Ha’ Am UCLA’s Jewish Newsmagazineהעם

JEWS AND OUR FRIENDS: Questions and answers about the Jewish minority experience

www.haam.org

Inside the issue: Jews and... Minority Activists ............................. 4, 8 Wall Street Occupiers....................... 6-7 Arabs ............................................... 9

Fall 2011

Since 1972

“

Ha'AmFall 2011

Editor-in-ChiefJacob Elijah Goldberg

Layout EditorsEytan Davidovits

Tessa Nath

Content EditorsDiane Bani-EsrailiAlan Naroditsky

Senior WritersAlan Naroditsky

Tessa NathAshton RosinBen Steiner

Yoni Herskovitz

Staff WritersDiane Bani-Esraili

Sarah ElbaumAri HuntleyTzvi Wolf

Contributing WritersCorey FeinsteinChaya Storch

Blog WritersMoshe KahnJosh Yasmeh

Ha’Am Magazine118 Kerckhoff Hall308 Westwood Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90024

www.haam.org

© 2011 UCLA Communications Board

The UCLA Communications Board has a media griev-ance procedure for resolving grievances against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete procedure, contact Student Media UCLA at 118 Kerckhoff Hall,

310 825-2787, or director@media.ucla.edu.

The UCLA Communications Board fully supports the University of California’s policy on non-discrimina-tion. The student media reserves the right to reject or modify advertising portraying disability, age, sex, or sexual orientation. It is the expectation of the Commu-nications Board that the student media will exercise the right fairly and with sensitivity. Any person believing that any advertising in the student media violates the Board’s policy on non-discrimination should commu-nicate his or her complaints in writing to the Business Manager, (name of student medium), 118 Kerckhoff Hall, Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90024. For assistance with housing discrimination problems, call: UCLA Housing Office (310) 825-4491, or the Hous-

ing Rights Center (213) 387-8400.

All opinions expressed in this newsmagazine are solely that of the author, not of the Ha’Am Editorial Board or the UCLA Communications Board. Letters to the edi-

tor should be directed to haam@media.ucla.edu

During my first few years of college, I re-call often sitting alone on the Quad (University of Texas) feeling as if I was invis-ible amidst a stu-

dent body of 50,000. In a very small way, I feel like I can relate to the hundreds of peo-ple feeling the powerlessness of invisibility in a society that does not see them.

Far beyond the social awkwardness of the playground, there are invisible people every-where who are victims of deep injustices and oppression. They are the boys who wash our dishes at restaurants and the men who wash our cars. They are the girls who make our hotel beds and the women who serve in our homes. They are the slaves confined by our penal code and the objectified defined by our sexual appetites. They are the homeless who spend their days in our shadow and their nights in our parks.

While “underclass” invisibility is caused initially by systems of oppression, shame in-variably leads these vulnerable individuals to perpetuate this depressed psychological and social state. “Shame involves the realization that one is weak and inadequate in some ways in which one expects oneself to be ad-

equate. Its reflex is to hide from the eyes of those who will see one’s deficiency, to cover it up,” explains legal scholar Martha Nuss-baum.

One who lacks basic needs often wishes not to be seen for fear of shame. This is made worse by our shame at seeing them and not taking action, and the further clouding of vis-ibility that follows. As Nelson Mandela rose to become the first democratically elected state President of South Africa, a country shamed by a history of painful injustice, he shared that “As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.” We need the courage to see and make seen the victims of injustice among us.

We have been granted the power to help make visible the invisible. We accomplish this by letting the vulnerable hiding in the shad-ows know every time we encounter them that they are recognized members of society, members in good standing even, and espe-cially by letting the public know they exist by advocating for their rights and welfare.

Jewish law even demands not only that we see but that we be seen (“yireh, yai’raeh”) in Jerusalem on the festivals (Chagigah 2a). This is training for the rest of the year that our eyes, and hearts, be open to see those who are unseen. Connecting and supporting the unseen is not a distraction from the tradition but its actualization.

One of the primary goals of Jewish spiritual life is to see beyond the physical, to sanctify the unseen, and to elevate matter to a high-er plane. The Maggid of Mezritch, the great

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Director of Jewish Life and the Senior Jewish Educator at the UCLA Hillel, Founder and President of Uri L’Tzedek, a Jewish social justice organization, and a fifth-year doctoral candidate in moral psychol-ogy and epistemology at Columbia University. You can now order his book on Amazon: Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century.

Chassidic master, helped to introduce us to the idea of “yesh me’ayin” – creation out of nothing – to mean that in helping something come into existence that previously did not exist, or helping something be seen that pre-viously was unseen, it is like we are emulat-ing the very creation of the universe.

Greater than lending money or giving tze-dakah to a poor individual, the Rabbis tell us, is providing partnership (Shabbat 63a). Our charge is to join the invisible in solidarity and partnership: let us help make their voices heard and their humanity seen.

Some of the most terrifying times in my own life have been when I didn’t really feel like I existed; in these moments, I didn’t feel acknowledged by the world, let alone appre-ciated or loved.

I have been fortunate to have the support to get through those times. I would venture to say I am not alone in having had these feelings, neither am I alone in recognizing the crucial role played by friends and fam-ily members to remind me of my visibility and humanity. As college students at UCLA, you have the power to make invisible people right here into visible people. Let us be those friends, let us be those family members, and let us be those advocates for those who have none. May we be blessed with the good sight to see the unseen, and the vision to increase their visibility in our blessed nation.

A word from Rabbi Shmuly...

Great points, and you’re right – you should be proud of the Jews and support Israel. But let’s take a look at this phi-losophy.

Science and G-d — This de-bate didn’t start in a vacuum; it has been raging for thousands of years. Its roots are most clear-ly indentified in the debates that erupted between the Catholic Church and the rationalists dur-ing the Renaissance. Whatever the outcome was, the debate had nothing to do with Judaism.

According to Wikipedia (a favorite among college students), Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) “is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe... In modern use, “science” is a term which more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, and not the knowledge itself.” It is “often treated as synony-mous with ‘natural and physical science,” and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material uni-verse and their laws.” In short, science is a field

Rabbi, I’m a cultural Jew; I support the US-Israel relation-

ship, and I am proud to be Jewish. But let’s be honest, I believe that by now we can rely on science as the best way to explain our world.”

answers a common question about Judaism and scienceRabbi Rupp

that utilizes the physical world to gain knowl-edge about how physicality works. Things must be measured and weighed in order for them to be considered “scientific data.”

G-d, according the Bible, is the Infinite — the non-physical. He is One and All Powerful. He can’t be measured or weighed or quantified in any way. It is true that G-d can’t do everything, but the only things He cannot do are related to the traits that the physical world possesses. He can’t die, be born, forget, or walk away. He can’t stop somewhere, and he can’t start somewhere; these are characteristics limited to physicality. Essentially, science can’t measure G-d, and therefore, G-d isn’t a scientific ques-tion. The mainstream Jewish understanding is that unless there are some extenuating cir-cumstances, G-d uses all the laws of science to maintain and govern the world. Maimonides, who was a practicing physician, says that sci-ence explains the how, Judaism explains the why, and there is never really a contradiction since both were written by the same Author. Should a person see an apparent contradiction, they misunderstand either Judaism or science.

Rabbi Jacob Rupp, a UCSD graduate, got his rabbinic ordination in Jerusalem. For the past four years he has worked as a JAM rabbi at UCLA, teaching, coun-seling, and, along with his wife, providing fantastic food for Jewish students.

OpeningPage 2Fall 2011

P o p u l a r opinion in the Jewish com-munity has it that the cam-pus is a hotbed of antisemi-tism and wide-spread anti-Zi-onist activities.

Many believe that the well-being of Jewish stu-dents is threatened and that, confronted with an orgy of hate, Jews have felt a compulsion to hide their Jewishness and cover up any outer symbols of identification. This could not be fur-ther from the truth.

Indeed, there have been some notorious, well-publicized incidents on select campuses and, admittedly, there is a steady stream of anti-Israel political rhetoric at many universities. But the latter has been constant over almost thirty years.

However, hat which receives scant notice and is ultimately of major significance is that we are in the midst of a genuine Jewish golden age on the American college campus. Rather than being overwhelmed by darkness, we are actu-ally basking in the light, and we haven’t even paused to take notice.

What follows is an outline of some leading indicators of this Jewish renaissance on cam-pus:

1. There are more Jewish students attend-ing Ivy League universities now than at any other period, including schools that formerly

employed admissions quotas that severely lim-ited Jewish enrollment. In fact, schools such as Stanford, Vanderbilt and USC, not known as historically friendly to Jews, actively recruit Jew-ish students.

2. There is a preponderance of Jewish aca-demics — approximately 20% of the faculty — at the most prestigious universities with an even larger representation on the best faculties of law, medicine, computer science, and theo-retical physics.

