
Letters to the Editor: California, not just L.A., must find ways to fight antisemitism
We struggle, too, with the lack of recognition and inclusion of the diversity of the Jewish community including Ethiopian, Mizrahi and Sephardic voices, as Farkas notes, as well as Asian, African American and Hispanic Jews in ethnic studies curricula. Jews at California schools and universities experience well-documented marginalization, gaslighting and invidious targeting through verbal and physical abuse and violence, harassment, exclusion and discrimination, as Farkas illustrates. We need action and allyship on a local, state and national level on a bipartisan basis across society and with the support of the full diversity of the American people. Only then will Jewish people in America be safe and only then will we come closer to achieving freedom, equality and access to justice for all.
Noam Schimmel, BerkeleyThis writer is a lecturer in global studies at UC Berkeley.
..
To the editor: Farkas says L.A. must do more to fight antisemitism. This invites the question: Or what? What will the Jewish community of Los Angeles do if the government and citizens of the city and county of Los Angeles continue to ignore antisemitism? The word 'must' implies that there will be consequences for failure to act. Farkas should lead the Jewish Federation in developing a plan of action that will hold Los Angeles' leaders accountable for fighting antisemitism and that will impose actual consequences if those leaders fail.
Stuart Creque, Moraga, Calif.
..
To the editor: I doubt antisemitism is higher now than before. However, the expression of it certainly is. This is part of a general coarsening of public expression that was exacerbated in 2016 by a presidential candidate who called people names and is mean and confrontational. When he said that there were 'very fine people on both sides' in 2017, he opened the Pandora's box of hate that has its expression in vile and violent antisemitic attacks. As long as this tone is set from above, we will have violence, like that against lawmakers in Minnesota, and all sorts of hate-induced attacks. Measures that Farkas suggests will do little to counter this narrative of open expression of hate by our leaders.
Harlan Levinson, Los Angeles
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
It's not just DC: Republicans seem happy to let Trump do whatever he wants
For a party that claims to care about federal overreach, GOP leaders certainly have been quiet about President Trump's invasion of an American city. I'm starting to wonder when our government's checks and balances will kick in – or if they will at all. On Monday, Aug. 11, President Donald Trump announced he would be deploying the National Guard in Washington, DC, and taking over the city's police force "to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.' The troops began showing up on Tuesday evening. According to Trump, violent crime is up in the nation's capital, and he's the only one who can rescue the city from societal collapse. It's a convenient narrative, one that feeds into MAGA's perception of him. For the rest of us, it's a terrifying move that shows he is willing to test the limits of presidential oversight. But while Trump's hostile takeover of DC public safety is concerning on its own, it's more alarming that Republicans in Congress are letting him do this with seemingly no regard for what is ethical. Even if this deployment is legal, there are certain lines that presidents should not cross. This is one of them. And I have to ask. Would Republicans be sitting on their hands if a Democratic president were doing everything that Trump is doing? I would hope not, but here we are. Of course, Trump is lying about crime in DC Trump seems to have called in the military after an assault on a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffer on Aug. 3. While it's horrible that a government employee was attacked, Trump's declaration that Washington is crime-infested and dangerous doesn't align with reality. According to the Metropolitan Police Department, violent crime is down 26% compared with last year. In fact, 2024 marked a 30-year low for violent crime in Washington, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Per a New York Times analysis, the homicide rate in 2023 was 40.4 per 100,000 people, the highest rate in 20 years. But that rate declined in 2024, down to 26.6 per 100,000 people. And homicides in the city continue to decline in 2025. While Trump is correct in saying this rate is higher than those of Mexico City and Bogotá, Colombia, it doesn't paint the full picture. A federal takeover is an extreme reaction. It doesn't matter, of course, that violent crime in the city is down overall this year. That wouldn't fit in with the Trumpian narrative, the one where he's the hero saving tourists and locals alike from violent crime. Are you worried about crime? Do you feel safe where you live? Tell us. | Opinion Forum Who even asked for this? It wasn't DC Mayor Muriel Bowser. All of this is happening to the dismay of Washington, DC, Mayor Muriel Bowser, who noted on the Aug. 12 edition of 'The Breakfast Club' that the militarization of the city will instill fear in its residents. '(Trump) wants to send the message to cities that if he can get away with this in Los Angeles, if he can get away with this in DC, he can get away with it in New York, or Baltimore or Chicago, or any other place where millions of people live, work and are doing everything the right way,' Bowser said on the radio show. Bowser is right, this is an escalation. It's Trump's way of showing everyone in Democratic parts of the country that he has the final say and that he isn't afraid to use the military to his advantage. Trump is a bully. He's using the National Guard to conquer DC as a test run. | Opinion Will