January 22, 2025

The history of modern Israel is one of resilience, sacrifice and survival against all odds. However, the political choices made over the past three decades reveal a tragic pattern of mistakes, particularly by the left, that have directly endangered Israeli lives and compromised the nation’s security. Today, in the ceasefire deal, the unrelenting, misplaced pressure brought to bear on the government may be another misjudgment. God willing we will not pay again with more blood.

Before my critique, a caveat. Geopolitics is inherently complex, shaped by a web of political, historical, cultural and strategic factors that defy easy explanations. The lines between left and right are often blurred, and reducing such broad ideologies to binary terms can oversimplify the picture. Yet, amid this complexity, there is value in stripping issues down to their core truths. Simplifying doesn’t mean ignoring nuance; rather, it allows us to identify patterns and make sense of recurring mistakes. For Israel, this means confronting the direct consequences of key policy decisions over the past three decades—decisions often driven by the left’s idealism, but with dire results for the nation’s security that threaten our survival.

Oslo Accords and the intifadas

In 1993, the Oslo Accords were heralded as a breakthrough for peace, with Israel conceding territory and granting legitimacy to Yasser Arafat’s PLO. The left championed this as a step toward reconciliation, ignoring Arafat’s double-speak and incitement to violence in Arabic. The right protested vehemently, seeing violence as a much more likely outcome than the peace that they also desired. By the time the first and second intifadas were over, more than 1,200 Israelis—mostly civilians—had been murdered in waves of suicide bombings and terror. Oslo’s architects justified these deaths as “sacrifices for peace,” but for the grieving families and country, it was a bitter reckoning for misplaced trust and mistaken national security policy. The left refused to accept responsibility, as exemplified by its architect Shimon Peres stubbornly reaffirming in a 2013 interview that “I do not regret the Oslo Accords.”

The withdrawal from Lebanon

In 2000, Israel withdrew unilaterally from southern Lebanon under pressure from and leadership of the left. The vacuum left behind allowed Hezbollah to entrench itself and build an arsenal of over 150,000 rockets. The cost was felt during the 2006 Lebanon War and again in 2023, when Hezbollah’s missiles cleared northern Israel of its population for more than a year, with Israel barely escaping another Oct. 7.

The Gaza disengagement and its fallout

In 2005, the left coddled their new hero, the “reformed” Ariel Sharon, who spearheaded Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, dismantling Jewish communities in the hope of fostering goodwill. The right again warned that ceding land without guarantees would embolden terror. Their fears were realized when Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007 after winning the popular vote in a rare Palestinian election, turning it into an antisemitic Islamist hotbed, a giant underground terror state and a launchpad for thousands of rockets, leading to multiple wars and untold suffering.

The price of Gilad Shalit’s freedom

The 2011 exchange of 1,027 Palestinian prisoners for captured soldier Gilad Shalit was another tragic example. For five years, the left led relentless emotional campaigns, demanding his release “at any cost.” That cost became clear in October 2023, when freed terrorist Yahya Sinwar and his gang of released murderers orchestrated the massacre of 1,200 Israelis. The decision, driven by sentiment rather than strategy, directly contributed to one of the darkest days in Israel’s history and more than 15 months of brutal war that has cost the lives of 840 Israeli soldiers.

Judicial reform and division

In 2023, the right pushed for judicial reform to strengthen Israel’s democracy by curbing the overreach of unelected elites. The left, instead of engaging in debate, resorted to mass protests and threats, dividing the country. The result was a fractured and weakened Jewish people, which encouraged Hamas to attack.

The issue of moral simplicity

The left often frames its zeal in terms of morality, compassion, human rights and Jewish values. And indeed, these ideals typically underpin their positions. However, their ethical and strategic choices often lack the kind of judgment and sophistication needed; in geopolitics, values frequently conflict, and striking the right balance between competing moral principles—considering both long-term and short-term implications—is crucial. Often, fulfilling one “good” value comes at the expense of another. This is the reality we face today, when we need to make heart-wrenching decisions forced upon us by the evil of our enemies.

The 2025 hostage deal: A tragic moral dilemma

In the Israel-Hamas hostage deal, two good values are pitted against each other and are mutually exclusive. On one side is the profound Jewish value of redeeming captives (pidyon shvuyim), based on deep compassion for victims and their families. On the other side is the equally compelling need to prevent future murders, deter further hostage-taking and avoid another Oct. 7 tragedy. The left has championed the former value—redeeming captives—at the expense of the latter, which it has made sacrosanct. They have pressured for a deal at almost any cost.

