be described in terms of attack and response, defeat and victory. Al-Qaeda has now morphed, and in the post-bin Laden era will continue to take diverse shapes and forms in different countries.

New York, and the nation with it, will have to deal with the paradoxical legacy of absence: the absence of presence and the presence of absence.

New York is in the process of rebuilding from the ashes. A moving memorial has been erected on the actual footprint of the Twin Towers, creating pools of water with the names of all who were killed, whether in the bombing of the building or in the rescue efforts. The one surviving tree, now rehabilitated and renewed, will bear witness, truly a remnant plucked from the fire.

The pool demarcates the void where once there had been massive buildings. New York’s skyline is marked by the absence of presence, and when one visits the site, one is haunted by the presence of absence; the buildings that were once there are absent, but their absence is ever present, at least for those of us who know the site, who remember the skyline, who are haunted by the flames, the ashes and the collapse.

The families of those who were lost during the attack of 9/11, the workers and visitors to the Twin Towers and their would-be rescuers who became its victims are also haunted by the presence of absence. At first, it was the father whose place at the table is suddenly empty, or the wife who no longer ruffles one side of the bed. Over time, one must get used to that absence and move on, but on important occasions,  an orphan’s graduation or the wedding of a child, the birth of a first grandchild, a second or a third, one senses that absence. Its presence is haunting, making even the most wonderful moment bittersweet, every joy incomplete.

New York has decided to build not only a memorial, which stands mute, and to which the visitors can impart meaning, but a museum to tell the story of what happened. It, too, will have to deal with the unformed nature of the legacy of 9/11. It will tell the story of the perpetrators and their victims. It will memorialize the dead by giving them a name, a face, a voice and a story. It will speak of the courage of the rescuers who struggled to save them and paid for their gallant efforts with their lives. It will exhibit the remnants that also remained from the flames. I had the chance to see these haunting and shattering artifacts when they were still in an old Tower Airline Terminal at JFK. It will offer solace by telling the story of a city that was united, a country that was joined together as one, by speaking of rescue, courage and dignity in the face of atrocity. But it will also have to tell the story of the unity that then fractured, the opportunities that were lost, of the sacrifices that went unrequited.

When I first contemplated the loss a decade ago, I wrote:

“The survivors of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon Bombings will not be defined by the lives they have led until now, but the lives that they will lead from now on. For the experience of near death to have ultimate meaning, it must take shape in how one rebuilds from the ashes. Such for the individual; so too, for the nation.”

The question remains, how have we rebuilt from the ashes?

Memorializing Sept. 11 Read More »

Letters to the Editor: Berman v. Sherman, college, Glenn Beck

Leave a Comment / Letters to the Editor /

Media Missing the Message?

Rob Eshman’s article touched on a very disturbing phenomena; the fact that ignorance prevails in the Muslim world as it does in our own (“Face to Face,” Sept. 2). In the Muslim world, this is due to the ruling régimes, the religious leaders and the media. We seem to have the same problem but in reverse order, here an agenda-driven media leads the way.

The problem is that like most of the media you have failed to comprehend that it is the media, which we assume is the medium responsible for lifting this veil of ignorance, has been asleep at the helm.

We have constantly been fed misinformation or partial truths for so long many of us have completely tuned out.
 We know where Afghanistan is, its where they kill our soldiers, hate us and make no excuses for wanting to destroy us. The fact that many may have displaced it and its neighboring Pakistan by a thousand miles is insignificant. They place it in the Middle East because of the culture of hate and destruction they share, the same culture the media have worked so hard to cover up.

The problem with this beautiful program by the Pearl family is that it will never have any ripple effect in the Muslim world. Every reporter visiting here, even if he falls in love with this great nation will be putting his life on the line if he even whispers a good word about America. They know that, we know that but you still go on pretending that we are building inroads into the heart of these cultures.

Ethan Teitler
Sherman Oaks

Many Thanks

I am a new Jew, a convert, having a Jewish Holocaust survivor father and a non-Jewish mother. I pick up a copy of The Jewish Journal each Saturday as I leave temple. I just wanted to let you know that this latest edition (Sept. 2) sparked my mind and heart on many levels, from Rob Eshman’s thoughtful and correct editorial praising the young Arabs literally taking bullets to fight for freedom which may well stop Iran’s insanity; to David Suissa’s compelling article on the Salons seeding Israel’s new social revolution; to Rabbi Yehuda Hausman’s soul-stirring words asking us to listen and see the holiness around us.
Thank you, all, for your excellent work.

