DONATE

Showing posts with label Rob Eshman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rob Eshman. Show all posts

Thursday, May 14, 2015

To Speak or Not to Speak?

Rob Eshman
Rob Eshman

Ari and Norma focus this editorial essay on Rob Eshman, the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of TRIBE Media. TRIBE media owns the largest Jewish circulated English Weekly The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. The “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel” duo write about Rob Eshman because of a recent unfavorable editorial written by him in the Jewish Journal concerning Pamela Geller’s Mohammed Cartoon Contest and subsequent attack by radicalized Muslim Americans Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi at Garland TX event. Here is a short journalistic profile of Mr. Eshman:

Rob Eshman is Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of TRIBE Media, a niche multimedia company based in Los Angeles.

Rob started his career as a staff writer at The Jewish Journal in 1993, when it was a small community paper.

In 2009, Eshman founded TRIBE Media Corp, reimagining the community paper for the future.   Tribe Media Corp. produces The Jewish Journal,  the largest independent American Jewish weekly, Tribe magazine, a glossy four-color monthly lifestyle magazine, and jewishjournal.com, with 1.5 million unique monthly users, now the largest Jewish news website outside of Israel.   In 2011, Jewish Journal launched the world’s first multi-platform mobile Jewish news app.  In 2013 he launched HollywoodJournal.com.

Both The Jewish Journal and Rob have won numerous local and national awards for writing, design and community leadership.

A graduate of Dartmouth College, Eshman has written for The Jerusalem Post, The Los Angeles Times, and the Huffington Post.  He is a frequent commentator on Los Angeles-area radio and television, and has served as a Visiting Lecturer on journalism at the University of Southern California Annenberg School of Communication and the University of Missouri School of Journalism. Rob serves on the boards of the Media Policy Center, The Miracle Project and is a founding board member of the Daniel Pearl Journalism Institute in Herzliya, Israel.

In addition to his editing and publishing duties, Eshman writes the blog Foodaism, named one of the best food blogs in Los Angeles by CitysBest.com. At his home in Venice, Rob tends to fruit and vegetable gardens, as well as six chickens and two goats. (Rob Eshman; Alfred Friendly Press Partners; Copyright © 2013 Press Partners)

Ari and Norma offer some contrasting criticism and support of Pamela Geller per Rob Eshman’s editorial.

JRH 5/14/15
****************************
To Speak or Not to Speak?
Pamela Geller - Two Sides of a Coin

By Ari Bussel and Norma Zager
Sent: 5/13/2015 11:02 PM

Rob Eshman, the editor of the largest-circulation English paper for the Jewish community in Greater Los Angeles, recently dedicated his column to Pamela Geller, declaring:  “You’re no Charlie Hebdo!” 

Eshman writes:  “In Texas, she just happened to frost her poisonous ideology with some free-speech icing.”

“Except in my opinion, Eshman got it all wrong,” says Ari.
“Except in my opinion, Eshman got it right,” says Norma.

Ari’s take is that Pamela Geller, rhetoric to the contrary, is not the enemy.  She is the guard at the crosswalk, keeping a watchful eye over the children on their way to or from school.  She raises her red and white “STOP” sign, warning drivers in stopped or approaching cars of their obligation to yield, be aware and not proceed until it is absolutely safe to do so.

Like her or not, call her “Bored Housewife,” “Fat,” “Shorty” (she is none of the above), insults will not deter her.  She is entrusted with protecting the children from a careless driver, from cutting their life short.  However, smearing her with insults may result in a punishment to the person doing the insulting.  Normally there is a police officer in sight, and then suddenly the rude behavior changes 180 degrees.

Someone needs to step in to protect Geller who is doing her job, and doing it well, not for the sake of the meager few dollars an hour she receives as a salary, but for knowing no one got hurt on her watch. Although that may not have been the case if one crack shot Texas policeman had not been on the scene.

One gets the distinct feeling Eshman really does not like Geller.  She spoils his kumbaya feeling and belief:  “Islam is a peaceful religion.  Muslims are good people (with the exception of those who belong to Isis, but they are an aberration).  We all get along so nicely together.”


To make the point stronger, Eshman points the finger at Geller.  She is the extremist, not those who say “Europe has fallen – America is next!”  She is the one who refuses to live in peace.  She does things “Davka” (to spite) and clearly is a menace to a peaceful society.  In short, she is worse than a troublemaker and must be a very troubled woman.