The success of the left’s marketing campaign has been striking, wielding the same PR machinery that rallied relentless domestic and global pressure for the Shalit deal and more recently against judicial reform. The influence blitz turned the hostage issue into an untouchable ideal; it was a PR triumph, practically transforming the hostage issue into a form of worship. It succeeded in swaying many Jews in Israel and abroad to focus on one value while inadvertently sidelining the other and thereby pressuring for a hostage deal even at a very high price.

Yet, the costs of this deal are staggering; not only an IDF withdrawal from strategic areas that will allow Hamas to rebuild and restock, but in the first stage alone, Israel is expected to release 1,904 Palestinian prisoners—many of them mass murderers and attempted murderers. These include 737 individuals serving life sentences for heinous crimes, such as one responsible for six murders and another for forty-five. Disturbingly, 47 of these prisoners are repeat offenders—terrorists previously released in the 2011 Shalit deal who later committed additional attacks. The numbers paint a grim picture. Hard evidence from too many past deals provides hard evidence of what we can expect: for one Israeli saved, Gilad Shalit, well over 1,000 were murdered. Eighty-two percent of the 1,000 terrorists freed in the Shalit exchange returned to terrorism, according to the Israel Security Agency. Applying similar math to the 2025 deal sends chills down the spine.

The deal forced upon us by the left considers the deep, real and tragic pain of the hostages and their families. But what of the unspeakable anguish of those whose loved ones were murdered by the terrorists now set free? What of the grief of the families of soldiers who died heroically—who fought to eradicate Hamas, to make evil pay and to prevent another Oct. 7, only to see their sacrifices undermined as the terrorists grow emboldened?

And what of the pain of the civilians and families who will inevitably suffer when these released monsters strike again—those who will be murdered or abducted because of this decision?

The pattern of mistakes

The left’s idealism, while rooted in genuine desire for peace and justice, has repeatedly ignored the harsh realities of the region. These decisions have not only cost lives but have emboldened those who seek Israel’s destruction. The right has consistently warned against these dangers, often standing alone as the defenders of Israel’s security. The right has been consistently and unmistakably right since 1993. The left has consistently left reality behind and led the Jewish people to multiple disasters.

Maybe there is something we don’t know; I hope so. But our people and leaders need to exercise better judgment, using wisdom and humility to ensure that critical decisions reflect both practical reality and higher moral principles.

The way forward

Stopping the left’s destructive influence requires an honest reckoning. Strategic decisions are always complex and filled with difficult moral calculations, but security must always trump sentimentality and naivete. As history shows, Israel’s survival hinges on pragmatic, hard-headed policies that prioritize the safety of its citizens over fleeting hopes of appeasement driven by the blind idealism of one side that ignores the antisemitic reality of the other. It is time to learn from the past, to stop repeating the mistakes that have cost so much and to stand united as one people in the face of an enduring threat.

Our children have now paid the price for the mistakes of the older and unwise generation. Israeli youth rose to the occasion as Jewish lions. As Israeli President Isaac Herzog said, “We saw how the ‘TikTok Generation’ emerged as a generation of historic strength, whose bravery will be etched in the annals of Israeli history.” But now we grapple with whether the superhuman sacrifices of the soldiers and their families, while unquestionably heroic, will achieve the lasting impact they fought for.

While it’s too early to definitively label this deal a disaster—especially since there’s a strong likelihood that Hamas will undermine the agreement—it is both scary and deeply unsettling to consider what may lie ahead. While the prospect of bringing hostages home is incredibly heartening, decisions must ultimately be guided by calculated probabilities and strategic foresight.

At this time, our whole people is in a collective state of trauma brought on by the Oct. 7 massacre, almost a year and a half of war, missiles and hostages, and the devastating antisemitic response and betrayal of so much of the world.

Will the left at last fulfill another Jewish value, that of having the humility to admit its mistakes and stop pressuring for dangerous policies? If they do, two critical outcomes will be achieved: Jewish lives will be safer, and peace with our neighbors will be closer.

