Not a Pogrom

Gwyn Lurie makes statements about anti-war protesters yet leaves out valuable information in her claims. She states that protesting outside of a synagogue is antisemitic while leaving out the very important substance of the protests. This is incredibly misleading. No one inside the synagogue was practicing their religion; there was an illegal sale of Palestinian land taking place inside the synagogue, and that land was marketed for sale to Jews only. This is not only a clear violation of international law, it is ethnic cleansing. Another point the author conveniently left out is in regard to violence at protests. No mention of who committed the violence. It certainly wasn’t the students protesting genocide.

When students of conscience began camping out at UCLA in April to demand an end to Israel’s genocide, they came under violent attack. While the LAPD stood by, far-right Kahanist mobs severely beat students with poles, sprayed them with Mace, and tried to destroy their encampment using fireworks. Dozens of students were injured and needed emergency medical care. It is important to note that many of the students leading protests against the ongoing genocide are, in fact, Jewish and are supported by a broad coalition of humanitarians including rabbis, rabbinical students and Holocaust survivors. 

Comparing student protests to a pogrom is unacceptable. As a Jew whose grandmother had to flee Poland due to actual pogroms, I take great offense at this comparison. Let’s not create false antisemitism claims. It disrespects and dilutes what so many of our ancestors experienced and endured.

Despite Israeli forces killing nearly 40,000 Palestinians (not the actual number of civilians killed since so many are buried under the ruins and rubble of Gaza), these deaths being mostly women and children with at least 20,000 children missing, 90,000 civilians wounded, nearly 90% of Gaza’s population displaced, and starvation being used as a weapon of war – but yes, let’s do go on about the protesters.

Robin VanTassell

What I want to hear from Kamala Harris 

We are about to be immersed in our presidential campaign. It promises to be the shallow, embarrassing mud-slinging spectacle that has become the awful, if inevitable element of the election. Every four years, I promise myself not to be upset or sidetracked by the name-calling, innuendo, hyperbole and outright lies that both parties have made central to this foundational exercise which is an essential element of our democracy. 

Just once, I would like to see a candidate refuse to participate in this mutually degrading display, but I don’t have much hope that this year will be much different. One candidate has become famous and successful for his aggressive, overstated and confrontative style. Chances are slight that he will alter what has been, for him, a winning strategy. The other candidate, regretfully has to prove the toughness of her gender and refute the reservations some have concerning her race and ethnicity. She will need to respond to her opponent’s charges by counterpunching in much the same fashion. But could she amend her approach? In my healthy fantasy life, I wish for a new tone in her stump speech.

“Good evening, my fellow Americans. Thank you for being here tonight and for giving me the opportunity to share with you my visions for our country. We all know what is at stake and what the issues are. The list is significant and the challenges are complicated. I will talk to you tonight about these challenges, my plans to address them and what I will ask of you to help in that important effort. These are difficult and complex problems. If they were easy, we wouldn’t still be dealing with them after all these years, and in some instances, decades. 

“Before I begin, I want to make a pledge to you – a pledge that I will honor throughout my campaign and a pledge I urge you to hold me to. I promise to devote only one sentence to my opponent. Granted, it will a long sentence, but once I have said it (and I will say it again at other events like this one), I will not mention my opponent again. I may contrast or criticize his policies, but beyond this sentence, I will not refer to him personally again. I give you my word. 

“As I said, it is a long sentence. I have considered every word carefully. Everything in this sentence is a verifiable truth. It is a sentence of proven facts. There is no opinion, with the possible exception of the concluding phrase. 

“Donald Trump is a convicted felon because he has been tried and found guilty on multiple counts surrounding the payment of hush money to a porn star in order keep from making his infidelity public, and he was judged guilty of sexual abuse in a separate civil trial, and he is a bigot, and he is a sore loser unwilling to accept the peaceful transfer of power resulting from a fair election, and he is a liar, and he is not fit to serve as President of the United States.’ 

“Now we can get to the truly important issues that we face. My purpose tonight is to have you understand my position as we struggle to cope with and address these crucial challenges.” 

As I said, this suggested approach may be naive and unrealistic in this unprecedented time. But the only thing most Americans agree on today is the need to end the rancor and unending belligerent partisanship. Despite the lip service paid to this need, all we get are the hackneyed and overworked promises from campaign candidates to “begin the healing” and “seek common ground,” promises that we have regrettably learned to be sadly hollow. 

Breaking this cycle of increasing contentious disrespect will take a genuine commitment from a leader of stature to loudly condemn the acrimony and personal insults, and even possibly take the bold gamble of a unilateral commitment to refuse to be part of this lamentable trend. We need a leader with a willingness to embrace meaningful compromise as an enlightened element of responding to our challenges, as a sign of strength, not weakness. We need someone who will accept consideration of differences of opinion and policy with the respect they deserve. 

Clearly the current political climate and apparent cast of potential leadership has seemed to exacerbate this lamentable trend. It is time for major change, to do something entirely different, to establish new elements of good practice and standards of civility. We can only hope that one or the other (or both) of our leading candidates recognizes this and is willing to implement this sorely needed change. 

Arthur Merovick 
Headmaster Laguna Blanca School (retired)

A Waste of Time

I recently read Jeffrey Harding’s letter, which spanned almost four columns, analyzing various issues he deemed important for determining whom to support in the upcoming November elections. Regrettably, after such an extensive analysis, he concluded with, “at this point, I can’t support either candidate.” Frankly, the letter seemed like a pure waste of time.

Mr. Harding wishes there were better candidates from both parties. In any presidential election, or any election for that matter, there are always better candidates than those nominated in primaries or who run unopposed. Thus, we end up with the candidates who possess the desire, courage, interest, talent, influence, knowledge of the process, experience and position to secure a place in the final round of the election. To have no inclination as to who might be the better incumbent is always based on insufficient information. For instance, who could have known whether Richard Nixon, a sitting Vice President aged 47, or John F. Kennedy, a Senator with no executive experience aged 43, would be more adept? Prior to the election no one could have foreseen a crisis like the Bay of Pigs fiasco, from which Kennedy learned how to handle the Soviet menace during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

To imply that he would not vote for either candidate gives power to others. Most voters know very little about candidate policy positions. Evaluating candidates based solely on specific issues is not always the best method of evaluating a candidate. Instead, observe how the candidates act, how they speak, their truthfulness, fabrications, and prior actions.

Trump: He inherited wealth, has a history of corporate mismanagement, multiple bankruptcies, governmental actions compelling the closure of a fraudulent “university,” litigation involving sexual abuse of women, convictions for numerous felonies, questionable business practices, a reputation for dealing unfairly with suppliers, bullying, promoting a coup of the United States government, refusing to admit electoral defeat, threatening retribution, suggesting he would seek out opponents for prosecution, and failing to clearly reject Project 2025’s explicit plan to transform the United States government into an authoritarian state. Furthermore, Trump has not supported the protection of reproductive healthcare, including abortion rights, while simultaneously basking in the glory of the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the judges he appointed.

Harris: Kamala Harris has a record of fairness and effectiveness in her performance as prosecutor, U.S. Senator and Vice President. She is truthful. Harris has selected a capable vice-presidential candidate. Harris looks and acts presidential and has learned from past campaigns. She has articulated support for her positions on issues such as democracy, middle class, NATO, Israel, Ukraine, and military power. Harris has been particularly clear on her support of reproductive healthcare. 

I believe there is more than enough information available for Mr. Harding to come to a reasonable conclusion regarding which candidate to vote for.  

Lois Rosen