3. Kosher food programs have been imple-mented by campuses as diverse as Stanford, Oberlin, and the University of Vermont. Yale provides only its orthodox students with manual dorm keys so as to facilitate entry on Shabbat through doors that otherwise require a magne-tized card key.

4. Well-endowed Jewish Studies centers abound at Washington, Michigan, Penn, Mary-land, USC, Harvard, Yale, UCLA — to name just a few. Their academic programs offer hundreds of courses ranging from Hebrew language to Jewish philosophy to Holocaust history to eth-nic Jewish music to American-Jewish literature to Kabbalah. There is even a smattering of uni-versities at which one can pursue a doctorate in Talmud. At UCLA, I have co-taught seminars with colleagues on the faculty in Pirke Avot (the Ethics of the Sages) and in the philosophic thought of Maimonides. Why, it’s a veritable Yeshiva out there! A recent survey by the Co-hen Center at Brandeis University claimed that during their years at university, 40% of Jewish students take one or more courses in Jewish studies.

5. Not only Jewish Studies, but now also Is-rael Studies has been established at ten univer-sities, including UCLA. The program, which is most often housed at the university International Institute, offers courses in history and politics of Israel, Zionism, Israeli culture, as well as in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is the single most effec-

tive way to firmly and vigorously sustain Israel’s legitimacy in the academic world.

6. Every major university press publishes a line of Judaica, including Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, the University of California, and even the University of Alabama Press. In 2004, Stanford University Press em-barked on a landmark project: the publication of the proposed twelve volume Pritzker translation of the Zohar by Professor Daniel Matt.

7. Jewish administrators are ubiquitous, serving as deans, departmental chairs and pro-vosts in unprecedented numbers. And over the past twenty-five years, Jewish chancellors and presidents have become so common that almost every leading school has had at least one. The current President of the University of California is not only a legal scholar but a stu-dent of Maimonides who has led three groups of presidential colleagues on organized trips to Israel. One of his first acts as President of UC was to reinstate the University’s EAP (Educa-tion Abroad Program) at the Hebrew University after years of suspension. UCLA’s Chancellor addresses students, faculty, and community on the High Holy Days at Hillel every year, and the former interim Chancellor is a practicing Ortho-dox Jew. Oh, how the world has changed! Not only are there Jewish public officials at the uni-versity, but some are actively identified Jewish Jews.

8. Increasingly, Jewish student leaders (many from Hillel) are returning to campus poli-tics and are being elected to student govern-ment. They are building alliances with repre-sentatives of other communities, protecting Jewish interests on campus, and generally mastering the political process. Clearly, Jewish student activists all over the country have had a moderating influence on the campus climate. They are also helping to define the university service-learning agenda most especially with regard to Alternative Spring Break programs

and Challah for Hunger – two signature Hillel programs that have been broadly embraced by the larger campus community.

9. Orthodox students have become a pres-ence on many campuses around the country in the form of the Jewish Learning Initiative on Campus, co-sponsored by Hillel and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. Daily min-yanim, chevruta learning, and regular shiurim proliferate. There was a time when traditional students hesitated to wear their kippot to class. Now they are fully integrated and comfortable at a university that accommodates the Jew-ish calendar and offers deferrals to those who choose to spend a year or two studying at an Is-raeli yeshiva. UCLA has become a destination school for students on the West Coast seeking a traditional, orthodox environment.

10. And since 1994, over fifty new Hillel facil-ities have been built at Columbia, Brown, Stan-ford, Emory, NYU, Tulane, University of Wash-ington, University of Maryland, Harvard, Yale, and UCLA, among others. It is an expression of the amazing story of Jewish achievement in America and our rootedness at and com-mitment to the American university. And this building phenomenon points merely to Hillel’s physical renewal but doesn’t touch on the re-markable creativity, growth, and impact realized by Hillel during the last decade. The best Hillels can now boast that they have doubled the num-ber of Jewish students involved in meaningful Jewish experiences, and that Hillel involvement is the greatest predictor of future leadership in the Jewish community, outpacing other shared Jewish experiences.

So rather than considering the campus a di-saster area, we should note the overwhelmingly good news and view the university as the home of renaissance and opportunity where the Jew-ish future is being forged.

A Jewish Golden Age on the American College Campusby Rabbi Chaim

Cover art designed by: Jessica Deutsch, a second-year Fine Art major at Parsons, The New School for Design. You can find more of her art at www.JessicaDeutsch.com.

Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller is the Executive Director of the Yitzhak Rabin Hillel Center for Jewish Life at UCLA.

Ha’Am is the central forum for Jewish voices at UCLA, serving both the campus and greater Jewish communities — online and in

print.

We seek to foster the intellectual unity of the Jewish community by

providing a space for various perspectives on Jewish-interest topics in the form of news, opinion, and analysis. We aim to combat

divisiveness within and between communities.

Ha’Am is brought to you in partnership with UCLA Student Media and Hillel at UCLA.

Opening Page 3Fall 2011Opening

Editor-in-Chief

To an extent, ethnic stereotypes de-termine how we perceive those around us. The “We’re a culture, not a costume” ad campaign from Ohio University re-sponds to these stereotypes with posters of students holding up photos of differ-ent racial and ethnic stereotypes in cos-tume: a suicide bomber, a Native Ameri-can, an African American with blackface and grills, a Mexican on a donkey, and a geisha.

While the campaign has stirred up considerable controversy regarding which costumes are offensive and which ones are funny, still more people argue that their culture was left out of the racial profiling, and that Italian mobster, Irish drunk, and hillbilly are potentially just as offensive, even if they don’t poke fun at the mainstream media’s definition of a minority. According to Jelani Cobb, a professor of Africana studies at Rutgers University and the author of The Sub-stance of Hope: Barack Obama and the Paradox of Progress, “To treat a char-acter like Batman or Superman as a Halloween costume is one thing, but to treat an entire ethnicity as a costume is something else. It suggests that people

conflate the actual broad diversity of a culture with caricatures and charac-ters.”

But what about those people, com-prising less than one percent of the world’s population, who are neglected from even the minority sympathy reser-voir? Orthodox Jewish costumes have been left out of the campaign, as Jews frequently are when discussing minority groups around the world.

Such an attitude is detrimental to the image of Jewish people in American culture. It is socially acceptable to hate the majority, and since many people perceive Jews as that majority — based on their scientific, monetary, and artistic contributions — it fuels a cycle of anti-semitism.

Yet while this Ohio University ad cam-paign might spark many to cry antisemi-tism by citing that other minorities such as Asian Americans and Middle East-ern Americans make up a larger portion of the population than Jewish people, this would mean classifying Judaism as nothing more than a culture — a group of people united by an accident of birth.

According to Rabbi Benzion Klatzko, conceptual founder of Shabbat.com (a networking site for Jews to find host families, lifelong partners, as well as job

opportunities) and former JAM (Jewish Awareness Movement) Rabbi at UCLA, Judaism is a relationship between a per-son and God, not a religion connoting a strict set of ordinances devoid of any tangible meaning.

With this in mind, why do Jews place so much emphasis on fitting into the mi-nority culture mold if they defy all molds by definition? They can neither be classi-fied exclusively as a religion, a culture, a people, nor an ethnic minority. They are all of the above, coupled with a relation-ship that each of them builds with God, setting aside time each week to welcome in the Sabbath and work on themselves, leaving the cacophonous world behind for a day.

Instead of harping on why Jews were left out of the “We’re a culture, not a costume” campaign, let Jews be thank-ful that they were for the simple fact that they weren’t labeled exclusively as a minority or culture. Western civilization continues — albeit unsuccessfully — to categorize the Jewish people along with religions like Christianity and Islam. Jews are different, not just with their tradition of Oral Torah, but with their unique em-phasis on a personal relationship with God, shunning practices of forced con-version counterintuitive to a meaningful connection.

Western civilization forces people into preexisting molds, shaving off every-thing that doesn’t fall well between the lines. To cite an example in the modern context, such is the case with the trend of yoga. While yoga traditionally refers to the physical, mental, and spiritual dis-cipline on the path to attaining a state of perfect transcendent insight and tran-quility, nowadays most young mothers, single women, or fitness enthusiasts practice purely physical yoga as a means of exercise, almost completely devoid of its original purpose and meaning. Yoga, a meditative practice, has become main-streamed.

On a more radical note, let us prevent an encore of Nazi Germany, where Jews were mainstreamed into being perceived as a race deserving of total eradication

Tessa NathLayout Editor/ Senior Writer

WE’RE A RELATIONSHIP,

NOT JUST A RELIGION

by a psychotic mass murderer. As long as the relationship aspect exists and we deny stereotypes, Jews have a greater chance of survival.

Therefore, breathe a sigh of relief. Jews are not perceived as a minority worthy of being protected by the cam-paign, nor a majority hated by the mass-es — at least for today.