---

Raphael Shore is a human-rights activist, filmmaker and lifelong educational entrepreneur. As founder of OpenDor Media and the Clarion Project, he has helped shape public discourse around Jewish identity, antisemitism, radical Islam and the resilience of Israel.

I planned to call NAIS out, boycott their February 26th conference in Nashville, and demand justice. Here’s why I’m not.

On December 7th, 2024, I drowned in the downpour of 8,000 people clapping for a speaker whose incendiary words ignited the crowd with a message of intolerance. At that moment, it became painfully clear: the pursuit of genuine understanding and the foundational principles of DEI had been traded away for a polarizing narrative of exclusion and villainization. My necklace with the word “אהבה”—“love”—hung heavy and screaming as the student sitting next to me tucked his Star of David under his shirt. A conference dedicated to uplifting minorities silenced one.

As I processed the intolerance that unfolded at the People of Color (PoCC) and Student Diversity Leadership Conferences (SDLC) in Denver, I came to the overwhelming realization that an urge to boycott and call out the National Association of Independent School (NAIS) would only further polarize us.

When I attended the SDLC in 9th grade, NAIS’ student conference, I saw firsthand the power of meaningful, difficult conversations — of “calling in” rather than “calling out.” I learned that “calling in,” the act of inviting uncomfortable dialogues, is the antidote to polarization. In forcing us to embrace those who we disagree with, we humanize in the face of dehumanization. It’s a direct contrast to what we often see instead: “calling out” – the demonization and shaming of the other to ostracize their voice. Inspired by the conference, my school’s delegation initiated programs to create a scaffolded space for brave conversation, replicating the atmosphere we experienced at SDLC. We invited students to challenge each other and learn to approach different perspectives with clarity, respect, and nuance –  to recognize and hold multiple truths. 

This year, I flew to Denver dangerously optimistic, believing that no matter what had riddled the past year since October 7th, my experience and reality could and would be acknowledged. I believed that I would be welcome, and SDLC would once again be a space to celebrate my identity and learn from others. In NAIS’s theme, we would “uplift each other as we climb.” 

Instead, during conversations with other students, the second that I uttered the word “Israel,” the home of my family – a fact of my reality  – I was met with immediate hostility. When I shared a part of my identity – my experience as a Jew – I was blamed for the suffering of others. 

My experience and reality were thrown aside through the words of speakers who presented a single selected narrative as an entire reality, denying my lived experience, and the existence of something more than their story; Suzanne Barakat and Ruha Benjamin stripped me of my humanity. 

Dr. Suzanne Barakat, a physician and activist on issues of social justice was this year’s PoCC keynote speaker. In a speech to educators from 1,300 of the nation’s top independent schools, she described Israel as “founded on ethnocentric superiority and an inherently systemically racist framework,” a statement steeped in intolerance and a blatant contortion of history. She referred to Zionism as a “strain,” likening the Jewish State to a disease. The comparison of Jewish people and culture to the unclean, parasitic, or virulent is a deeply offensive and recurring trope in the history of antisemitism. Her rhetoric completely ignored the historical and indigenous connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, an omission that is not only misleading but also ironic. The term “Palestina” itself was historically imposed by the Romans to erase the Jewish identity of Judea, highlighting the long-standing attempts to deny Jewish indigeneity. Such remarks perpetuate hate and intolerance, contributing to the vilification of Jewish identity and the erasure of Jewish history.

Dr. Ruha Benjamin, a Princeton professor who is currently under investigation for her anti-Israel activism, was the final speaker for both PoCC and SDLC. In her speech, she described Gaza “before and after the genocide,” and called for the dismantling of institutions of oppression for a “liberatory future.” She alluded to Israelis – Jews – as genocidal,  and portrayed them as immoral beings, who ethnic cleanse, and “annihilate an entire people.” She implied that Israelis lack humanity, that they are individuals who do not believe in the “seemingly radical notion that all life is sacred.” These statements dehumanize the Jewish people, distort reality, and fuel antisemitism and narratives of hate and division.

I was ready to confront difficult realities, engage in challenging spaces, and honor the diverse experiences of others, but instead, I was denied an identity; my story was erased. 