Republicans hold Trump accountable for anything? For a party that claims to care about federal overreach, GOP leaders certainly have been quiet about Trump's invasion of an American city. In fact, it seems that many are supportive of the move. If a Democratic president were to try to do this, the Republican Party would decry authoritarianism's arrival in the United States. But because it's Trump, there has been zero pushback. Just like his tariff plan that's costing everyday Americans, the failed Elon Musk overhaul of the federal government, the deployment of soldiers against citizens in Los Angeles and his ruthless immigration agenda that includes trying to erase due process, the GOP is letting him get away with all of it. Republicans may even be happy about it. Imagine if Joe Biden did any of that? The Republican pearl-clutching would be generational. But this is fine because it's their king. Trump is considering extending the troop deployment beyond 30 days, something he will need congressional approval for. This seems entirely plausible, even likely, because of the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. I'm hesitant to throw the F-word – fascism – around, but if the Trump administration continues down this path, I worry that the rights we have as Americans will slip away. Who's stopping the president from deploying troops to other cities in the United States? It certainly isn't going to be Congress. There's some hope for the Supreme Court, but it has a 6-3 conservative majority. All of this is happening within the first year of Trump's return to the White House. There's no telling what the next three years will bring if this is how he's starting out. There should be firm lines that presidents do not cross – there are some things that are not appropriate or reasonable for a president to do. Yet that line keeps getting moved by Republicans, who don't seem to care as long as their conservative agenda is being implemented. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno


Newsweek
22 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Arctic Could Form Key Part of Ukraine Ceasefire Talks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A ceasefire in Ukraine will be the focus for Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump when they meet in Alaska, but cooperation between Russia and the United States in the Arctic would also be a salient topic for discussion, a regional expert has told Newsweek. Andreas Østhagen, from the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Oslo, said Anchorage is the natural location for the presidents to discuss the surrounding strategic region, which is drawing increasing attention from both countries. He said that oil and gas exploration, developing the Northern Sea route, and fishing are areas of mutual interest that could be discussed. Why It Matters Both Russia and the U.S. have prioritized the Arctic, making it a natural topic for a summit held in Alaska, which is the gateway to the region where the Bering Strait is a direct maritime passage between the Pacific and Arctic Oceans. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty What To Know The Russian and American presidents will meet at the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage on Friday, during which the Trump administration will hope for a breakthrough in the Russia-Ukraine war. As well as the war in Ukraine, Østhagen said that Russia could discuss developing the Northern Sea route (NSR) into a commercial traffic lane, which is a Russian project that the U.S. plays a part in but is not the primary driver of. The NSR, which goes along the Arctic coastline, is the shortest shipping route between the western part of Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific region, and its strategic value chimes with Trump's statements about Greenland, which he wants to acquire. Through it sail container ships, oil tankers, bulk carriers transporting minerals and ores, and vessels servicing oil, gas and mining operations in Alaska and Siberia. It is becoming more navigable due to global warming. Under the Biden administration and Trump's first administration, efforts were made to expand collaboration between Russia and the U.S., focusing on enabling safer traffic through the Bering Strait, which divides Alaska from Russia, said Østhagen, who is also a senior fellow at the Arctic Institute. "If any shipping traffic takes that shortcut between Europe and Asia, it has to go via the Russian Arctic and via the Bering Strait," Østhagen said. The Bering Sea is also home to some of the most profitable fish stocks in the world, where not only Russia and the U.S. are actively fishing, but also other countries like China. There are potential plans for oil and gas development in the Arctic, and joint exploration in shared areas like the Chukchi Sea, north of the Bering Strait, could be considered, though profitability and political factors will influence such projects. "There's a lot to talk about in terms of practical functional cooperation, first and foremost to try to set up shipping or more oil and gas exploration in the Arctic," said Østhagen. What People Are Saying Andreas Østhagen, research director of Arctic and Ocean Politics at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, told Newsweek: "The fact that both presidents have put the Arctic high on their agendas would make Alaska a natural point to discuss the region." "Russia perhaps could offer developing the Northern Sea route into a viable commercial traffic lane that's a Russian project, which the U.S. plays a part in, but is not the primary driver of," he said. What Happens Next The White House has described Friday's summit in Anchorage as a "listening exercise," for Trump. Before then, European leaders are likely to push for the U.S. to keep Ukraine's interests in mind.