OpinionPage 4Fall 2011

Photos courtesy of CNN.com

LABEL ME NOT: Ohio University ad campaign depicts Mexican American student holding up a picture of a Mexican donkey rider costume (above) and a Middle Eastern American with a picture of a suicide bomber costume (below).

ALL TOGETHER NOW: Noted photographer Terry Richardson and friends dress up as stereotypical Jews for Halloween 2011.

Photo courtesy of terrysdiary.com Tessa Nath is a first-year English major at UCLA. She aspires to one day be a rabbi and a novelist, and is available to publicize any challah-related events on campus.

NOT JUST A RELIGION

Opinion Opinion Page 5Fall 2011

In an age character ized by rapid technological advances, instanta-neously accessible information, and unbounded scient i f ic discoveries, one may quest ion whether rel ig ion is compatible with such a fast paced, fact-based society. As I understand i t , fa i th is a natural requisi te to sin-cere rel ig ious aff i l iat ion. Whether that fai th is placed in an ethical code, a cul ture, or a part icular histor ical nar-rat ive, i t is essent ial ly a declarat ion that empir ical fact is not the only ba-sis for personal convict ion.

Some may argue that those who “bel ieve” are neglect ing the progress that the rest of society is embracing. Whi le some cl ing to their fa i th and others abandon tradi t ion in pursui t of something new, we seem to be lef t wi th a dichotomy between those who embrace moderni ty and those who shun i t .

I f ind this dichotomy incomplete. I would contend that the individual who truly exempl i f ies moderni ty is not one who is f i rst in l ine for the new-est iPhone, nor one who rejects the constraints of t radi t ion for the sup-posed freedom of secular ism. Moder-ni ty should take the values of history

into account. The modern individual should be one who can str ike a bal-ance between tradi t ion and progress, extract ing the most valuable aspects from each. Unexpectedly, I have come to this conclusion through my interact ion with the Orthodox Jewish community here at UCLA.

My own Jewish ident i ty was never subject to categorizat ion as Ortho-dox, Conservat ive, or Reform; i t was shaped around a devot ion to the core moral values of the rel ig ion common to every denominat ion. I t is within the context of th is personal history that I see myself as an object ive vis i tor to each group within the Jewish com-munity. Alas, my concept ion of each Jewish sub-community is mal leable and incomplete, speckled with mem-ories of superf ic ial encounters with var ious f lavors of Jew.

These experiences lef t me with a presumption that I would f ind UCLA’s Orthodox community to be a passive, extreme, and ul t imately secluded community who l ive their l ives “by the book” and shield themselves from the pressures of contemporary society. I expected to see a refusal to adapt to the ways of the 21st century, c losed-mindedness, and i l l judgment of those who pract ice Judaism di fferent ly.

I am happy to report that real i ty could not have been further f rom my expectat ions. The Orthodox commu-nity at UCLA reveals the beauty with which tradi t ion and moderni ty can be combined. This fusion of the modern and the tradi t ional is apparent in the fest iv i t ies these students throw on Motzei Shabbat. Only with a trained eye would anyone not ice the absence of non-kosher food and the subt le distance between the boys and gir ls present.

I now associate the Orthodox com-

Unorthodox orthodoxy: a portraitAshton RosinSenior Writer

munity with the abi l i ty to f lour ish in two worlds at once. I am amazed at the balance achieved by the tech-savvy student pursuing a degree in computer science who refuses to take Saturday exams, the kippah-clad ath-lete, the scholar ly student who is wel l versed in t radi t ional Jewish texts and is on a quest to understand the intr i -cacies of Is lam, and the avid texter who puts away his cel l phone for the durat ion of Shabbat. The abi l i ty of these individuals to maintain a pow-erful devot ion to tradi t ion and to aca-demic and social success secures the community ’s t r iumph over the confu-sion of moderni ty.

The archetypal party-goer fal ls into deep conversat ion about the object ive of l i fe just as the party is reaching i ts c l imax. The kippah-clad athlete plays beer pong, but not without reci t ing a

blessing over the f i rst s ip. The tex-ter may be disconnected from instant communicat ion for a day, but his abi l -i ty to communicate more meaning-ful ly is preserved by his technologi-cal abst inence for those twenty-f ive hours. The thoughts and act ions that shape the l ives of these Jews are grounded in a consciousness of pur-pose and ident i ty that is sometimes lost in the hust le and bust le of the modern world.

I have been pr iv i leged to take part in these profound encounters with the individuals that make up the Or-thodox Jewish community at UCLA. Developing a close relat ionship with these Jews has lef t me with an im-pression that renders al l Orthodox stereotypes essent ial ly meaningless. I t was refreshing to discover that a community of th is nature could be as-sert ive in i ts rel ig ious convict ion yet inclusive of di fferent mental i t ies and experiences, and total ly f ree of judg-

ment.For the f i rst t ime, I a lso learned the

degree to which the Orthodox com-munity values dialect ic and inquiry. Not only is quest ioning encouraged, but many of their queries are direct-ed at their own bel iefs and pract ices. Rather than teaching seclusion, the Orthodoxy pract iced by my peers at UCLA provides a map for the incor-porat ion of complexi ty into the Jew-ish ident i ty. I have come to appreci-ate that being an Orthodox Jew is not s imply def ined by constr ict ive rules and tradi t ional convent ions, but is a way of l i fe that guides the individu-al ’s quest through midterms, col lege part ies, late night discussions in the dorms, f lyer ing on Bruinwalk, var ious student organizat ions, and ul t imate-ly every moment of modern l i fe as a UCLA student.

“Take what the world has to offer because it makes

you a stronger Jew; take Judaism because it makes you a stronger human.”

– wisdom from Ashton Rosin

aportrait

SHTEIGING: Ashton Rosin (above) leading a study group that looks at the Jewish perspectives on life and death with third-year Yoni Herskovitz and first-year Miri Gold (below).

Photos by Jacob Elijah Goldberg

Ashton Rosin is a second-year Global Studies major at UCLA. She is an accomplished gymnast and a connoisseur of profound and multifarious Jewish experiences.

““The ongoing Occupy protests taking

place all across the globe include an amalgamation of differing age groups, contrasting socioeconomic statuses, di-verse political perspectives, assorted religions, and multifarious worldviews. While the movement’s political ideology, approach, and proposed solutions pro-voke a considerable amount of acerbic debate, its inherent credo is an alarmed response to the rapidly widening fissure between the wealthy and the poor, and the recent overall decline of the Ameri-can economy.

By now, many people are famil iar with the ant isemit ic sent iments ex-pressed by a range of protesters in the United States. However, the most important quest ion to ask ourselves is this: should Jews see the incidents of ant isemit ism at Occupy movements as a real threat, or should these outbursts be ignored to avoid giv ing them the at-tent ion they desperately seek? As mul-t ip le factors suggest, the resurgence of f lagrant ant isemit ism in the United States (heralded as a country of to ler-ance and a second safe haven for Jews in the world) dur ing a t ime of economic distress is anything but a coincidence and must be met with great awareness and steady resolve.

A reader even vaguely familiar with Jewish history recognizes that Jews have been relentlessly branded and cat-egorized by a frequently hostile society. Above all, however, Jews have been a perennial scapegoat for any perceived fiscal injustice and are often stereotyped

as incurably avaricious. Over time, lay-ers upon layers of such damaging type-casts have been sewn into the world’s cultural fabric and continue to pounce on opportunities to manifest them-selves. For example, Jewish characters and their accompanying stereotypes in prominent literary works (i.e. William Shakespeare’s Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, Charles Dickens’s Fagin in Ol-iver Twist) have been conveniently pack-aged and rapidly propagated through the popular entertainment channel. Fagin was a crook, training young boys to steal money from upstanding citizens and col-lecting the plunder for himself, while Shylock made a living as a moneylend-er. As far as antisemitic stereotypes are

concerned (even today!), the two profes-sions are indistinguishable.

Taking this into account, it becomes clear that the anti-Jewish sentiments (however sporadic) within the ranks of the Occupy movements present them-selves not as impulsive or whimsical but as an untimely resurrection of estab-lished and historically ubiquitous antise-mitic demons.

In response to the question of why it is important to treat the Occupy move-ment’s antisemitism as a serious threat, Rabbi Jacob Rupp of the Jewish Aware-ness Movement at UCLA cautioned that “in general, large groups of people up-set over government issues, if you look

through history, have often times turned and pointed fingers at the Jews.” He adds that “the more radical factions that get involved, the easier it would be for this sentiment to take root. In addition, even if not everybody believes this, if it ’s a very open minded crowd, so to speak, that opinion is not necessarily looked down upon, which is another very upset-ting issue.”