Mary Farkas
via e-mail

Berman vs. Sherman

When I joined a delegation of J Street advocates in Washington, D.C., in April and visited with the staff of Congressman Brad Sherman, I asked his staffers if Congressman Sherman would meet with the leadership of J Street to hear their views as pro-Israel pro-peace activists and leaders. His staff told us that the Congressman would not do so under any circumstances. He would, however, meet only with his constituents on this issue or any issue.
To the contrary, Congressman Howard Berman not only was willing to meet with J Street Representatives personally, but he publicly attended the Gala J Street banquet at the Washington Convention Center. Both Congressman are avidly pro-Israel. No one questions this. Congressman Berman’s support for Israel as a top congressional leader is long-standing and certain. However, only one (Berman) is interested in speaking with a very large segment of the American Jewish pro-Israel community personally that aligns itself with J Street. It is time that our elected officials all understand that to speak directly with J Street leadership and to support a pro-Israel policy that it advocates that does not necessarily align with AIPAC or the Israel government’s positions is important for the well-being both of Israel’s long term strategic interests and security and the American Jewish community’s commitment to diversity of opinion.


Rabbi John L. Rosove
via e-mail

Good Advice

Rabbi Feinstein’s advice to his daughter on leaving for college was wise, wry and wonderful (“To My Child on the Way to College,” Sept. 2).
Thank you for offering parents this jewel; at least now we have some valuable, insightful advice for our children to ignore.



Rabbi David Wolpe
Los Angeles

Take the Support

In Rabbi Joshua Levine Grater’s opinion piece, “Glenn Beck Rally in Jerusalem: Bad for the Jews!” (Aug. 19), he concludes with the assertion that Beck, “and the whole Christians United for Israel movement is actually a false front of ‘support for Israel’ ” because what they really want is to “pave the way for the Second Coming.” Dear Rabbi Grater: When the messiah comes, everyone will know if it is his first or second visit. Until then it is ridiculous to reject someone’s support for Israel simply because they believe it will be his second visit and we believe it will be his first.

Steven Novom
Tarzana

Sometimes, Silence Is Golden

Referring to Gina Nahai’s column “In Praise of Falsehood”
(Aug. Sept. 2), I’m reminded of an incident that occurred many years ago (long
before I, too, became a marriage and family therapist).  A couple of close friends who were getting a divorce asked
me to accompany them to court and be available as a witness if
the judge asked for my opinion.  He did. He asked why I thought
their marriage broke up. I told him that they both so valued
truth and honesty that whatever they thought, they said. And my
mother once told me “Whatever is on your mind does not need to be
on your lips.” Good advice, even today.

Anita Wincelberg
Beverly Hills

Boyle Heights Remembered

Thanks to Shelly Iltis for her “Heights” remembrances (“Boyle Heights Remembered,” Sept. 2). I am privileged to be the chairman of the Wabash Saxons, an organization of graduates of Roosevelt High School in the Heights that meets twice a year for lunch. Around 100 men and women and their guests gather at Taix Restaurant on Sunset near Alvarado.  All graduated between the 1930s and 1960s and reside all over California and other parts of the world. Visitors are welcome.

These luncheons have been going on for over 30 years, and the main event is the renewing of these old friendships, but secondarily, we provide support to Roosevelt High and other schools, and also activities for the youth of what is now the largest “barrio” in the West. 

Since I was born in L.A. in 1924 and most all of my schooling and professional life took place here, I have had a long time to gather many friends and acquaintances throughout southern California. Whenever I or my fellow Saxons mention our continuing record of lunches, we either get remarks about their parents, grandparents or other relatives having lived in the Heights, or their jealousy about not having similar connections with former classmates from the schools they attended.

Because of the diversity of the student body at Roosevelt during our years as students there, it is not surprising for us to hear from academics and other professionals that there always seems to be someone who attended Roosevelt at that time, involved in civic or governmental programs to improve intergroup relations. One of the standout records during my three years at Roosevelt was the election of two Jews, a Mexican American, a black, a Nisei and an Anglo as student-body presidents.

It was a great, but difficult time (the ’30s and ’40s), to be in Boyle Heights.