This year at NAIS’ People of Color and Student Diversity Leadership Conferences, I faced clear, evident antisemitism. The conference vilified those who shared a different experience and who carried different identities, then denied them a chance to speak and be heard. NAIS invited speakers who preached dehumanization, isolation, and hate to 8,000 educators and their students. How are we supposed to climb – to grow, if we step on others on our way up? How are we supposed to face our challenges head-on, and seek diversity, equity, and inclusion, while preaching a single narrative, invalidating each other’s experiences, and demonizing people’s identities? 

Three years ago, SDLC taught me to value, understand, and empower others to make their voices heard. I learned the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion: the power that lies within the act of listening – of having difficult conversations, of embracing discomfort in the hope, the mission of understanding one another. SDLC, three years ago you equipped me with the tools to call in those who silence, to reject the narrative of a single story, to make noise in the face of unfairness. Three years ago you taught me. In Denver, you betrayed me. Now I am calling you in. This February, we need more than an apology; we need a return to NAIS’ mission – to the very values of DEI – to true dialogue.  

---

Adina Frid-Madden, a senior at Milken Community School, is Co-Editor-in-Chief of the school newspaper, The Roar, and the literary magazine, Responsa.

---

Dr. Medoff, a member of the American Historical Association for more than four decades, is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and author of more than 20 books about Jewish history and the Holocaust. His book The Road to October 7: Hamas, the Holocaust, and the Eternal War Against the Jews will be published on October 1, 2025, by The Jewish Publication Society / University of Nebraska Press.)

On Passover, Jews around the world are obligated to fulfill the commandment of remembering the devastation and life-upending disruption that was woven into the exodus from Egypt as if it happened to them personally. It is not enough to recall a tragedy and be a passive observer of suffering. Rather, one of the most fundamental aspects of living a Jewish life is loving your neighbor as yourself and with this, mourning their losses as your own. As our city continues to burn, we must commit, as a community, to not only rebuilding the neighborhoods that were uprooted so violently, but to creating space for those who were previously shut out of those neighborhoods, to finally establish roots beside them. With firefighters still battling the two largest fires which have tragically taken many lives and destroyed over 12,300 structures, we begin to look past the ash at the daunting task of rebuilding our homes, schools, houses of worship and businesses.  

As our city continues to burn, we must commit, as a community, to not only rebuilding the neighborhoods that were uprooted so violently, but to creating space for those who were previously shut out of those neighborhoods, to finally establish roots beside them.

However, no matter how uncertain the path forward may appear, the policy efforts to rebuild our communities decimated by the fires must not be defined according to the inherently broken systems of anachronistic zoning and layers of bureaucratic red tape that had previously rendered Los Angeles among the most unaffordable cities in the nation. Moreover, the road to recovery must be paved by policy that not only meets the moment of the acute needs of those displaced by the fires, but acknowledges, with deliberate policy reversal, the decades-old scars of segregation and exclusionary zoning that have prioritized chasm and poverty over community and brotherhood. It is indeed tragic that it took a horrific set of fires to force Los Angeles to come to terms with the long tail of some of her most egregious policy failures. Yet, if there is a silver lining at all at the end of this devastation it is that we have experienced how interconnected our lives really are and that we all have an integral part to play in the arc of our collective recovery and redemption. 

Here are several policy recommendations to begin to address the failed policy that has marred the potential of our greatness for so long:

Upzone Los Angeles Immediately and Expedite Adaptive Reuse Projects

Housing insecurity is the direct result of exclusionary zoning which has led to a staggering 63% of Los Angeles residents being shut out of homeownership in the city. Moreover, wildfires have a direct correlation to the destruction of available housing stock, further reducing the supply of available homes in our city which, according to Creditnews Research, is the most rent-burdened in the entire nation. Rebuilding efforts, which must include the strict use of fire-resistant materials, will raise the cost of construction which will in turn be passed along as rent increased by approximately 12%.  

Housing insecurity is the direct result of exclusionary zoning which has led to a staggering 63% of Los Angeles residents being shut out of homeownership in the city. 

There are over 10,000 people who have lost their homes and who are now subject to the most unforgiving housing market in the country. Even before the fires, housing production citywide has been less than a third of what is needed to meet the goal for the construction of 250,000 more homes allowed through existing zoning rules. In short, the decision made by the Los Angeles City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee to exclude 72% of the city’s residentially zoned land from upzoning must be vacated immediately and a post-World War II Marshall Plan level commitment to helping our community rebuild and recover must replace it. In simplest terms, even before the fires, Los Angeles could not afford to cater to the wishes of the privileged few demanding to preserve the “character of the neighborhood” by excluding the construction of additional housing. However, for far too long, local politicians have given in to this wealthy vocal minority at the expense of the greater good for the greatest number.