Like clockwork, recently released poll results from the Anti-Defamation League (a watchdog agency actively combat-ing discrimination against Jews) con-clude that “anti-Semitic attitudes have risen slightly in America.” Although “ris-en slightly” might not sound shocking, the rates were unfortunately very high

to begin with, so even the most subtle increase is decidedly problematic. The survey reveals that 15% of Americans (or almost 35 million adults) “hold deep-ly anti-Semitic views”. Furthermore, 19% of respondents believe that Jews have too much control over Wall Street (a 5% increase from 2009) and 16% claim that Jewish “business people are so shrewd, others don’t have a chance.” While it is facetiously tempting to interpret the last point as a backhanded compliment, in all seriousness, the cumulative effect of these statistics is disturbing to say the least. The escalation of the general an-ti-Jewish disposition in this country has everything to do with our time of great

financial vulnerability – this particular brand of bigotry is highly combustible and cannot be discounted as just anoth-er example of the perpetual global an-tisemitism we have unfortunately grown to expect.

Previously documented cases of an-t isemit ic Occupy rants have been dis-missed by some due to the apparent lack of social c lout of the speechmak-ers in quest ion, but one of the most widely publ ic ized outbursts came from Patr ic ia McAl l ister ( the recent ly f i red Los Angeles Unif ied School Distr ict subst i tute teacher). Her doctr ine boi led down to the fol lowing now-infamous quote: “The Zionist Jews who are run-ning these big banks and our Federal Reserve – which is not run by the fed-eral government – they need to be run out of th is country.” Whi le other pro-testers may not control great spheres of societal inf luence, McAl l ister was a community leader and role model for the young chi ldren she worked with (at least she should have been). For obvi-ous reasons, i t is s imply terr i fy ing that someone ignorant ly spewing messages of hate regular ly worked with chi ldren in the most impressionable t ime of their l ives. Therefore, whi le some an-t isemit ic demonstrators are relat ively harmless, the sent iments can spread l ike wi ldf i re i f propagated by a school-teacher – someone responsible for the educat ion of America’s youth.

It is important to understand that the correlation between hatred towards the rich and antisemitism does not repre-sent an entirely unsubstantiated link. Jews are indeed the wealthiest minor-ity in the United States: they comprise about 1.75% of the entire population yet account for nearly 50% of its bill ion-aires. The purpose of this article is not to discuss the complex underlying rea-sons behind this phenomenon, but to re-inforce the conviction that Jews did not achieve financial success through ill icit

The more radical factions that get involved, the easier it would be for this sentiment to take root. In addition, even if not everybody believes this, if it’s a very open minded crowd, so to speak, that opinion

is not necessarily looked down upon, which is another very upsetting issue.”

— Rabbi Jacob Rupp Jewish Awareness Movement at UCLA

Occupy Antisemitism:Alan NaroditskyContent Editor/Senior Writer

Threat?

Page 7

Fall 2011

Photos courtesy of jerseynut.blogspot.com, theblaze.com, yourdaddy.net

Ari Huntley is a third-year Physics major at UCLA. Apparently, he is a professional who-carer.

means and are not involved in a collec-tive conspiracy aiming to impoverish the middle class. In 1930’s Germany, Ad-olf Hitler addressed a poverty-stricken, war-ravaged nation and singlehandedly convinced a jury consisting of millions of people of the Jews’ total culpability, citing “evidence” of precisely such a fic-titious conspiracy.

Some defenders of the Occupy move-ment claim that the anti-Jewish sen-timents are voiced by a small squad of bigots, but as an article in the New York Post astutely observes, “Germans dismissed prewar Nazis as a harmless bunch of clowns, too.” While I am not contending that the arguably erratic in-stances of antisemitism in the Occupy protests might spark an event similar in magnitude to the Holocaust, I wish to emphasize how quickly a certain idea or sentiment can spread given the right circumstances. In addition, as Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post notes, many political leaders who have voiced their support of the movement have yet to distance themselves from these dan-gerous antisemitic notions. While this doesn’t mean the politicians agree with the sentiments by any means, turning a blind eye sends all the wrong messages.

In today’s floundering economy, peo-ple are losing money, losing their homes, and losing faith in capitalism. The an-gry crowds are looking for someone to blame. Therefore, it has once again be-come imperative to make sure that our society’s angst remains appropriately channeled and does not give in to the age-old temptation of scapegoating the Jews for the fiscal woes we face. As his-tory has shown, overlooking even the most brazen antisemitism in a time of financial peril is something we simply cannot afford.

I always think the same way when present-ed with claims of antisemitism in the Occupy movements: who cares? But then again, I’m a professional who-carer.

While the Coffee Bean in Hillel: The Yit-zhak Rabin Center for Jewish Life at UCLA, I overheard a friend ranting about antisemitic remarks made at some recent Occupy Wall Street and Occupy LA rallies. He cast a furtive glance over his shoulder, perhaps checking to

ensure that none of the antisemites at the rally had followed him in, and proceeded to urge the folks at his table to “take action!” He informed them of the certainty of those comments’ det-rimental effects and how they signaled a shift toward an antisemitic majority in our country. I asked him if he could see any similarities between his claims and those of the demon-strators holding “The end of the world is near!” signs. He may have taken my question seri-ously, so here goes.

There are three different approaches you could take in understanding the sorts of re-marks made at Occupy rallies: You could fear that the alleged antisemites brainwash others into thinking along the same lines, that their presence signifies a dramatic uptick in Ameri-can antisemitism, or that none of this means a damned thing. Keep in mind that the first two approaches are discrete entities. If the first is true, currently open-minded individuals will lose their rationality and become antisemitic; if the second is true, they already are antise-mitic. Try to guess my position.

Here’s the deal: nobody listens to a crazy

person. In an interview with Fox 11 News, Patricia McAllister stood by her previous an-tisemitic statements, saying “The Zionist Jews [need to be] run out of the country because they are printing our money and they own the Federal Reserve Bank.” But the mere fact that she said it does not mean that people will be-lieve her. In fact, based on the strong outcry from the general Los Angeles community and all of its news outlets, I would say they strongly repudiated her statements. Crazy is crazy, and LAUSD just happened to hire (and then fire) a crazy person.

To be sure, our society is certainly home to a few blatantly antisemitic individuals. It is natural, then, that in a forum for the expression of a potpourri of opinions such as the Occupy movements, antisemitic rhetoric will surface. Since the movement by nature is so visible,

all the racist and antisemitic sentiments, which are normally swept under the rug or simply ig-nored, come to the fore. Simply being made aware of an ever-present social undercurrent is no reason to panic. That isn’t to say antisem-itism as a whole is not worrisome. I just mean to point out that the antisemitism that requires our attention is not that which goes on at a cir-cus such as Occupy LA. There is, I believe, a different, more insidious antisemitism afoot.

Rather than attacking Jews directly, some people will attempt to sway public opinion on matters that indirectly affect Jews. While I consider the claim that Israel is an “apart-heid state” to be absolutely nonsensical (Arab citizens have equal rights, there has been an Arab-Israeli in Knesset since its inception, and systematized discrimination is illegal), it is a claim with which uninformed people can sym-pathize without feeling hateful. But the claim exists simply to delegitimize the Jewish State. Intelligent antisemites, who knowingly include this claim in their rhetoric and exploit the igno-rance of the masses, are much more effective at harming the Jewish people. This more sub-

tle manifestation of Jew-hatred has motivated the U.S. Department of State to draft its defini-tion of “antisemitism” to include: “The demoni-zation of Israel, or vilification of Israeli leaders [as an indicator of] an antisemitic bias.” Such demonization is effective, and it is, therefore, something to worry about.

This malevolent form of antisemitism is the the one toward which we should direct our en-ergies. The futile battle waged against the “Pa-tricia McAllisters” of the world serves only to distract us from a truly imminent threat.

Furthermore, our wasted effort is not the only casualty of such a crusade. Consider this: the average non-Jewish American hears you referring to Ms. McAllister and her remarks as antisemitic. They think, “Ah yes, that must be what antisemitism looks like.” They assume that all antisemitism will be just as apparent and blatantly irrational. Then they encounter this more devious antisemitism and think that since it sounds nothing like the “traditional an-tisemitism” of the Occupy movements, it must be legitimate criticism.

But there is another option: We can respond rationally and in unison when some mamzer makes a claim like “Israel is an apartheid state!” If we ignore the blatantly absurd antisemitism and focus on the instances that can make a dif-ference, we will score victories on both fronts. The general public will still recognize the former as ignorant and farcical, and they will begin to see the latter as the vicious attack it really is.

We all agree that the people who talk about the Jews controlling the world are small-mind-ed bigots. Those kinds of antisemitic slurs are never something that we want thrown about, but they are, in essence, harmless. In a world where such preposterous antisemitism is about as common as herpes, I think we need to we focus our energies wisely. The routine subversion of the tenets of the Jewish State by those who hate and wish to destroy the Jewish people is a serious danger to our survival as a people, and must be confronted. The antisemi-tism within the Occupy movements? Not a ter-rible threat to the Jewish people.

