To Speak or Not to Speak?


Rob Eshman

Rob Eshman
 
Ari and Norma focus this editorial essay on Rob Eshman, the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of TRIBE Media. TRIBE media owns the largest Jewish circulated English Weekly The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. The “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel” duo write about Rob Eshman because of a recent unfavorable editorial written by him in the Jewish Journal concerning Pamela Geller’s Mohammed Cartoon Contest and subsequent attack by radicalized Muslim Americans Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi at Garland TX event. Here is a short journalistic profile of Mr. Eshman:
 
Rob Eshman is Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of TRIBE Media, a niche multimedia company based in Los Angeles.
 
Rob started his career as a staff writer at The Jewish Journal in 1993, when it was a small community paper.
 
In 2009, Eshman founded TRIBE Media Corp, reimagining the community paper for the future.   Tribe Media Corp. produces The Jewish Journal,  the largest independent American Jewish weekly, Tribe magazine, a glossy four-color monthly lifestyle magazine, and jewishjournal.com, with 1.5 million unique monthly users, now the largest Jewish news website outside of Israel.   In 2011, Jewish Journal launched the world’s first multi-platform mobile Jewish news app.  In 2013 he launched HollywoodJournal.com.
 
Both The Jewish Journal and Rob have won numerous local and national awards for writing, design and community leadership.
 
A graduate of Dartmouth College, Eshman has written for The Jerusalem Post, The Los Angeles Times, and the Huffington Post.  He is a frequent commentator on Los Angeles-area radio and television, and has served as a Visiting Lecturer on journalism at the University of Southern California Annenberg School of Communication and the University of Missouri School of Journalism. Rob serves on the boards of the Media Policy Center, The Miracle Project and is a founding board member of the Daniel Pearl Journalism Institute in Herzliya, Israel.
 
In addition to his editing and publishing duties, Eshman writes the blog Foodaism, named one of the best food blogs in Los Angeles by CitysBest.com. At his home in Venice, Rob tends to fruit and vegetable gardens, as well as six chickens and two goats. (Rob Eshman; Alfred Friendly Press Partners; Copyright © 2013 Press Partners)
 
Ari and Norma offer some contrasting criticism and support of Pamela Geller per Rob Eshman’s editorial.
 
JRH 5/14/15

Please Support NCCR

****************************
To Speak or Not to Speak?
Pamela Geller – Two Sides of a Coin
 
By Ari Bussel and Norma Zager
Sent: 5/13/2015 11:02 PM
 
Rob Eshman, the editor of the largest-circulation English paper for the Jewish community in Greater Los Angeles, recently dedicated his column to Pamela Geller, declaring:  “You’re no Charlie Hebdo!” 
 
Eshman writes:  “In Texas, she just happened to frost her poisonous ideology with some free-speech icing.”
 
“Except in my opinion, Eshman got it all wrong,” says Ari.
“Except in my opinion, Eshman got it right,” says Norma.
 
Ari’s take is that Pamela Geller, rhetoric to the contrary, is not the enemy.  She is the guard at the crosswalk, keeping a watchful eye over the children on their way to or from school.  She raises her red and white “STOP” sign, warning drivers in stopped or approaching cars of their obligation to yield, be aware and not proceed until it is absolutely safe to do so.
 
Like her or not, call her “Bored Housewife,” “Fat,” “Shorty” (she is none of the above), insults will not deter her.  She is entrusted with protecting the children from a careless driver, from cutting their life short.  However, smearing her with insults may result in a punishment to the person doing the insulting.  Normally there is a police officer in sight, and then suddenly the rude behavior changes 180 degrees.
 
Someone needs to step in to protect Geller who is doing her job, and doing it well, not for the sake of the meager few dollars an hour she receives as a salary, but for knowing no one got hurt on her watch. Although that may not have been the case if one crack shot Texas policeman had not been on the scene.
 
One gets the distinct feeling Eshman really does not like Geller.  She spoils his kumbaya feeling and belief:  “Islam is a peaceful religion.  Muslims are good people (with the exception of those who belong to Isis, but they are an aberration).  We all get along so nicely together.”


To make the point stronger, Eshman points the finger at Geller.  She is the extremist, not those who say “Europe has fallen – America is next!”  She is the one who refuses to live in peace.  She does things “Davka” (to spite) and clearly is a menace to a peaceful society.  In short, she is worse than a troublemaker and must be a very troubled woman.
 
Geller indeed spoils the game.  She exposes the truth and puts it smack in one’s face.  The sights are not pleasant, but the dangers are real. She tells it like it is, as she sees the world, and of course she is not alone in her opinions.
 
The slick propaganda machine of the local Muslims (CAIR, MPAC, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, etc.) is soothing to the ear and smooth as silk.  They are the victims, never the perpetrators.  All terrorist acts carried out in the name of Islam do not belong to Islam but are singular acts by deranged individuals.  In fact, the word “Terrorism” and peace-loving Muslims are two concepts quite incompatible with one other.
 
Thus, continues Eshman’s rationale, Geller is at fault for painting Islam with a skewed brush.  She is a witch casting a devious spell on all Muslims, unjustly smearing their name.  And thus, Eshman who may disagree with her politically or ideologically paints a dreadful picture warning against the icing Geller applies.
 
Eshman is a pure reflection of the established American Jewry, the same “old guard” that surrendered to the Muslims and cancelled an appearance by Geller at the Jewish Federation of Greater LA building because some called to complain.  She was left in the street, doors locked in her face, lest she offend anyone for telling her truth.
 