Gershon Lewis
Los Angeles

Our ‘Jewy Jew’ Ancestors

Dear Samantha S.,

My wife and I are college-educated, professional “Jewy Jews” (My Single Peeps, Aug. 26). We keep kosher and observe the Sabbath. We have raised four college-educated, Sabbath-observant, professional “Jewy Jews.” They, in turn, have blessed us with 18 “Jewy Jew” grandchildren, all keeping kosher and Sabbath observant, thank God.

I am sure that your great- or great-great grandparents were also “Jewy Jews” who came to this wonderful country from Europe or the Middle East. When you disrespect “Jewy Jews,” you also disrespect your ancestors’ memories.

P.S.: We also lead happy, fulfilled, modern lives without a single tattoo among us.

Daniel Langbaum
Los Angeles

A Roomy Tent

Dear Mr. Eshman,

I’ve written to the Jewish Journal in the past, always with words of praise. Such is the case this afternoon. I’m behind with my work and facing some deadlines, but I simply must send you this short note of support and appreciation. I’ve been following your “This Week” column for a while now. It just keeps getting better, with every issue. I’m looking at the current issue (Aug. 26-Sept. 1) as I write this. What you have said about the Arab spring has taken courage and conviction.  I’m anticipate that you’ll be getting some serious push-back from certain quarters.  But as we all know, the Jewish “tent” is a very large one, and it also does contain folks like me, who believe that the humanistic history of our people is something to nurture and celebrate. We should embrace the courage of our Muslim brethren (yes, that’s right, I did say brethren) who have stood bravely in the line of fire. You are absolutely right in asserting that they indeed are often taking bullets for us. Hatred and cruelty have a great deal of difficulty surviving in an environment of freedom and justice.

Thank you, Mr. Eshman, for standing tall and telling it like it is. Your words are a welcome antidote to the likes of Glenn Beck.

Gary Eisenberg
Marina del Rey

Wealth Unevenly Distributed

David Suissa’s “Salon Nation: Israel’s Struggle for Renewal” (Aug. 26) brought up some interesting points.  One point which struck me was the issue of “a handful of wealthy families having monopolies over several industries…”

I recall a few years back an Israeli friend of mine proclaiming how proud she was of the fact that so many Jews were represented amongst the world’s wealthiest individuals.  Having previously heard such sentiments expressed, I knew she was not alone amongst Jews in idolizing the uber-wealthy.  The mentality to not question (albeit with a belief that Jews question everything) how such wealth was amassed or inherited is quite prevalent (i.e. Bernie Madoff).  This unquestioning respect for people in authority I believe originates and appears most clearly in regards to religion.  The rabbis have been the main leaders of Jewish life for tens of centuries and, please feel free to be offended, led 6 million Jews to their early deaths.  However, 6 million Jews followed their religious “leaders” without too many questioning their leadership abilities, neither then nor now.  As one who has questioned and challenged, and who continues to do so, I know first hand the bullying pressure placed upon those who wish to expose obvious failure.  My point is that the problems are deep rooted and Jewish tradition wishes to fix the outside, hence avoiding the difficult task of internal change, in spite of how obvious such a need for change may be.

As if to prove my point, Suissa concludes by stating how Israel can be “a light unto the nations – showing America and the world that real nation-building begins at home, in your own salons.”  Yes, put on a “show” for the world.  It’s not like life is real or anything, it is all just one big show.  Yet for all the applause Suissa and other Jewish leaders (and followers) seek, you continue to receive mostly resounding boos.  For all the world’s approval you seek, you reap so little.  As far as seeking God’s approval, as usual His voice was neither sought, heard, nor mentioned in this whole conversation.


 

Richard S. Levik
Mar Vista

Letters to the Editor: Berman v. Sherman, college, Glenn Beck Read More »

Opening Israel

Leave a Comment / David Suissa, Opinion /

The buzzword these days for those in charge of improving Israel’s image is “beyond the conflict.” The idea is, because Israel’s image is so strongly defined by its conflict with the Palestinians, we must “change the conversation” to focus on areas where Israel will look better. This sounds smart and logical — but it’s a big mistake.

Luckily, there’s an easy way to fix the mistake.

As background, the “beyond the conflict” strategy got a big boost a few years ago when the Israeli Foreign Ministry, under its “Brand Israel” initiative, made it the centerpiece of its efforts. Its representatives took the show on the road and had some influence on Israel advocacy groups.