The people who talk about the Jews controlling the world are small-minded bigots. Those kinds of antisemitic slurs are never something that

we want thrown about, but they are, in essence, harmless.”

Triviality?Ari HuntleyStaff Writer

Alan Naroditsky is a third-year Economics and English major at UCLA. He is a U.S. Open Piano Champion, a Candidate Master chess player, and is allergic to grass.

“

PoliticsPage 8Fall 2011

I was sitting in the Student Media of-fice a few weeks ago when I received a text from my friend Lana, who is a mem-ber of the Muslim Student Association, reading, “Irvine 11 speaking at CPO ban-quet tonight!” I was not yet familiar with the work of the Community Programs Of-fice, but I was intrigued that they would host such provocative speakers while the drama surrounding their conviction was, unfortunately, still unfolding.

The hall was decorated in red in hon-or of “Indigenous People’s Day,” which most Americans recognize as Columbus Day. Hundreds of students and faculty members dressed in red filled the seats arranged before the stage.

The Community Programs Office was introduced as a department at UCLA that aims to address the needs of communi-ties on campus that experience difficulty with access and retention at the univer-sity. The office hosts student organiza-tions that represent these minority com-munities, including the Afrikan Student Union, the Muslim Students Association, and MEChA de UCLA, each of which designs its own initiatives that operate though the CPO.

The presidents of these organizations were invited to the stage. Despite the fact that the access and retention needs of the Jewish community are not as dire as those of other underrepresented com-munities, it was vexing to see that the Jewish community and these other mi-nority communities run parallel but total-ly separate courses at UCLA.

The chasm between these two ends of the minority spectrum was further ex-

posed when Taher Herzallah, Irvine 11 protester and keynote speaker for the evening, took the podium.

What proceeded was a deluge of anti-American, anti-Israeli grandiloquence in which Herzallah repeatedly accused both countries of genocide. It was all de-voured heartily by the finger-snapping, crimson-clad audience.

“The fight against Israeli ethnic cleans-ing is the continuation of the fight of Ghandi, Malcolm, Martin, and Nelson.” Reckless comparisons were a recurring motif in his presentation.

Herzallah proceded to explain that his own actions were specifically targeted by

the legal system because of his religion and his appearance.

“I’m brown. Along with black males, I’m public enemy number one.”

Despite their tenuousness, these com-parisons struck an emotional chord with this particular audience. A roomful of students were instructed to believe that there is only one way of looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Herzallah concluded with a claim that protesting Israel is illegal in the Unit-ed States, and that protests conducted within legal parameters are ineffective as they do not challenge the status quo. He affirmed, “I’ll be breaking that law again.”

Don’t think that I didn’t consider venge-fully expressing my own free speech at the speaker’s expense. I struggled to

contain myself, as did the few other Jews in the audience. This I discovered when we all converged on Tony Sandoval, the director of CPO, after the event ended.

Most of us were deeply offended by the content of the keynote speaker’s ad-dress, but that was not the grievance upon which we decided to focus. What was more disturbing was the fact that an office funded in part by student fees and that purports to address the particu-lar needs of minority communities at the university would offer its stage to such a polarizing personality without consulting the parties that would be affected. It ap-peared for that moment that in the mosa-

Irvine 11 at UCLA: Jewish students turn offense into friendship

Jacob Elijah GoldbergEditor-in-Chief

RED RAGE: Miriam Shamout and al-Talib managing editor Noor Teebi listen intently (right) to keynote speaker and Irvine 11 protester Taher Herzallah (left).Photo by Flora Li-Ma

What was disturbing was the fact that an office funded in part by student fees and that purports to address the partic-ular needs of minority communities at the university would offer its stage to such a polarizing personality without con-

sulting the parties that would be affected.”

ic of cultures acknowledged by the uni-versity department, there was no place for the Jews.

The next day, the Jewish students who were at the banquet, including Academic Affairs Commissioner Raquel Saxe, Hil-lel Student Board President Sarah Baron, and USAC President Emily Resnick, met with Sandoval and CPO’s student lead-ers to discuss the outcome this incident. Also present were the Jewish videogra-pher for the event, also named Emily, my friend Lana, who had invited me to the event, and myself. There was certainly a sense of bitterness among the Jewish students. We felt ignored, and we were honest about it. A political bias that many Jews find threatening seemed to have been chosen to represent the entirety

of a very important university depart-ment. However, we decided that holding a grudge, declaring someone to be our enemy, and turning the campus into a battlefield would not be the most produc-tive courses of action.

For two hours, we shared our commu-nities’ histories, our common goals, and our desire to communicate more honestly and even to work together in the future. Finally, Jews would inhabit an office to-ward which they had never traditionally gravitated — not just as individuals, but as members of UCLA’s Jewish commu-nity.

As a result of that meeting, two intern-ship positions were created for Jewish students to participate in the admirable work that CPO does, and plans are un-der way to incorporate Hillel’s multitudi-nous social justice initiatives into CPO’s community service program. The barrier that has kept these two like-minded com-munities separate for so long is steadily melting away.

Perhaps a useful point would have been made had the Jewish students in the audience raised their voices and sab-otaged the event. People should know that the Jewish community has needs and sensitivities as does every commu-nity. Maybe we would even have profit-ed from the attention that a legal scan-dal would have garnered. Nevertheless, we chose the route of partnership over enmity, and we succeeded in building rather than destroying. In the absence of any concrete positive consequences of their protest, perhaps Herzallah and the people he has influenced would do well to take a page out of the Jews’ book.

Jacob Goldberg is second-year International Development Studies major at UCLA. He is a proponent of concrete positive consequences, a relentless supporter of free speech, and a proud Jew.

Politics Page 9

Diane Bani-EsrailiContent Editor/Staff Writer

These are just a few of the 1,027 Palestin-ian prisoners that were released on October 18, 2011 in exchange for one Israeli soldier — Gilad Shalit.

Since June 25, 2006, when terrorist or-ganization Hamas captured the then-19-year-old Israel Defense Forces soldier in a cross-border raid near Gaza, Shalit’s fam-ily and the broader Israeli and international communities, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, rallied for his release. After over five years of cruel captivity, of being held virtually incom-municado, deprived of basic human needs, and in constant fear of execution, Israel and Hamas mutually agreed to the 1,027-for-one deal that would finally bring Gilad home.

In terms of a strictly numerical ratio, one-to-1,027 is indeed lopsided. Is the freedom of one single soldier worth the release of over a thousand Palestinian prisoners with so much Israeli blood on their hands? Is Israel asking for lethal recidivism? The Shalit exchange re-introduced what has become a trope in Israeli affairs: the question of “disproportionality”.

Israel is often accused of using what is commonly termed “disproportionate force”

or of taking extreme measures to ensure na-tional security. In the case of Gilad Shalit, the question of disproportionality is directed not at Israel’s preemptive military measures, but rather at the steep rate of exchange to which Israel agreed in the trade. How can such an irrefutably uneven exchange be justified when it involves the release of so many who are eager to repeat their actions and further terrorize Israeli civilians and soldiers?

Ahlam Tamimi, who assisted in the August 9, 2001 bombing of a Sbarro’s Pizzeria in Je-rusalem that killed 15 and wounded 130 in-nocent Israelis, said that she did not regret her actions and would again carry out such a large-scale attack.

“This is the path,” she said. “I dedicated myself to Jihad for the sake of Allah, and Allah granted me success…You know how many casualties there were [in the 2001 Sbarro’s Pizzeria attack]… Do you want me

to denounce what I did? That’s out of the question. I would do it again today, and in the same manner.”

Anyone concerned for Israel’s long-term security would deem this deal a kiss of death. Former director of the Prisoners of War de-partment of the Mosad, Rami Igra, called the exchange “a shameless and bottomless sur-render to Hamas’ demands.” Critics like Igra argue that releasing these Palestinian pris-oners, in addition to posing the risk of repeat lethal offenses, will lead to the abduction of more Israeli soldiers for ransom. On the very day of the exchange, Palestinians were al-ready chanting, “we want another Gilad.”

Tamimi Aref Ahmad Ahlam (16 life sentences) – Assisted in the execution of the Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing (2001).Yihia Ibrahim Hasan Al-Sinwar (4 life sentences) – took part in the kid-napping of Nachshon Wachsman who was later killed by Hamas during a failed rescue attempt by an IDF unit. Founder of the Hamas security apparatus in Gaza. His brother organized the abduction of Gilad Shalit in 2006.

Bassam Ibrahim Abd al-Qader Abu Asneina (1 life sentence) and Riyadh Zakariya Khalil Asayla (1 life sentences) – Killed the yeshiva student Chaim Kerman.

Fuad Muhammad Abdulhadi Amrin (1 life sentence) – killed 15-year-old Israeli schoolgirl Helena Rapp in 1992.

Fuad Muhammad Abdulhadi Amrin (1 life sentence) – killed 15-year-old Israeli schoolgirl Helena Rapp in 1992.

