Civil trial attorney Baruch C. Cohen and Paul Jeser
Rob Eshman, in his column “The pro-Israel Divide,“ reinforces my belief that the Los Angeles Jewish Community would be better served by someone else serving as the LAJJ Editor-in-Chief. He just doesn’t get it. He just does not understand the responsibilities he has as the Editor-in-Chief of a major city Jewish Community newspaper.
Rob writes: “Either I do a terrible job of explaining my positions here, or many in the pro-Israel community have a terrible time accepting and understanding opinions that differ from their own.”
The issue has nothing to do with “…understanding opinions that differ from their own.” Of course everyone understands his opinions. The relevant issue is simply this: what should the role of an Editor-in-Chief be?
The Editor-in-Chief of a paper serving a major Jewish community should be a person of prestige and influence and should be the mantle of Jewish leadership. The E-i-C, to be effective in his/her leadership responsibilities, must be respected by the vast majority of the community. At a time when Israel’s survival is at stake the E-i-C must inspire Jews to support Israel, warts and all. Not continually find faults and criticize our Jewish homeland.
The Editor-in-Chief must be representative of the community, not just one segment of it. Rob is not.
And the Editor-in-Chief needs to make sure his paper presents news and headlines without a slant. Rob does not.
Rob has every right to be a columnist, no matter how “anti-Israel” many believe his positions are. And the LAJJ should continue to publish columns presenting all perspectives on the fundamentally critical issue of Israel’s survival.
But I do not believe he can be a columnist presenting controversial views on the issue of Israel’s survival AND be an effective Editor-in-Chief at the same time. He – and the LAJJ board – should choose which role he is to play.
Example: Since his September 17, 2009, column “Give J a Chance,” Rob’s support for JStreet has been very public and strong. I believe certainly stronger than his support for AIPAC. If Rob were a columnist he would have that right. When JStreet called on the administration NOT to veto a UN resolution condemning Israel, it crossed the line from using acceptable critical language to the delegitimizing language of Israel’s enemies. As the Editor-in-Chief of a major Jewish Community newspaper Rob should not be publically supporting such a controversial and divisive organization.
Example: his May 20th column entitled “A Little AIPAC Advice for Obama”. A columnist has the right to tell the President of the United States to stick-it to the Prime Minister of Israel (which I believe is the core of this piece). For the Editor-in-Chief of a major Jewish community paper to be writing this is just not appropriate and certainly not acceptable.
Example from the May 26th web site home page: two columns were presented in response to the Obama-Netanyahu Washington, D.C., meetings (by David Myers and Robert Satloff). Both offered strong arguments for their totally opposite positions. The problem: the headline for the pro-Obama piece was the major headline and was more than four times as large as the headline for the pro-Netanyahu piece which was lower on the page. I’ve been told that the format of the website does not allow for equal prominence. This response is just not acceptable. As this situation is so crucial the format of the page should have been changed.
Example (Website – June 6th): Leading headline at the top of the page: “More Than 18 Arabs Killed Along Israel….” Was that the real story? Arabs, not protestors or terrorists? Why not a headline along the line of “IDF Stops Northern Border Intrusion, Saves Hundreds of Israeli Lives.” And why not the Reuters story: “Syrian Forces Killed 70 Protesters,” or “Syria Paid Protesters to Try to Break Into Israel…?” Rob’s response to my criticism of this headline/article: he wrote that all they did was to carry the JTA story. The ‘JTA made me do it’ excuse is also just not acceptable.
How can we expect the secular media to report on Israel accurately, when I believe our own Jewish paper isn't?
And, Rob shows he doesn’t understand the role and responsibility of being an Editor-in-Chief in areas other than Israel.
Example: I am not a prude but the following box on the web site’s main page was more than offensive, fitting, perhaps, for a trashy tabloid, but not for the Jewish newspaper of a major American Jewish Community. I searched at least a dozen other Anglo-Jewish papers and found none highlighting this trash in this way. I am told that Rob does not personally select or write these headings. As Editor-in-Chief he is responsible for all content and should have removed this immediately. Instead, it stayed posted for a few days.
In Rob’s opening paragraph of the column he wrote about my criticism he forgot to mention that one of my emails actually complimented him for his piece on Day School education. As he came to change his mind about that important subject I hope that he also changes his mind about what he writes and how he selects columns and headlines.
If not there needs to be a new Editor-in-Chief.
(This response is placed as a paid advertisement because the LAJJ declined to publish it as an op-ed piece even after adjustments were made in response to comments by the Jewish Journal’s Managing Editor. If you have any comments and/or would like to receive further updates please email EshmanWatch@aol.com or call 424-248-0955.)