The most recent effort was a seminar sponsored by the World Zionist Organization (WZO) last month in New York for 50 representatives of 27 Jewish organizations from around the world. In an article in the Jerusalem Post, one of the organizers, David Breakstone, vice chairman of WZO and a member of the Board of Governors of the Jewish Agency, explained the rationale for going beyond the conflict:

“The vast majority of those out there with whom we want to make friends are completely disinterested in our conflict and even less interested in our narrative of it,” he wrote. “If we are to engage them, we first have to worry about making ourselves attractive to them.”

How does Israel do that? Not a problem, he says. It has “plenty to flaunt.” It just has to focus on areas such as environmentalism, social activism, cultural renaissance, scientific innovation, cutting-edge technology, medical research, alternative energy and so on.

So, if this approach sounds so smart and logical, why do I think it’s a big mistake?

Well, for one thing, because it makes Israel look sneaky — as if it’s trying to cover something up.

The vast majority of people might be “disinterested” and even bored with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the conflict represents most of what they know and hear about Israel. Does anyone really think a rosy and peachy message about the “other Israel” will make the people forget the “dark” Israel they keep hearing about — the one accused of oppressing Palestinians and the object of international boycotts and repeated condemnations at the United Nations?

Especially with the Palestinian bid for statehood at the U.N. General Assembly coming up on Sept. 20, the conflict will be even more newsworthy, so it is foolish for Israel message-makers to ignore difficult subjects — no matter how seductive and tempting that option looks to many of us.

More than anything, what Israel PR needs to do is frame the Israeli story in such a way that everything about Israel — good and bad — can be seen in a more sympathetic and understanding light.

The best way to do this is to play to Israel’s strength and flaunt one powerful idea: “Open.”

Israel is an open society. It has nothing to hide. It is a nation open to argument, criticism and change. It convicts its presidents when they are found guilty of sexual misconduct. It is open to hundreds of NGOs who fight for the rights of minorities. It has opened its doors to immigrants from more than 100 countries. It has opened Jerusalem to all religions and to lively gay parades, and protects the rights of 400,000 people to demonstrate openly for social justice.

Israel is the people of the open book. If you hear so much negative stuff about Israel in the media, one reason is that its messy and noisy society is wide open for everyone to see and scrutinize. In a part of the world where freedom of speech is constricted and so much information is murky, Israel is the little country with the biggest mouth and the most daylight.

This openness helps it move forward. It is open for innovation and for business with the world; to art, culture, spiritual adventures and a great nightlife; it is open to help the world whenever a disaster strikes, and to seek scientific solutions to humanity’s toughest problems; it is open to exploring other countries and to sharing its ideas.

And, yes, Israel is open to seeking peace and resolving conflicts. It has succeeded with Egypt and Jordan, but failed with its Palestinian neighbors. It has made real offers for peace that have been rejected. It evacuated Gaza, but that failed. Despite repeated failures, it remains open for peace and is ready to resume negotiations immediately.

Sure, Israel makes plenty of mistakes, and because of its open society, it never stops hearing about them. That might not make it more attractive, but it makes it more authentic. And it helps the country progress.

In short, what I’m suggesting is that Israel’s PR should be as frank and open as its society. People are not stupid; they can smell our PR tricks. If Israel wants to be effective and make a real human impact, it should launch an anti-PR “Open Israel” campaign that could show the world it has nothing to hide, including its mistakes.

Through social networks and YouTube films, as well as through engaging media spokespeople, this campaign should celebrate the extraordinary ways that Israel is an open society — for better and for worse. Instead of being “beyond the conflict,” the campaign would be “beyond PR.”

That would frame the Israeli story in an honest and compelling way, and it would have the added benefit of being true.

Opening Israel Read More »

9/11, 10 years later

Leave a Comment / Opinion, Rob Eshman /

When I was in New York last week, I prowled Ground Zero. I couldn’t actually touch it — the entire site is now a massive construction zone, a concatenation of Shanghais, encircled in chain link, surrounded by uniformed officers of the New York City Police Department.

I crossed Church Street from the subway station to get a better view of the memorial pools, and an officer quickly barked at me to move along. 

A self-styled tour guide, an elderly black man with no indoor voice, had appointed himself the unofficial one-man welcome wagon for the throngs of visitors. He waved souvenirs and shouted at us.

“How many buildings were at Ground Zero?!” he called out. No one answered. “It was two! You need to know how many buildings were at the site of Ground Zero on the day of the attack!”

Perhaps he had been a little unbalanced before, or maybe he was like Scarlett O’Hara’s father, turned batty by the shock of loss.