Ahmed Jibril Othman al-Takruri (1 life sentence) – Carried out firebomb attack on a bus in Jericho, in which a mother and her three children, and a soldier who tried to rescue them, were killed.

What is more, releasing terrorists would be an utter injustice and betrayal of Israel’s ter-ror victims and their loved ones.

This is not the first time Israel has agreed to such a deal. In 1985, Israel released 1,150 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for three Israelis captured in Lebanon in 1982. In a country like Israel, these prisoner swaps sug-gest that logic is not the only consideration in these deals. In Israel, the political is irrevoca-bly entangled with the personal.

The mandatory (and unfortunately neces-sary) system of conscription in Israel means that virtually every citizen knows someone who is serving, someone who is in harm’s way. This harsh reality makes for an Israeli community that is inclined to view the cap-ture of any single member as deeply person-al, even familial, loss.

As Bruins For Israel executive board member, Molly Cornfield, puts it, “Gilad is

“ more than just a single soldier; he is every Israeli soldier.” Professor David N. Myers of the Jewish Studies and History Departments says, “The return of Gilad Shalit had become a mandate of the State of Israel’s collective sense of self. That is, it was important for Is-raelis to demonstrate to themselves and oth-ers their own sense of compassion and hu-manism.”

On October 18, Aviva and Noam Shalit, parents of Gilad, were not alone in their cel-ebration. Israelis all over the country flooded the streets, waving Israeli flags and holding banners that read, “Welcome home, our son.”

According to Alon Ben Meir, a Senior Fel-

low at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs, Israel is the only country in the world that has a department within the foreign min-istry dedicated to rescuing its citizens expe-riencing difficulties outside the country. Be-cause Israel is miniscule — demographically and geographically — and because her se-curity is so often in jeopardy, tremendous val-ue is placed on every individual life. It comes as no surprise, then, that those living outside of Israel would be perplexed by the lengths to which Israel is willing to go to for one life. Professor Myers urges, “Go and spend some time in Israel where you can begin to un-derstand the immediacy and urgency of life there, whether it is a matter of Gilad Shalit or where the best hummus is to be found.” Once one understands this cultural urgency for life and universal investment in the wellbeing of all members of the IDF, the gap between one and 1,027 suddenly and drastically shrinks.

The exchange should not be deemed either “victory” or “failure.” It should not be seen, despite its pitfalls, as a total “surren-der,” as Igra posits. In blunt terms, the deal was for Israel both bad and necessary. All too often, the two must coexist. Israel is left with no choice but to make these kinds of extreme concessions.

What is both reassuring to Israeli soldiers and their families and commendable about Israel’s agreement to this uneven deal is that it shows that the Israeli government re-gards each of its contributing citizens as an irreplaceable individual, and in preserving something so valuable, hardly any price can really be disproportionate.

Gilad is more than just a single soldier; he is every Israeli sol-dier... The return of Gilad Shalit had become a mandate of

the state of Israel’s collective sense of self. That is, It was im-portant for Israelis to demonstrate to themselves and others

their own sense of compassion and humanism.” — Professor David N. Myers

History Department Chair

The Disproportionate Yet Necessary Deal that Brought Gilad HomeFall 2011

DANGER: “Beware of terrorists in the city.”

Walid Abd al-Aziz Abd al-Hadi Anajas (36 life sentences) – took part in the execution of the Café Moment bombing (2002), the Hebrew University bombing (2002), and the Rishon LeZion bombing (2002).

Nasir Sami Abd al-Razzaq Ali al-Nasser Yataima (29 life sentences) – planned the Passover massacre (2002) in which 30 Israeli civilians were killed and 140 were wounded, while celebrating the holiday.

Maedh Waal Taleb Abu Sharakh

(19 life sentences), Majdi Muhammad Ahmed Amr (19 life sentences), and Fadi Muhammad Ibrahim al-Jaaba (18 life sentences) – responsible for the attack on bus No. 37 in Haifa in 2002.

Photo courtesy of thejerusalemconnection.us

Photo courtesy of news.walla.co.il

Politics

Diane Bani-Esraili is a third-year History major at UCLA. She is a new and valu-able addition to the Ha’Am team.

EducationPage 10Fall 2011

“Is he a Zionist?”“What?” Trembling, the meeting’s administrator

says, “They want to know if he’s a Zionist.”“Is it a problem if he’s a Zionist?”A cacophonous storm of twenty people

speaking simultaneously begins: “Yes, there are implications – it is against the law for them to be in a room with a Zionist. You don’t understand, we are at war with Israel. [They] can be thrown in jail.”

This event, hosted by the Olive Tree Initia-tive (OTI), featured a delegation of leaders of various Lebanese political parties sent by the Department of State International Visi-tor Leadership Program. About four of these delegates entered right away, but 20 or so refused to enter before confirmation of a Zionist-free zone. UCLA routinely caters to international guests and diplomats, so I was not expecting such a snag.

“Our group is about engaging many differ-ent narratives [and] perspectives. Why don’t you come in and have a seat? I think you’ll find us very interesting.” The hubbub in the hallway began again. “But is he a Zionist? We need to know…these people represent political parties. We are at war with Israel. They cannot meet with a Zionist”.

I reentered the room and sat down next

my three colleagues: an American Orthodox Jew, a Muslim Palestinian-American, and an American catholic foreign policy expert.

I explained to the Lebanese delegation that our OTI examines areas of conflict in our world, currently concentrating on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We travel to conflict re-gions and meet with the top political leaders, chief negotiators, and citizens from all sides of the issue. We are completely neutral, apo-litical, and are not an advocacy group. On campus, we try to recruit leaders within the community that are Pro-Israel, Pro-Palestin-ian, and interested in government careers or international relations. Thus, we help bridge relations between Pro-Israel and Pro-Pales-tinian students on campus to pacify the cur-rent hostile tensions and protests, and try to foster more productive talks to find a mutu-ally agreed-upon solution for peace.

The first prompt the delegates answered was: “Comment [on] the current viewpoints

Corey FeinsteinPresident, Olive Tree Initiative

Lebanese encounter reaffirms the need for dialogue

Many in my community have questioned the integrity of academic even-handedness at UCLA in the wake of supposedly perva-sive and pernicious anti-Israel sentiment in the classroom. It is generally assumed that the liberal establishment controls academia, and that this arrangement stifles free speech and facilitates “bias.”

For example, while discussing my aca-demic pursuits here at UCLA at the Passover seder table, I expressed my passion for his-tory to a family friend, who dryly informed me that historians had particularly impressed

him in coming out unanimously in favor of two historical facts. First, that Jews were not disproportionately involved in antebel-lum slave-holding, and second, that the Ho-locaust was a historical reality. His percep-tion of academia was so low that any positive “concession” regarding Jewish concerns was a godsend.

Such claims of ubiquitous favoritism to-wards liberal perspectives in academia are in my experience overstated and misguided. They rely on factors such as statistical analy-ses of academics’ political voting records. They are liberal, the argument goes, so they must oppose Israeli policy, and their intel-lectual ideas must be informed by that op-position. Alternatively, some point to specific statements and writings by professors which reflect lopsidedness in their academic ethos.

I want to be very clear in my rejection of this generalized assessment of the American liberal arts education system, with reference to my experience as a student in the UCLA History Department. I firmly believe that such insensitivity stems not only from misinforma-tion but from a complete disregard for the intricacy of academic historical method and analysis.

In my understanding, no other topic cap-tures a greater place in the imaginations of UCLA historians than Israel. This is not to say that the academic record is unequivocal-ly supportive of Israel, or to deny the signifi-cant amounts of dissent towards many Israeli actions within segments of the UCLA popula-tion. However, I have found mostly healthy debate, not ingrained prejudice, emanate from my educators.

I speak not out of my own internal bias but out of knowledge of historical study at UCLA. Not only is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict painstakingly analyzed at this university, but Israeli culture is the subject of greater aca-demic pursuit then just about any other topic. I do not just mean Zionism and questions of racial tension in the Holy Land — I mean in-tricate studies of Jewish religious practice in Israel. I mean celebration of Israel’s cultural

Ben SteinerSenior Writer

A word about ‘those liberals’ in academiaheritage: her literature, her music, and most importantly, her people.

The evidence is readily available if one would only seek it. The elevators leading to the history department offices in Bunche Hall are replete with fliers advertising visit-ing Israeli writers, composers, academics, military strategists, and politicians. Recently I counted three talks about Israeli culture out of maybe ten in total. Another flier promoted a memorial lecture for Juliano Mer-Khamis, the Israeli-Palestinian film-maker who was recently murdered in front of the theater he founded in Jenin. This over-emphasis, how-ever, is not a mere excuse to over-criticize.

Last spring, I took a course about the Is-raeli-Palestinian conflict. I know there were some Jews and even more Muslims in the class who were troubled by the way the con-flict was portrayed. True, no personality or action escaped the brunt of my professor’s critical assessment, which may offend some sensibilities.