Geller indeed spoils the game.  She exposes the truth and puts it smack in one’s face.  The sights are not pleasant, but the dangers are real. She tells it like it is, as she sees the world, and of course she is not alone in her opinions.

The slick propaganda machine of the local Muslims (CAIR, MPAC, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, etc.) is soothing to the ear and smooth as silk.  They are the victims, never the perpetrators.  All terrorist acts carried out in the name of Islam do not belong to Islam but are singular acts by deranged individuals.  In fact, the word “Terrorism” and peace-loving Muslims are two concepts quite incompatible with one other.

Thus, continues Eshman’s rationale, Geller is at fault for painting Islam with a skewed brush.  She is a witch casting a devious spell on all Muslims, unjustly smearing their name.  And thus, Eshman who may disagree with her politically or ideologically paints a dreadful picture warning against the icing Geller applies.

Eshman is a pure reflection of the established American Jewry, the same “old guard” that surrendered to the Muslims and cancelled an appearance by Geller at the Jewish Federation of Greater LA building because some called to complain.  She was left in the street, doors locked in her face, lest she offend anyone for telling her truth.

When was the last time the local Muslims, out of consideration to Jews, turned down the hateful rhetoric against Israel (supposedly committing war crimes and being the new Nazis)?  When did they “disinvite” or even give a second thought when hosting a hateful speaker, one who not only uses blood libels, but also mobilizes listeners to action? Where is the outrage against Muslim students that prevent speakers and Jewish students from exercising their freedom of speech?

There is a tipping point where Eshman has no choice but to change his outer skin.  This was observed recently with the advent of the BDS movement and the thriving anti-Semitism found at local university campuses.  Even UCLA Prof. David Myers wrote a mesmerizing account against BDS, which Eshman to his credit prominently featured.  Yet, how pitiful that Prof. Myers is among those who contributed so much to the advent of this movement.

Editor-in-Chief Eshman got it wrong.  Geller is the warning sign that the light is changing from yellow to red.  She is trying to caution us to slow down to a complete stop, look around and be aware of the surroundings, before it is too late.

Geller seeks to wake us from our sleep – for our own sake, and for the benefit of the Jewish community at large. Allow me then to add a lesson history has taught us:  Those who helped the Communists attain power were the first to be executed.  That is good to remember even when one refuses to apply the lessons of the past to the present.

On another side of the coin – Norma’s – Eshman’s remarks are correct, although laced with insults and demeaning stereotypical comments.

There is a great difference between freedom and good sense. When the Nazis marched in Skokie many were appalled they should have the right to do so, but if Americans allow those who hate Jews to be denied free speech, who will be next? And most importantly who will make that call and decide whose speech is allowed and whose is not?

That is the slippery slope our forefathers in their wisdom wished to avoid when giving us that precious freedom. Do we all use it wisely and with restraint, perhaps not?

If every American agreed with one another’s speech, there would be no need for protection. It is most necessary when we disagree and was designed for that purpose.

Having said that, it is also important to note there are considerations of where and how to exercise that right.

Where the lives of oneself or others enter into the mix, perhaps a bit of wisdom and caution should prevail.

Did Pamela Geller have the right to do what she did? Absolutely and without doubt.

Might she have thought better of constructing a situation that would incite violence? Perhaps that would have been wise. Speaking your truth is fine, but when that truth endangers the lives of others, one should be compelled to use a rational and measured approach.

Personal attacks against Geller distract from the true issue inherent in her actions. They muddy the waters as much as anti-Muslim rhetoric emotionalizing a serious problem that must be addressed by today’s world.

As a Jewish woman I am offended by the “Housewife” remark as trivializing women as unfit to contribute in any remarkable manner. Was Betty Freidan no more than a bored housewife? Did she ignite the Feminist movement because she’d had her fill of “affairs?”

Are we not past the Philip Roth’s Sophie Portnoy era of marginalizing and demeaning Jewish women and stereotyping them as annoying and redundant?  If not, I strongly suggest we bury that offensive falsehood once and for all.

It is easy to find many on one side or the other of this issue. But free speech is an uncompromising and undeniable cornerstone of our democracy. When we deny it for any reason, we are giving in to the worst kind of terrorism.