One of the cops posed with a couple of English tourists.  A friend took their picture, then they switched places for the next set.  The officer handled it all with matter-of-fact hospitality.  “Yes, ma’am.  Yes, sir.”

The “tour guide” and the cop were reminders that 9/11 had turned America both crazy and sober.  We indulged in folly and fantasy, and we have faced hard truths that have required all of our intelligence and resolve.  We both overreacted, and we reacted judiciously.  We were impetuous and impatient, and deliberate and relentless.  Tragedy, they say, doesn’t change you as much as it brings out your essence.  For a country of multitudes, 9/11 unleashed all our best and worst attributes, and reflected our complexity.

One of our worst attributes is our desire for simple answers. Do you remember, starting about 10 a.m. on Sept. 11, how the media started asking: “Why?”

And instead of taking time to investigate the facts and come up with the answer,  the left — generally speaking — presented a ready-made one: “They hate us because of what we’ve done.”  And the right, generally speaking, countered with, “They hate us because of who they are.”

The European and Arab press especially promoted the former view, pointing to all the things America had done to “deserve” the attacks — especially our support for Israel and our various interventions in the Middle East, whether for oil or democracy. The implication was that if we would just knock these things off, the terrorists would lay down their arms, send us a Teleflora bouquet and go home.

From the opposite extreme came the idea that hate and violence are built into Islam.   It seems like every day for the past decade, I’ve been forwarded e-mails “proving” how the Quran demands every Muslim destroy the West. That anti-Islam hysteria reached a fever pitch during the controversy over whether to build an Islamic center several blocks from Ground Zero, when activists and politicians managed to equate religious tolerance with weakness.

Ten years later, it’s worthwhile to look at how those dominant “answers” fared: not well. The pundits of the left and right, with their simple certainties and gullible constituencies, were wrong.

Story continues after the jump

Late last week, I called Brian Michael Jenkins, the Rand Corp. terrorism expert, whose new book, “The Long Shadow of 9/11,” is a collection of heavily researched, thoughtful essays on the attack’s aftermath.  I had heard Jenkins speak just after 9/11, and back then he was one of the unflappable, sober-minded voices cautioning against hysteria and rash action — a voice crying in the wilderness.  How, I wondered, did he think the go-to explanations held up?

“If the U.S. were to suddenly withdraw forces from the Middle East and suspend support for Israel,” Jenkins told me, “al-Qaeda would not put up a banner saying ‘Mission Accomplished’ and quit. They see themselves in endless conflict, until Judgment Day.”

As for the second line of reasoning, Jenkins said al-Qaeda represents not Islam, but, “an interpretation of the religion by a small group of people.”

The real cause of the ongoing terrorism threat — which Jenkins takes pains to point out does not threaten us as individuals in any statistically significant way — is a small tribal warrior subculture with access to modern weapons and technology.

“Al-Qaeda has become an organization for individuals to prove their manhood, do ‘good’ for God and reap the rewards of the hereafter,” Jenkins said. “Discontents and anyone whose soul is running on empty can join al-Qaeda and find resonance.”

That’s right, we are fighting testosterone, nihilism, boredom, opportunism, archaic notions of tribalism — the stuff that gangs around the world are made of.

Why, 10 years later, does it still matter that we all understand the “why” of 9/11?

The “why” matters because we don’t have the luxury of either withstanding numerous attacks, or the ability to engage in many more wrong-headed reactions to attacks.

The consensus of the intelligence community, Jenkins said, is that the Iraq War was one of those blunders, a tragic “huge diversion” of resources that actually “gave al-Qaeda a lift” in the Arab world.

“9/11 cost us $3.8 trillion,” Jenkins said.  “We can’t spend $3.8 trillion in the next decade, so we’re going to have to get smarter about how we do this.”

If 9/11 taught us anything, it’s that we can and should get angry, but we should never let ourselves go mad.

9/11, 10 years later Read More »

Lee Baca: Talk to people — Then arrest the right ones

Leave a Comment / Cover Story, United States /

For many, the world changed on Sept. 11, 2001. For Lee Baca, who had been elected Los Angeles County Sheriff three years earlier, his job changed, too.

“It had to change radically,” Baca said.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was Baca’s job to tamp down tensions between Jews and Muslims locally. What he gained from that experience led him to establish an Interfaith Advisory Council of clerical leaders to foster better communication between faith communities and his department.