In lieu of my midterm in the class, I cri-tiqued a broad neo-Marxist assessment of America’s policy in the Middle East over the past century with a more detailed account of Kissinger’s peace overtures following the Oc-tober War in 1973 in an essay. Biased? Hon-estly, I do not even know what that means in this case.

Does neutrality mean portraying only the perspectives within the realm of “rightness” because all other positions are intellectually destructive? The academic ideal values any informed interpretation of factual material. True academic writing is not about bias at all, but about argument.

I do not deny that “biased” statements are made, but such statements work both ways. Furthermore, proper historical methods, in my experience, transcend pithy titles such as “pro-Israel” or “anti-Israel.” Academia is about a love of learning, not a tenacious zeal to either demonize or unequivocally support Israel and her policies.

At UCLA I have encountered an array of historical methodologies, including military history, diplomatic history, intellectual history, economic history, feminist history, and Marx-ist history, but never biased history.

So please, if you want to cast shadows over my education or over academia in gen-eral, I invite you to do so. Exercise your first amendment right to free speech. But before criticizing me and the statements I have made here, I entreat you: read my textbooks, come to my lectures, and talk to my professors. Until then, these flagrant generalizations im-posed on my education need to stop.

“Academia is about a love of learning, not a tenacious zeal to ei-ther demonize or unequivocally support Israel and her policies.”

of people throughout Lebanon and what they see as a solution to the conflict.”

For the next hour, the Lebanese delegation proceeded to present one of the most dismal displays I have ever seen, nearly quashing my once strong optimism for peace. I study the conflict intensively and definitely did expect to hear a lot of anti-Israel rhetoric. However, the method and wording of their comments were absolutely disheartening. “We are at war with Israel. We do our part – but there will not be peace until Israel [is] no longer in the region. They are the problem.” I should point out that not once did they reference Hezbol-lah during the entire meeting. At one point a woman in the audience stared directly at me and said in Arabic: “Israeli soldiers rape our women every day.” I felt horrible. Obviously, she was extremely affected. “We are born to hate Israel. They are born to kill us, we are born to hate them,” she concluded.

At that point I said to myself, “I don’t know if I can do this. I should just go protect Israel. Forget about building understanding – it’s hopeless and I’m too idealistic! It’s not pos-sible and never will be. There is simply too much hate.”

I was about to give up on peace talks just like they had in the region. It wasn’t even the conversations our group had with the delega-tion – it was the fact that over 80% of the delegation would not even enter the room because they saw a boy sitting in there with a kippah on his head. If people cannot even enter the same room to talk about peace, how is peace ever to be achieved? From this ex-perience, I take away the lesson my advisor taught me: “You just go into the bathroom,

wipe the spit off your face, look into the mir-ror, and go back into the negotiation room.” I cannot give up on my ideal. If I want peace for the Jews, if I want peace for the Palestin-ians, if I want peace for the Arab world, if I want peace for the world in general, I have to do what is right. As much as the Olive Tree Initiative is about education and an intensive study of foreign policy, it is about understand-ing. If we cannot understand one another, understand the level of humanity that ex-ists within each of us, how can peace ever be achieved? If we cannot even step foot in the same room as someone we suspect has different feelings, how can any progress be made?

If there is a way to achieve peace without peace talks, I’d like to know it. Let’s try to un-derstand, set aside our differences, renounce violence, and talk like human beings.

“I was about to give up on peace talks just like they had in the region. It wasn’t even the conversations our group had with the delegation – it was

the fact that over 80% of the delegation would not even enter the room be-cause they saw a boy sitting in there with a kippah on his head.”

Ben Steiner is a fourth-year History major at UCLA. He is an avid carpenter, and there’s a good chance that he is interested in Jewish feminism.

Corey Feinstein is a fourth-year International Development Studies major at UCLA. He is a talkative ex=actor, and his optimism is good for the Jews.

I recently visited the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance to see the Hitler Let-ter, an exhibition displaying Hitler’s ear-liest recorded antisemitic sentiments—a four-page letter dated September 16, 1919. A portion of what historians now call the Gemlich Letter reads, “…anti-semitism based on reason must lead to the systematic legal combating and re-moval of the rights of the Jew.” The let-ter serves as a testament to the power of hatred infiltrating minds of reason and manifesting itself in methodical massa-cre. In the document, Hitler contrasts the emotional hatred of Jews (resulting in pogroms) with the systematic removal of the Jews altogether under a strong gov-ernment. By stripping the Jews of their rights, Hitler managed to dehumanize them and successfully convinced near-ly an entire nation of the “need” to sys-

Yoni HerskovitzStaff Writer

Combating Bigotry: Lessons from the Hitler Letter

A&E Page 11Fall 2011

tematically exterminate them. The Hitler Letter proves that the Holocaust, during which 15 million individuals were merci-lessly killed, was set in motion by appeal to “intellect” and “reason” through propa-ganda.

At a univer-sity like UCLA, students are taught to em-brace reason, to accept di-versity, and to fight margin-alization. Stu-dents should reflect on the repercussions the Hitler Let-ter had and con-sider the power and momentum words can have. Rabbi Marvin Heir, the dean and founder of the Museum of Tolerance, points out that this letter essentially be-came the Nazi party’s Magna Carta just twenty-two years after it was composed.

While this exhibit demonstrates the historic and current need to defend mi-norities and prevent injustices perpe-trated against them, this defense should

be conducted in a sensitive manner. On campus, there are various initiatives ad-vocating minority groups’ equal treat-ment, and equal human and legal rights. These initiatives undoubtedly have noble intentions. What unnerves me, though, is

that these groups’ warranted ar-guments are adorned with the unwarranted equivalence of the discrimination they protest to the Nazism that resulted in geno-cide. What we find in Hitler’s let-

ter is the hope of complete annihila-

tion of an ethnic minority; thankfully, no group in the United States faces such a threat today.

Mark Rothman, executive director of the Los Angeles Museum of the Holo-caust, remarked: “I fear the true mean-ing and understanding of terms like [Nazi and Holocaust] are being bled out of them from people hurling them around carelessly…absolute misuse of the term

[Nazi], that to me suggests more and more there is a disconnect from the true meaning of the term.”

Indeed, employing these expressions to reflect a feeling about a particular is-sue not only insults the intellect of the uninvolved public, but also detracts from the gravity of the Holocaust itself.

I do believe that this exhibition’s (among others at the Museum of Toler-ance) intention is to sensitize museum-goers to the results of allowing others to impede upon legal and/or human rights, and to show that such actions begin with words. A collective intolerance can only take place once individuals have con-structed some cerebral justification for it, and words, writing, reading are the per-fect vehicles for such justification.

The Museum of Tolerance paid $150,000 for the Gemlich Letter. Why? What return are they looking for? The hope is that the document will inspire future generations to eliminate bigotry from its root beginnings. Let us begin that mission here, at UCLA, but with sen-

LACMA Spotlights Jewish Pop Artist Roy Lichtenstein

Sarah ElbaumStaff Writer

Through January 1, 2012, the Los An-geles County Museum of Art is housing the “Monet/Lichtenstein: Rouen Cathe-drals” exhibit, which features both artists’ creative interpretations of the French Gothic monument located in the north-west of Paris.

The pairing of Monet and Lichtenstein is definitely an eye-catching and somewhat surprising one. The artists’ works do not at all resemble one another. Monet helped build the prototype for what later became known as Modernism in art, which gave Lichtenstein, a Pop Art superstar, the op-portunity to explore the comic book format and abstract sculpture in his work.

Monet laid the groundwork for the Pop Art that came onto the scene in the 1960s. His smudged and blurred brush-strokes broke the mold of paintings as pure window into a realistically-rendered environment, which had been the hold-ing trend for the previous five centuries. Monet’s artistic liberties, displaying his brushstrokes on the canvas in a sketch-like fashion, were innovative, and estab-lished artist making him or herself known

to the viewer, instead of disappearing be-hind a flawless canvas as was the norm in centuries past.

Lichtenstein took Monet’s legacy, which ultimately became the twentieth century art legacy, to the extreme, laying bare not only on the artistic process as Monet had done, but the economy and society at large. While Monet showed the artist’s hand, Lichtenstein played with the proportions and scale of art to highlight his own handiwork. Both strate-gies proclaim: the artist was here, this is no seamless illusion. As obvious as that sounds to us now, this broke with a mil-lennium of artistic tradition that upheld illusionism and strict, painstaking mim-icry of reality. For the artist to break the fourth wall, as it were, to address his or her own presence to the viewer, was rev-olutionary.