In 2024, the income needed to afford the median home in Los Angeles was $247,500. However, the median salary of Los Angeles was only $80,000. For many people who were fortunate enough to buy homes decades ago, most of their retirement savings lay in their home value — especially for those who come from less affluent areas that were hit by these devastating fires. For many of these people, the insurance payouts and FEMA support they will receive will fall vastly short of what will be needed to rebuild, and they will consequently be forced into permanent rentership due to a lack of resources to rebuild. 

This will naturally hit hardest for communities of color and for the elderly. Politicians at the state-wide and local levels must recognize that single-family zoning, first enacted when the population was a mere fraction of what it is today, no longer represents the acute housing needs of the nearly four million residents of Los Angeles. 

In addition, the necessity to convert vacant office space to livable residential space, especially in high-density areas with access to transit and green spaces, is integral to the creation of much needed housing. Downtown Los Angeles has witnessed much successful adaptive reuse. The outdated strip malls and massive parking lots that span so much of our city have grown obsolete with the advent of online shopping and ridesharing and consequently represent anachronistic waste of usable urban space. Rebuilding efforts must include conversion of these spaces to vibrant dense spaces with shared infrastructure such as schools, parks and playgrounds.  Even before the fires, Newsweek reported that Los Angeles saw the largest outbound migration in the nation due to housing unaffordability. Now, we have an internal refugee crisis of displaced people who won’t be able to rebuild their lives around stable and affordable housing, absent a complete reversal of the deeply flawed decision to exempt the vast majority of the city from upzoning. 

Suspend CEQA review and California Coastal Act

On Jan. 12, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order (EO N-4-25) to suspend permitting requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Coastal Act, with the goal of facilitating faster rebuilding of homes and businesses affected by the recent wildfires in Southern California. The goals of this executive order are to suspend CEQA review and California Coastal Act allowing for projects to repair, restore, demolish or replace properties or facilities substantially damaged or destroyed in recent Southern California wildfires. 

In addition, this order seeks to direct state agencies to identify additional permitting requirements that may unduly impede efforts to rebuild and should be considered for suspension, including provisions of the Building Standards Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulation, direct the Department of Housing and Community Development to coordinate with local governments to identify and recommend procedures to establish rapid permitting and approval processes to expedite rebuilding and to collaborate with the state legislature to identify and propose statutory amendments to help expedite rebuilding while enhancing wildfire mitigation and response capacity within rebuilt areas.

However, the suspension of permitting requirements “applies only to properties and facilities that are in substantially the same location as, and do not exceed 110% of the footprint and height of, properties and facilities that were legally established and existed immediately before this emergency.” In its current form, it is unclear how significantly this order will impact rebuilding in practice. The waiver essentially mirrors an existing provision of the Coastal Act, which provides a permitting exemption for properties rebuilding after disasters provided the new buildings are sited in the same location and not more than 10% larger or taller than the destroyed structures. And CEQA, which requires public agencies to consider and mitigate the environmental impacts of proposed projects, already provides exemptions for single-family residences as well as the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures located on the same site and with “substantially the same” purpose and capacity as the prior structure.

A glaring omission in this executive order is that reconstruction projects must still comply with local zoning and permitting ordinances which can take months, if not years, to pass through the layers of bureaucratic red tape and various stages of approval. While well-intentioned in theory to mitigate the environmental impact of construction and density, in practice, CEQA has been a main contributor to the dearth of new housing that Los Angeles has seen since the 1970s. Even beyond the emergency executive order to address the acute needs of those displaced by the fires to rebuild in the fastest and most expedient way, CEQA must be revisited and significantly altered to address the acute housing shortage that it has created and to eliminate the lengthy process of environmental review. 

Punish Price Gouging with Suspensions and Fines

Unfortunately, with any crisis come those who seek to exploit and profiteer from it, and these fires have brought out the worst of characters in both the buying and renting spaces. Moreover, despite being illegal, rampant price gouging continues to cater to the highest and most fortunate bidders exacerbating the chasm between the recoveries of those from more affluent vs less affluent communities. California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) stated that law enforcement has been working to tackle “this unlawful and unscrupulous conduct” by creating predatory pricing investigations into fraud and blatant price gouging beyond the 10% increase in rent allowed by law. However, just as Los Angeles has failed to crack down on the use of illegal short-term rentals which further reduce scarce housing stock, these investigations will not be enough to curb profiteering from this devastation. 