Baca also has focused particular attention on engaging with Los Angeles’ Muslim community. In response to the London bombings in 2005, he established the Muslim American Homeland Security Congress in an effort to uncover “homegrown violent extremism.” His department also has a Muslim Community Affairs Unit, staffed by Arabic-speaking Muslim deputies, in support of this effort.

Baca also established a Sheriff’s Department office of Homeland Security — and as the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, the department is increasing its presence across the Los Angeles public transit system.

“Transit systems are the highest targets,” Baca told The Jewish Journal, “even more than airports.”

But Baca’s job is hardly limited to counterterrorism. The sheriff’s department staffs the county’s jails and has 24 sheriff’s stations across the sprawling county. In July, to the surprise of many, Baca made an unsuccessful bid for his department to take charge of the county’s parolees, which would have added a new area of responsibility for the department.

But it is Baca’s counterterrorism strategy — particularly in establishing meaningful ties with local Muslim leaders and communities — that has brought Los Angeles County’s top cop both national and international renown.

Baca plans to mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks with a speech to the World Summit on Counter-Terrorism in Herzliya. In an interview at sheriff’s headquarters last month, he offered a preview of what he plans to say in Israel.

“You have to engage Muslim support as best as possible,” the 69-year-old sheriff said. The goal, Baca said, is “to have common-sense relations that are based on mutual interests of national security.”

Baca has spoken at the Herzliya conference once before and has been to Israel on multiple occasions. He was in Sderot during the Gaza war in January 2009, where he had to take cover in a bunker during a Qassam rocket attack. The sheriff acknowledged that Israeli law enforcement officials probably understand as well as anyone the importance of engaging local Muslims.

“I knew the prior police chief in Tel Aviv,” Baca said. “All the police chiefs in Tel Aviv have a great rapport with the [mostly Muslim] citizens of Jaffa.” Baca travels widely, and he receives at least as many international visitors as he visits. Among the items in his fourth-floor office at the department’s headquarters in Monterey Park are law enforcement officers’ hats from around the world. One came from a Beijing police chief who visited Los Angeles in 2007 to see how the city handled the Olympics in 1984.

The hats fill up about half of the sheriff’s bookshelf. The other half is filled with the books given to Baca over the years. Baca, who calls himself “a weak Catholic” and “a God-fearing man,” has collected a handful of scriptural books, including two copies of the Torah and four different translations of the Quran.

“The Quran — and this is a big part that needs to be said constantly — the Quran refers to Moses and the Bible and Judaism, and refers to Mary the mother of Jesus,” Baca said. “And to be a true, practicing Muslim, you must honor Judaism and Christianity as well as the prophet Muhammad. All three are part of the teachings of the prophet. Not many people know that.”

In just the last few years, Baca has become a vocal defender of Islam against attacks on the religion and its practitioners — and for this, he has drawn intense criticism from a cadre of anti-Islamic activists and writers.

Baca doesn’t use a computer — “a public official that is a computer junkie is determined to get toppled,” he said — so he presumably hasn’t read the posts by blogger Pamela Geller referring to him as “Hamas-Linked CAIR ‘International’ Sheriff Lee Baca.”

But Baca has heard the criticisms of his engagement with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) directly. Twice in the last two years, Baca has vociferously defended his attendance at CAIR fundraisers on Capitol Hill.

“CAIR is not a terrorist-supporting organization,” Baca said to Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) in his feisty testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security in March 2010. “That is my experience. That is my interaction. And if you want to promote that, you’re on your own.”

When Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) announced his hearings into “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community’s Response,” the ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, was entitled to call one witness for every three called by King. He invited Baca to the first hearing in March, which was widely covered.

At that hearing, Baca was again asked about his connections with CAIR. “We don’t play around with criminals in my world,” the sheriff said. “If CAIR is an organization that is a criminal organization, bring them to court, charge them.”

The sheriff knows who the anti-Islamic writers are — there are two copies of Robert Spencer’s “Stealth Jihad” on the sheriff’s bookshelf alongside copies of “They Must Be Stopped” by ACT! for America founder Brigitte Gabriel and “Infidel” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The books were gifts, Baca said, and he hasn’t read them.

“They perpetrate fear by what their messages are,” Baca said. “They’re on the shelf because you should know what people are doing.”

And Baca said he pretty much knows what’s in those books.

Baca paraphrased: “You cannot trust Muslims, no matter who they are. That you must stamp them out because they are determined to take over the world, and they have extreme views.