Lichtenstein is best known for his paintings that imitate comic book frames, as well as his larger-than-life, three-di-mensional sculptures of brushstrokes. The fact that his work is juxtaposed with Monet’s at this exhibit suggests that Li-chtenstein’s work closes the loop of the Modernist legacy that Monet began. This juxtaposition credits Monet with pioneer-ing modern art and credits Lichtenstein with reiterating Monet’s innovations with a Pop Art sensibility. Consumer prod-uct as revered art object is the hallmark of the 1960s’ Pop Art movement, which we most easily associate with Warhol’s

Campbell’s soup cans and Oldenburg’s enormous sculptures of hamburgers that redefined American iconography and consumer consciousness.

LACMA’s decision to show Lichtenstein alongside Monet highlights not just the chronology and legacy of Western art, and of Modernism from its infancy to its gold-en age, but also the oft-forgotten Jewish contribution to the art world. Rather than depicting specifically Jewish subjects and

themes in his artwork, Lichtenstein found fame in his cheeky comic book frame-style canvases and chunky, bold sculptural forms. Though the subjects of his artwork are not inherently Jewish, the wit behind them, as well as the talent and intelligence of his singular vision, can certainly be claimed by us as a community, and proudly.

Photos courtesy of discoverlosangeles.com and latimes.com

Photo courtesy of batangastoday.com

DEATH SENTENCE: Hitler expresses his hatred for the Jews.

LIGHTING UP AN OLD FAVORITE: Lichtenstein’s rendition of Monet (above) and the lamp display at Los Angeles County Museum of Art (above).

Education

Yoni Herskovitz is a third-year Life Sciences major at UCLA. He maintains a deep interest in the arts despite his South-Campus affiliation. He does an impeccable impersonation of Rabbi Marvin Hier.

Sarah Elbaum is a graduate student in the African Studies program at UCLA. Her Arabic skills have improved dramatically since last year.

Feature Page 12Fall 2011

I had gone over it several times in my head. I was going to approach my professor after class and explain the situation: “I am an Orthodox Jew and I am unable able to take the final on Saturday due to religious obser-vance of the Sabbath.” Hopefully, that was all he would need to change the time of my final exam.

It was fall of my freshman year, and I was sitting in my first lecture of Introduction to Computer Science listening to the professor review the syllabus. When I signed up for the course over the summer, I saw that the final was on Saturday from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. I knew that I would have to talk to the professor on the first day in order to get it changed. After all, it would be quite difficult to take a final while I am religiously forbidden from writing.

Some might ask why it is so important

that I do not write on the Sabbath. Why can I not just make an exception in this one case? When answering this question, I like to refer to the popular musical, “Fiddler on the Roof.” Tevye, the play’s protagonist, explains that traditions help us keep our balance, “and because of our traditions, every one of us knows who he is and what God expects him to do.” Taking a break from this tradition is not an option. My traditions are part of what define me, and they are something I do not want to change.

When the professor got to the part of the syllabus that dealt with the exam schedule, I was pleasantly surprised. The last line in the section stated: “If you are affected by the fact that sunset on Saturday, December 4, is at 4:44 PM, you must inform your instructor early in the quarter.” It was as though the instructor had read my mind.

Since then, I have had four exams suc-cessfully rescheduled due to religious obser-

vance. However, not everyone is as fortu-nate as I have been. A student, whom we will call DJ for the sake of anonymity, contacted me prior to the Jewish holiday of Shemini Atzeret. “I had requested an extension for a take-home midterm because it was assigned on Erev Shemini Atzeret [Wednesday] and was due that Monday,” says DJ. This would have left her with only Sunday to complete the assignment. “When I asked [my profes-sor], she told me that the only grounds for a date-change on an assignment are medical emergencies.”

This is not true. According to UCLA Policy 870, Section II (B) 8 states that “the Univer-sity must accommodate requests for alter-nate examination dates at a time when that activity would not violate a student’s religious creed… Accommodation for alternate exami-nation dates are worked out directly and on an individual basis between the student and the faculty member involved.”

DJ persisted in trying to get an extension from the professor, but the most the profes-sor would give was four extra hours. DJ’s TA ended up giving her a longer extension with-out the knowledge of the instructor. Although this was a very unfortunate case, there is lit-tle that can be done about unaccommodating instructors beyond the first few days of the quarter. A student in such a circumstance can and should contact the Office of the Dean of Students, although it does not make the situ-ation any less unsavory.We, Jewish students, must be responsible to secure accommodation from professors on our own. Therefore, I suggest a series of tips for the observant Jewish Student:

1. Have a calendar with Jewish Holi-days and Candle-lighting times handy when signing up for classes. Try to avoid classes with exams on Jewish holidays. If this is unavoidable, it is not the end of the world. At the very least, be aware of the conflict so it can be dealt with on the first day of instruc-tion.

2. Talk to the instructor on the first day of class. This is both the smartest and most courteous thing to do. It gives the professor the maximum amount of time to make ac-commodations, which is good for both the student and the professor.

3. Send an email to the professor within the first week of class. It is sad, but many of us cannot commit to anything un-less we have it in writing. Start a paper trail.

Last spring, within a couple of days before the start of the quarter, I noticed that a midterm for my LS3 (Life Sciences) class was scheduled on the night of the Passover seder. I e-mailed both the professor and the LS core office immediately. The professor replied and assured me that I could take a make-up test and told me to come to her office at 3 P.M. on erev chag (Passover eve).

Since her office was located in a building that is difficult to navigate, I arrived in the hallway outside her of-fice about 45 minutes before the scheduled time. The teacher poked her head out and said “Oh, you’re a bit early, I’m still writing the test, but don’t worry I’ll have it for you by 3.” Mind you, she’d known about the need for a make-up test for four weeks. While I was waiting, another Jewish student arrived to take a make-up exam.

A couple minutes after 3 PM, the professor called us into her office and apologized that there were only 60 questions on our test, while the rest of the class would get 63 questions. Her reason was that “you just can’t imagine how hard it is to think of test questions.” She then said dismissively “it shouldn’t really impact your grade, if it does, whatever, we’ll work it out later.” Having a test graded out of 60 versus 63 questions is really a very slight difference in terms of point-per-question value, so I didn’t say anything.

When tests were graded and returned the next week, the professor announced in class that although the test originally had 63 questions, it was only graded out of 60, meaning that everyone except the two Jewish students started off with about a 5% freebie. There were a number of fair options (including but not limited to writing just three more questions or grading the tests of the two Jewish students out of 57) which could have been achieved with minimal effort and some better planning on her part.

Additionally, according to this teacher’s test-return policy, you had to go to an LS office to get a copy of your Scantron printout (which the teacher insisted on providing – we weren’t allowed to bring our own). When we took the test early, however, we just wrote the answers on the side of the page. Therefore, I was barred from reviewing my own test because she had neglected to provide a Scantron. I considered protesting the inequity of the point allocation/Scantron policy, but was afraid that it would negatively impact my grade, as the professor had clearly demonstrated a lack of dedication to fairness.

How To: be an A+ Jew and not fall behind

Tzvi WolfStaff Writer

It will be much easier for both the student and the professor to remember the agree-ment made. Make sure to include relevant dates and times in the email. As a general rule, I would offer to provide a letter from your rabbi verifying the religious obligation.

4. Check in with the professor a week before the exam. All of us forget things sometimes. It is better to be safe than sorry.

5. Don’t forget to thank your professor. Accommodations do impose extra work on the instructor. Show your appreciation with a simple “thank you.”

UCLA’s student policy is on the side of the student, as long as the situation is dealt with properly. The policy states that the require-ment to accommodate requests due to reli-gious creed “does not apply in the event that administering the test or examination at an alternate time would impose an undue hard-ship which could not reasonably be avoided” (UCLA Policy 870, Section II (B) 8). What constitutes “undue hardship” and how can a student prevent his or herself from causing such hardship?

I asked David Smallberg, the computer science professor who wrote the syllabus I mentioned above, about the best way a stu-dent could request an alternative exam date. “Tell the instructor as soon as you know,” he answered. “If there are challenges in coming up with an accommodation, the more lead time, the easier they are to resolve. I can’t imagine anyone doing this, but waiting until the last minute to claim a religious reason seems indistinguishable from someone mak-ing up an excuse to get extra time for an as-signment.”

Overall, be courteous, but do not be afraid to ask for accommodations. According to Dean of Students, Robert Naples, “a faculty member may not negatively impact a grade because a student requests alternate exam scheduling or misses class sessions for reli-gious observation, provided the student noti-fied the faculty member in advance.” Naples puts it plain and simple: UCLA’s Student Poli-cy is in favor of the student. If the steps above are followed, there should be no grounds to constitute “undue hardship,” and accommo-dations should be easily attainable.

OY VEY: First-year David Joseph struggles to balance his calculus homework and his study of the Jerusalem Talmud. Photo by Tessa Nath

Tzvi Wolf is a second-year Computer Science major at UCLA. He currently serves as sexton for the JLIC quorum. You can catch him wearing a stylishly retro hat every Sabbath.