Should we all exercise discretion in these highly charged and extremely volatile times? In my opinion, advises Norma, that would be the optimum way to proceed. No one benefits when gas is poured on an already raging inferno.

Is Ari correct? Yes.
Is Norma correct? Yes.

Would we all get along much better if the personal attacks were left at the door and intelligent and mannered conversation were allowed inside?

On that we hope we can all agree. 
______________________________________
This is the latest in the series “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel,” a collaboration between Zager and Bussel, a foreign correspondent reporting from Israel.

Ari Bussel and Norma Zager collaborate both in writing and on the air in a point-counter-point discussion of all things Israel-related.  Together, they have dedicated the past decade to promoting Israel.

© Israel Monitor, May, 2015

First Published May 11, 2015
Contact:  bussel@me.com

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Leftist Jews Agree with Obama

Obama the Arafat

John R. Houk
© May 22, 2011

I find it unbelievable that there are Left Wing Jews that support the existence of a Palestinian State. Are these Leftists so blinded by ideology that they forget that Jew-hatred crosses political spectrums and religions that have encoded in their holy writings to hate Jews will always hate Jews? That is definitely the case with Arabs that call themselves Palestinians, especially among Muslim-Arabs.

Ari Bussel writes in consternation of Rob Eshman of the Jewish Journal representing Jews in the greater Los Angeles area. Eshman is sticking up for President Barack Hussein Obama’s intention to steal Israeli land including the eastern half of Jerusalem whence the Jewish Temple Mount is located and give the area to Jew-hating Muslims. The Jew-hating Muslims calling themselves Palestinians have two goals: destroy Israel and kill Jews. You would think that Statehood, denied originally by the losing invading Arab armies that refused to take in the refugees they created, would embrace a sovereign nation. However, that is not the case! The corrupt Palestinian Liberation Organization which is the leadership of the Palestinian Authority has refused Statehood terms handed to them on golden platter after golden platter. The PLO’s original leader Yasir Arafat and the organization’s present leader Mahmoud Abbas have demanded unrealistic concessions by Israel to agree upon a sovereign Palestine. One of those unrealistic demands is the usurpation of the eastern half of Jewish by heritage Jerusalem. One of the other demands is the return of the descendants of the Arabs to land that was abandoned during the Arab invasion to destroy Israel in 1948. These Arab descendants have multiplied three-fold from the time their ancestors fled under the hope the invading Arabs would create a bloodbath of Jews and enable not only a return but also the stealing of Jewish property from the dead Jews.

Incidentally, the Jews living in the Muslim lands experienced the dream envisioned by the invading Arab armies. After Israel had defeated five or six invading armies and secured their independence, the Muslim nations expelled Jews that number far greater than the Arab refugees created by losing Arab armies. Jews were evicted, their property and money seized and in many cases they were murdered.

This is the situation that BHO is setting up by demanding Israel give up land including Jerusalem representing the 1967 borders prior to the last multi-nation Arab invasion.

How blind is this chief editor Rob Eshman that agrees with President Barack Hussein Obama?

JRH 5/22/11
*******************************
Different Standards

By Ari Bussel
Sent: 5/22/2011 2:45 AM

And your land shall be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.”  Leviticus 26:33

There is a monopoly on news and opinions for the Jewish community of Greater Los Angeles in one paper, the Jewish Journal.  Not unlike most papers, the Journal’s existence was threatened until recently, when three local philanthropists injected a million dollars into its operations as silent investors.

Some would say Rob Eshman, the Journal’s editor-in-chief, is a reflection of the community.  In his latest editorial he wished for Israel to have acted differently with respect to the March on her borders. According to Eshman, Israel is required to formulate creative solutions to her enemies’ attacks in a manner that ensures her enemies are not injured or killed or their emotions hurt.

Eshman’s stance reflects an existing approach that Israel should risk her very being and her soldiers’ lives, health and mental wellbeing for the sake of her enemies.  Thus, in Lebanon, Israeli soldiers went building-to-building attempting to save everyone rather than flattening the ground below which bunkers had been built and fortified for six years.