When was the last time the local Muslims, out of consideration to Jews, turned down the hateful rhetoric against Israel (supposedly committing war crimes and being the new Nazis)?  When did they “disinvite” or even give a second thought when hosting a hateful speaker, one who not only uses blood libels, but also mobilizes listeners to action? Where is the outrage against Muslim students that prevent speakers and Jewish students from exercising their freedom of speech?
There is a tipping point where Eshman has no choice but to change his outer skin.  This was observed recently with the advent of the BDS movement and the thriving anti-Semitism found at local university campuses.  Even UCLA Prof. David Myers wrote a mesmerizing account against BDS, which Eshman to his credit prominently featured.  Yet, how pitiful that Prof. Myers is among those who contributed so much to the advent of this movement.
 
Editor-in-Chief Eshman got it wrong.  Geller is the warning sign that the light is changing from yellow to red.  She is trying to caution us to slow down to a complete stop, look around and be aware of the surroundings, before it is too late.
 
Geller seeks to wake us from our sleep – for our own sake, and for the benefit of the Jewish community at large. Allow me then to add a lesson history has taught us:  Those who helped the Communists attain power were the first to be executed.  That is good to remember even when one refuses to apply the lessons of the past to the present.
 
On another side of the coin – Norma’s – Eshman’s remarks are correct, although laced with insults and demeaning stereotypical comments.
 
There is a great difference between freedom and good sense. When the Nazis marched in Skokie many were appalled they should have the right to do so, but if Americans allow those who hate Jews to be denied free speech, who will be next? And most importantly who will make that call and decide whose speech is allowed and whose is not?
 
That is the slippery slope our forefathers in their wisdom wished to avoid when giving us that precious freedom. Do we all use it wisely and with restraint, perhaps not?
 
If every American agreed with one another’s speech, there would be no need for protection. It is most necessary when we disagree and was designed for that purpose.
 
Having said that, it is also important to note there are considerations of where and how to exercise that right.
 
Where the lives of oneself or others enter into the mix, perhaps a bit of wisdom and caution should prevail.
 
Did Pamela Geller have the right to do what she did? Absolutely and without doubt.
 
Might she have thought better of constructing a situation that would incite violence? Perhaps that would have been wise. Speaking your truth is fine, but when that truth endangers the lives of others, one should be compelled to use a rational and measured approach.
 
Personal attacks against Geller distract from the true issue inherent in her actions. They muddy the waters as much as anti-Muslim rhetoric emotionalizing a serious problem that must be addressed by today’s world.
 
As a Jewish woman I am offended by the “Housewife” remark as trivializing women as unfit to contribute in any remarkable manner. Was Betty Freidan no more than a bored housewife? Did she ignite the Feminist movement because she’d had her fill of “affairs?”
 
Are we not past the Philip Roth’s Sophie Portnoy era of marginalizing and demeaning Jewish women and stereotyping them as annoying and redundant?  If not, I strongly suggest we bury that offensive falsehood once and for all.
 
It is easy to find many on one side or the other of this issue. But free speech is an uncompromising and undeniable cornerstone of our democracy. When we deny it for any reason, we are giving in to the worst kind of terrorism.
 
Should we all exercise discretion in these highly charged and extremely volatile times? In my opinion, advises Norma, that would be the optimum way to proceed. No one benefits when gas is poured on an already raging inferno.
 
Is Ari correct? Yes.
Is Norma correct? Yes.
 
Would we all get along much better if the personal attacks were left at the door and intelligent and mannered conversation were allowed inside?
 
On that we hope we can all agree. 
______________________________________
This is the latest in the series “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel,” a collaboration between Zager and Bussel, a foreign correspondent reporting from Israel.
 
Ari Bussel and Norma Zager collaborate both in writing and on the air in a point-counter-point discussion of all things Israel-related.  Together, they have dedicated the past decade to promoting Israel.
 
© Israel Monitor, May, 2015
 
First Published May 11, 2015
Contact:  bussel@me.com
 

Author: oneway2day

I am a Neoconservative Christian Right blogger. I also spend a significant amount of time of exposing theopolitical Islam.

One thought on “To Speak or Not to Speak?”

  1. Reblogged this on Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back and commented:
    “her poisonous ideology” : liberty & equality; toxic only to supremacists and tyrants. Now we know what Eshman is.

    Geller is not a crossing guard, she is the watchman on the wall warning of encroaching danger. While those who sympathize with the enemy and the deluded fools who deny the existence of danger are offended by her warning, they are not the object of the free speech clause; the government is. “Congress shall make no law”… Congress and the President are not aallowed to stifle political expression they don’t like. King George could slam political opponents into the dungeon. Our founders wisely protected us against that sort of tyranny.

    “constructing a situation that would incite violence? ” An art exhibit and cartoon drawing contest do not incite violence unless the content of the art is designed to motivate the viewer to engage in violent acts. Violence is incited by Islamic law, which requires that Muslims kill anyone who insults the Profit. See Reliance o8.0–7 & o11.10 and Ash-Shifa 725. Violence is incited in the mosques and on Islamic web sites & social media posts.

    At Garland, Geert Wilders said “Islam is evil”. He spoke the truth. He could not, in the short space of twenty minutes, provide the details. Readers of Freedom Ain’t Free can see the most important details by clicking on “What’s Wrong With Islam & Muslims?” in the top frame.

    When you read Ash-Shifa, you will learn tht Moe ordered hits on poets who criticized him. You will learn about the murders of Kab Ashraf, Asma bint Marwan and Umm Qirfa. The assassin pulled Asmas baby from her breast to insert his sword. They tore Umm Qirfa apart with camels and ropes. That’s what Islam is; what Muslims do. We have a right and duty to tell you about it. You are free to listen or go back to sleep.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s