“And so,” Baca continued, “a vulnerable person will believe those things as though they’re truth — and then they’ll go over the edge, over the top, and they’ll plan a violent, extreme act.”

The sheriff was referring specifically to Anders Behring Breivik, the self-described “anti-jihadist” who admitted to killing 77 people in Norway in July. In his lengthy manifesto, Breivik quoted Geller, Spencer and others who see Islam as an irredeemably malevolent force that must be defeated.

Those writers, Baca said, are offering interpretations of Islam — while simultaneously walling themselves off from Muslims. What Baca does, instead, is to talk to people — all people.

“You have to be with people to know who they are,” Baca said. “You can’t be distancing yourself and using interpreters. And I see those books as interpretation books, as opposed to books based on relational knowledge.”

In his pursuit of that kind of knowledge, Baca has traveled to mosques around the county as well as to Muslim countries around the world.

“I know what the Muslim society is essentially challenged by — and it’s not by their religion,” Baca said. “It’s by the common political realities that all governments are challenged by: feeding their people, jobs, health, education — that’s what most of the focus is in all societies.”

Which isn’t to say that Baca has all the answers when it comes to the challenging law enforcement situation facing those societies — especially now that the events of the Arab spring have upended a number of longstanding, powerful leaders.

In October 2010, just a few months before Egyptian protesters filled Tahrir Square, Baca visited the country’s chief of police,who is now being tried for ordering attacks on anti-government protesters, but before the 2011 protests, he was, Baca said, “very instrumental in calming the violence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Sinai region in the early 1990s.”

Baca said he understood the need for “accountability for police activities that are violent,” but at the same time he believes that the methods employed in fighting the Muslim Brotherhood in the Sinai might be worth emulating.

“They did not do random sweeps of suspects,” Baca said. “They took the patient approach and were building the trust of the public in order to acquire a rapport that would be valuable for the future.”

“The people got fed up with the murderous ways of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Baca said — which is when the police acted.

“The police were arresting suspects that were precisely the right suspects,” Baca said. “And that’s what you have to do. If you arrest the wrong people and charge them with crimes they didn’t commit, it’s not a good counterterrorism strategy. You have to get the right suspects.”

Lee Baca: Talk to people — Then arrest the right ones Read More »

Afghanistan’s turning point

Leave a Comment / Cover Story, Worldwide /

It was a decade ago that a number of terrorists conducted the most horrifying attack on the United States. They hit two big planes into the World Trade Center, targeted the Pentagon with a third, and, in a failed attempt, crashed a fourth in Pennsylvania, all together killing thousands of innocent people.

Although the tragedy shocked Americans in the United States in the extreme, it also proved to be a historical turning point thousands of miles away for another nation — the people of Afghanistan — in the heart of Asia.

Afghans who had long ago been taken hostage, choked like a rabbit fed to a snake, crippled, frozen and unable to react, needed a miracle.

And the miracle had happened.

The news of attacks on America spread all over our country through a few international radio stations, such as the BBC, and Voice of America, the morning after Sept. 11, 2001.

I remember how reactions to the terrifying attacks in New York were mixed among Afghans, ranging from congratulations and happiness to pity for the U.S. people and fear of retaliation.

The fear of reprisal heightened when the news came out that America would bomb Afghanistan into the stone age. People were horrified.

And when the bombing started, the people, already worn to shreds by wars and miseries, were shocked.

“Not again, not another invasion, not another war that will bring more deaths and destruction,” almost every man said to another on the streets of Kabul.

The ruling Taliban regime repeatedly called on people through their only radio station, telling them to be ready for a holy war. People were ordered to turn off all their lights at night. 

It seemed that the U.S. military knew very little about the kind of enemy they were facing on the ground, when they started with B-52 bombers and would drop bombs on some Taliban targets on the outskirt of Kabul from an altitude of thousands of miles.

Even most Afghans knew very little about the inner circle of the Taliban leadership, which rose out of religious schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 1994,  seized the capital of Kabul two years later, and then ruled the country until they were ousted by a U.S. invasion in 2001.

No one had seen the Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar, or his guest Osama bin Laden. 

As the bombing continued for days, many people watched anxiously from their rooftops as the U.S. planes attacked Taliban targets on the outskirts of Kabul. They knew the Taliban were tough, too.