There needs to be a true disincentive to price gouging in the form of the loss of one’s right to list property in any open-source format within the state for a full year and in the case of a real estate agent engaging in price gouging, the loss of one’s license for an entire year with the record of the offence visible on their record. In addition, any realtor or landlord found guilty of price gouging must be fined per incident on a sliding scale. Meaning the more properties listed in violation of the law, the higher the fine. According to René Moya of the LA Tenants Union, “the fires unfortunately have greatly exacerbated our housing and homelessness crisis overnight. We lost so many housing units, people lost their homes.” There needs to be a collective zero tolerance policy for bad actors who use their access as agents or individual landlords who choose profiteering over community healing.

Ban Real Estate Speculators from Displacing Victims 

As the aftermath of the tragic fires of 2023 in Lahaina, Maui have painfully shown, efforts to rebuild Los Angeles must remain extremely vigilant in thwarting the corporations and real estate speculators that prey on disaster areas, swooping in to buy valuable land for pennies on the dollar and displacing longtime residents in their most vulnerable hour. This is further exacerbated in the more traditionally working-class neighborhoods, such as Altadena, that were decimated by the Eaton fire. It is these neighborhoods, which are home to significant Black generational wealth unique to both the Los Angeles landscape and abysmal national statistics, that are most at risk for displacement of longtime residents. Specifically, during the Civil Rights era, Altadena became a very rare place of economic opportunity for Black Americans to achieve the markings of a middle-class life — namely access to homeownership — without the discriminatory lending practices that prevented so many Black families from transitioning from rentership to homeownership. 

Many Black families of Altadena were subsequently able to keep homes within their families and thus pass down generational wealth resulting in a Black home ownership rate in Altadena of 81.5% which, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is double the national average of 44%. This presents a unique opportunity, and arguably, an obligation, for the Los Angeles Jewish community to stand beside our Black neighbors and community members in solidarity to protect the wealth that they have been able to build despite the pernicious effects of segregation and discrimination in housing access. 

According to California State Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood), these neighborhoods will be targeted by unscrupulous speculative land investors “trying to take advantage of this natural disaster and its associated trauma for their own financial gain.” The state must adopt an iron-clad ban on corporate investors whose business model is to buy distressed land from displaced residents and convert this land into build-to-rent communities which will lead to immediate gentrification and lock out long-term residents from regaining ownership in their communities. One can make a strong argument that corporations should be banned from owning single-family residences nationwide even in “normal” circumstances as corporations outbid first-time homebuyers with all cash offers far above listing price forcing millions of aspiring homeowners into permanent rentership. However, it is particularly vital that corporations and real estate speculators be barred by means of state-wide executive order, from making offers on distressed land during this acute recovery stage.

For so many people across all demographic and socioeconomic sectors of the Los Angeles community, it is not the structure of the house, but the memories and stability of the idea of the home, that has been ripped away. However, the speed and ultimate success of our collective recovery must begin with acknowledging the failure of decades-old discriminatory housing policy. These fires have peeled back the layers of our collective vulnerability in ways that we could have never prepared for. The uncertainty ahead will challenge all of us to offer our unique talents and perspectives into the restoration effort.  

For so many people across all demographic and socioeconomic sectors of the Los Angeles community, it is not the structure of the house, but the memories and stability of the idea of the home, that has been ripped away.

Yet, if we collectively commit – both morally and legally – to the immediate policy changes of expediting upzoning and adaptive reuse throughout the entire city with the utilization of the most sound fire-proof materials and engineering, the suspension of CEQA, a true moratorium on rent increases for an entire year that is both enforced legally and at the individual level, and an iron-clad refusal to sell off the land of displaced people to predatory corporations seeking to profiteer from our misfortune, we can begin to lay the foundations for a recovery for all Angelenos defined by our capacity for greatness that will prove to be far greater than the limits of our loss.

---

Lisa Ansell is the Associate Director of the USC Casden Institute and Lecturer of Hebrew Language at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion Los Angeles