In Gaza, Israeli soldiers went door-to-door to protect the local populace while booby-trapped mechanisms exploded and other entrapments were activated.  For risking her soldiers’ lives, Israel was accused of war crimes.  Go explain that to officer Aaron Karov who required four series of plastic surgeries to recreate his face.  I met him as he returned with his parents from the third series of operations during which a nose was crafted.

It was exactly one year ago, on May 31st , 2010, that a Turkish terrorist flotilla approached an area under maritime blockade by Egypt and Israel.  The leading vessel, the Mavi Marmara, had mercenaries on board determined to attack any Israeli soldier boarding the vessel and kill them.

Israel sent her soldiers armed with paint guns.  They were trained to expect verbal and physical abuse, but not an assault by lethal weapons.  A well-documented lynch ensued, in which five of the Israeli elite soldiers were badly wounded, at least one thrown overboard, others taken underneath to complete the task.

Nine terrorists were killed during this operation in pure self defense, and Eshman laments that there were no other creative solutions for dealing with the situation.  Then Chief of Staff promised that the next time, things would be handled differently:  The landing area should be sterile and terrorists wanting to kill those boarding the vessel would be dealt with accordingly.  No more soft approaches to hooligans.

Eshman, though, is not alone in his position.  In many ways, he reflects the feelings of the greater Jewish community in Los Angeles.  It is “Israel’s fault,” things should have been done differently.  Indeed!
What would Eshman do if upon returning home one evening he found his wife tied to a chair in their kitchen, no longer conscious, three home invaders standing around her doing her harm?

What if Eshman survived the ordeal only to find his family and friends, and the community at large, feeling uncomfortable with his behavior?  He should have prepared, he should have behaved differently; he shared responsibility, others muttered.  Many avoided visiting while others were more vocal in their opposition to his actions, to his survival.  Chutzpa! He should not be breathing and walking.

Israel is expected to perform miracles.  Her enemies fire from within civilian centers, kindergartens and schools.  They use hospitals and mosques as their headquarters and warehouses for firearms and ammunition.  They grab children for live shields and use apartment buildings as bases of operation.  They shoot to kill, plant fear and mayhem.  They aim to murder, and they enjoy and justify what they do.

Israel is prohibited from doing anything other than surrender.  At first she does not, but at the very last minute she understands there is no other choice but to respond if she is to survive.  This angers the beautiful, concerned souls of American Jewry, partially represented by people like Eshman.  They expect Israel to wave her wand and ignore or acquiesce to what is happening, to risk her soldiers’ lives, to allow her citizens to suffer long years of constant fear from rockets falling, exploding and murdering.

There is much more in store for Israel in the coming months.  Nothing will be off limits to her enemies now, as the swirl of activity accelerates toward the creation, at last, of Palestine and the recognition of the world community in this marvelous experiment.  Carve yet another part from the Body Israel in favor of Palestine.  Allow millions of well-cared-for, eternal “refugees” to “return” to “their” so-called homeland and capital Jerusalem.

Israel will find herself in a much more dangerous position than ever before. She needs to realize that in war, one must fight to win.  Her enemy will.  There will be casualties, and Eshman and those who believe as he does must be reminded once again that Israel’s casualties are not Israel’s fault, but the hatred of her enemy’s.

Israel seeks peace. To exist without rockets launched at her, her citizens butchered at home, terror afflicted on her citizenry in buses, wedding halls, performance auditoriums, shopping centers and universities.  But her very existence angers many, incites them to hatred and terror and justifies their deadly actions.

It is time for the Jewish community to stand strong with Israel and stop second-guessing her every move.  It is time for every leader of the Jewish community, including opinion shapers, to stop fighting on the enemy’s lines and stand where they should—on Israel’s side.
____________________
Leftist Jews Agree with Obama
John R. Houk
© May 22, 2011
___________________________
Different Standards

The series “Postcards from America—Postcards from Israel” by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager is a compilation of articles capturing the essence of life in America and Israel during the first two decades of the 21st Century.

The writers invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, Israel visitors rarely discover.

This point—and often—counter-point presentation is sprinkled with humor and sadness and attempts to tackle serious and relevant issues of the day. The series began in 2008, appears both in print in the USA and on numerous websites and is followed regularly by readership from around the world.

© “Postcards from America — Postcards from Israel,” May, 2011
Contact:  bussel@me.com

First Published May 21, 2011