3 hours ago
Japan and China commemorate World War II anniversary
BENXI, China -- Eighty years after the end of World War II, Japan and China are marking the anniversary with major events, but on different dates and in different ways. Japan remembers the victims in a solemn ceremony on Aug. 15, the day then-Emperor Hirohito announced in a crackly radio message that the government had surrendered, while China showcases its military strength with a parade on Sept. 3, the day after the formal surrender on an American battleship in Tokyo Bay. Japan occupied much of China before and during WWII in a devastating and brutal invasion that, by some estimates, killed 20 million people. The wartime experience still bedevils relations between the two countries today. A museum in the Chinese city of Benxi highlights the struggles of anti-Japanese resistance fighters who holed up in log cabins through fierce winters in the country's northeast, then known as Manchuria, before retreating into Russia. They returned only after the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and launched an offensive into Manchuria on Aug. 9, 1945 — the same day the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki — adding to the pressure on Japan to surrender. Nowadays, it is China's military that raises alarm as it seeks to enforce the government's territorial claims in the Pacific. When Japan talks of building up its defense to counter the threat, its militaristic past gives China a convenient retort. 'We urge Japan to deeply reflect on its historical culpability, earnestly draw lessons from history and stop using hype over regional tensions and China-related issues to conceal its true intent of military expansion," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said last month. Hirohito's prerecorded surrender broadcast on Aug. 15, 1945, was incomprehensible to many Japanese. He used arcane language and the sound quality was poor. What was important, historians say, was that the message came from the emperor himself. Hirohito was considered a living god, and the war was fought in his name. Most Japanese had never heard his voice before. 'The speech is a reminder of what it took to end the wrong war,' Nihon University professor Takahisa Furukawa told The Associated Press in 2015. The current emperor, Hirohito's grandson Naruhito, and the prime minister are set to make remarks at the annual ceremony in Tokyo on Aug. 15, broadcast live by public broadcaster NHK. At last year's event, Naruhito expressed deep remorse over Japan's actions during the war. But on the same day, three Japanese cabinet ministers visited Tokyo's Yasukuni shrine, drawing criticism from China and South Korea, which see the shrine as a symbol of militarism. Japan surrendered on Sept. 2, 1945, in a ceremony on board the American battleship USS Missouri. The foreign minister, in a top hat and tails, and the army chief signed on behalf of Hirohito. The signatories on the other side were U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur and representatives from China and other nations that had fought Japan. China designated the next day, Sept. 3, as Victory Day. Eleven years ago, the Communist Party stepped up how China marks the anniversary. All of China's top leaders, including President Xi Jinping, attended a commemorative event on Sept. 3. The renewed focus came at a time of rising tension with Japan over conflicting interpretations of wartime history and a still-ongoing territorial dispute in the East China Sea. The next year, China staged a military parade on the 70th anniversary of the end of the war. A decade later, preparations are underway for another grand parade with missiles, tanks and fighter jets overhead. Russian President Vladimir Putin is among those expected to attend.