Anti-aircraft gunshots would light the dark skies of Kabul at night and looked like fireworks. People had no idea what would happen next; were those who were bombing their towns and villages doing so to free Afghans from Taliban? Or were they invaders who needed to be fought off again?

One nice, sunny morning, I woke up early as usual and went outside, wanting to see the columns of smoke around Kabul airport as a result of overnight U.S. bombing. On this day, though, the city looked strange; it looked unusually quiet to me.

I was ready to head off to work when I saw a friend riding on a bicycle. He was in a hurry. I stopped him and asked where he was going. He said the Taliban were gone, and he was going to Shahre-Naw Park,  in the center of Kabul, to see the last few Arabs and Pakistanis who were still resisting.

“Really? Are you sure?”  I was shocked. I told him it could be dangerous for us if the news was not true and they were still there. After he insisted, I hopped onto his bike, and we together rode to the center of Kabul.

I was amazed:  My friend was right — the Taliban were gone. Along our way, the Taliban checkpoints were abandoned; the Taliban had disappeared overnight. Only a couple of them remained, surrounded by people in the central park. After a while, one was killed by a guard, and the other blew himself up before anybody could reach him. That was the first time I’d seen a suicide bomber; later, I got to see hundreds.

On the streets of Kabul people were both happy and cautious.  For almost a week, people could not believe the news that the Taliban were gone and that they were free. Many didn’t really remember what the word “freedom” means.

It was a new beginning. Life after the Taliban was moving fast; millions of refugees returned home. People would call the international community’s involvement a “golden opportunity” for Afghanistan.

The U.N. peacekeeping mission, elections for president and parliament, a new currency, a sudden boom in the economy, cell phones and Internet. Everything seemed to be moving on the right track.

Girls started going to school; it looked like flowers slowly blooming in spring.

Every good thing must come to an end.

It was unfortunate that Afghanistan was introduced to the world through 9/11, but now, after almost 10 years, during which the country has dominated the news headlines,  whenever media mentions this country, it is either about Taliban and terrorism or burqas and beards. To the world, Afghanistan looks like an “untamable” nation.

On the other hand, Afghans don’t know a lot about America and the world beyond the news headlines and the foreign military they see on the streets every day, either. 

It’s been a decade now, and yet the two nations never tried to truly understand each other better. And this ignorance gave the Taliban a chance to come back.

Despite the presence of more than 100,000 foreign troops, Afghanistan is still besieged by terrorism in the form of suicide attacks, roadside bombs, drive-by shootings, home invasions, kidnappings and outright attacks on public establishments. This is causing a lot of jittery nerves and sleepless nights for our people.

While successful measures have been put in place against terrorists within the United States and other countries, thus preventing another 9/11, the fire is still kept burning in Afghanistan.

And why still in Afghanistan? It is a question that every Afghan asks. Al-Qaeda lost its base in Afghanistan when the Taliban regime that gave them sanctuary was ousted from power. Al-Qaeda’s leader was found and killed in Pakistan. Many other smaller terrorist attacks in the world have been linked to terrorist groups that emerge from the ruins of older ones in other countries.

What we need in Afghanistan is not constant military campaigns that result in tremendous mayhem and loss of life. We need campaigns to win the hearts and the minds of the people. The campaign that talks to the would-be suicide bomber and tries to dissuade him.

Instead of bombing the towns and villages, the real war must aim at capturing the hearts and the minds of people and the combatants’ supply and support network. When properly delivered, words can be more lethal than bullets.

No one has successfully addressed the would-be suicide bomber or the terrorist. No one has told him that though he might have good intentions, this isn’t the way to salvation. No one has even mentioned to him suicide isn’t sacrifice, it is haram (forbidden) and that the killing of innocent people takes the murderer to places he doesn’t want to be in. We haven’t pointed out to him that those who love God show their love by serving his creation, mankind, not by killing.

Mass media and advertisement can be the most powerful tools of persuasion invented by man, to reach out the people.  Money is the other one.

Unfortunately, much of the billions of dollars that gets poured into Afghanistan simply ends up in the wrong hands. It doesn’t reach the people. And that is why people who make up the Taliban army are those who never get an education, they have no job, no house,  nothing to lose.

A decade after 9/11, as many countries continue to find ways to make themselves less vulnerable to terrorism, it only makes them more vulnerable if the grievances are not addressed properly.

The Afghan writer of this essay is using a pseudonym for security reasons.

Afghanistan’s turning point Read More »