Essay
Kelly Smith
Redefining Crime and Punishment

Racism in the United States is a concept that most people believe ceased to exist once the era of slavery was abolished and that simply isn't true.

Power & Activism, Rights, Race
Jessica Ramos
What You Need to Know About Business ...

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS (BIDs) & THE BROKEN WINDOWS THEORY

What You Need to Know About Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) & The Broken Window Theory

Opinion

,

La Nueva Voz Is Due for a Colonoscopy

,

La Nueva Voz cannot serve two masters.

Parody Photo Illustration Julian Lucas ©2026

The publication calls itself Pomona’s “only community newspaper.” Its October 2026 masthead also identifies it as a division of South Coast Media Services, “Providing media relations services since 1983.” A public relations firm represents its clients. A newspaper is trusted to investigate, question and hold local institutions accountable. Putting both functions under the same business invites a conflict readers deserve to have explained. [1]

Pomona deserves an independent watchdog. The question is whether the publication’s practices live up to that responsibility.

The Spin Machine

La Nueva Voz introduces itself to the city with a tagline that is as comical as it is exclusionary: “Pomona’s only community newspaper.” It is a bizarre way to present yourself to a municipality where other independent voices publish, and it poses a question the slogan cannot answer: What, exactly, are readers getting from an operation that claims the whole town? [2]

An inspection of the publication’s archive reveals a messy landscape of reporting, public relations connections, congratulatory notes to financial sponsors and factual errors that should have been caught before the ink dried. There is no need to invent wild conspiracy theories about local media. The documented examples provide enough to examine.

So let’s give the paper’s own bullshit the colonoscopy it deserves.

An Inherited Identity

The name La Nueva Voz carries a legacy of community advocacy that its current management did not create. Candelario “Cande” Mendoza and Albert “Al” Castro founded the original La Voz in 1981 to counter the negative portrayal of Latinos in mainstream news coverage. Mendoza, an educator and longtime school board member, died in 2008. Castro died in 2020. Their original publication ceased operations in 2009. [3]

La Nueva Voz launched that August. The company’s website says preserving the original paper’s “look and feel” was part of the business plan, going so far as to hire the same person for page layout and Spanish translation. The visual resemblance was deliberate. [2]

That history deserves acknowledgment. It also deserves precision. The original La Voz and the current La Nueva Voz have different founding histories. Preserving an appearance does not, by itself, establish the quality or independence of the journalism published beneath it.

A Master in PR, a Servant in News

Today, the publication presents a dual identity on its own pages: community newspaper and a division of a business advertising media relations services. How does that operation maintain editorial independence when covering the local institutions around it? [1]

While journalism and public relations share writing skills, they serve different interests. Journalism requires asking the sharp questions that institutions would prefer to avoid. Public relations involves representing those institutions.

The connections are documented. In December 2019, La Nueva Voz reported that publisher Jeff Schenkel had been retained as a public relations consultant by Tri-City Mental Health in 2007. The story described a decade of partnership publishing the agency’s news, photographs and advertisements after the newspaper launched in 2009. Tri-City was honoring the paper as an outstanding community partner. [4]

The story disclosed that history. It does not establish that Schenkel’s consulting retainer continued after the newspaper launched. That distinction matters. A past consulting relationship is not proof of a current payment.

Renee Barbee, the paper’s vice president of marketing and operations, is listed as executive board secretary on the Pomona Chamber of Commerce’s 2026 to 2027 roster. The broader board includes representatives of city government, Foothill Transit, Athens Services and Valley Vista Services. [5]

Those positions do not prove that anyone dictates coverage. But they do put a newspaper executive inside an organization alongside representatives of institutions local reporters have reason to question. Their readers should understand how those obligations are handled when they intersect.

The overlap remains current. In the October 22, 2026 issue, a photograph places Barbee in the ribbon cutting for improvements at JFK Park alongside elected officials. Apparently, covering the ribbon cutting also requires being in it. Barbee isn’t merely documenting Pomona’s civic establishment. Here, she’s posing alongside it. Tone-def? Its caption identifies her Chamber role and her position as a Pomona library trustee. The following page carries a selfie with Barbee, Police Chief Mike Ellis, Councilmember Debra Martin and an assemblymember’s representative. [1]

Attending an event or appearing in a photograph is not evidence of purchased coverage. Participating in civic leadership while helping run a newspaper covering that civic establishment does raise a question about editorial distance. Where does the institutional partnership end and the independent examination begin?

Being a valued community partner is rather lovely. A newspaper also needs to be useful when the partner would prefer it shut the fuck up.

The Receipts: Trash Deals and Cannabis Spin

The December 22, 2022 issue makes the problem concrete. The front page reported the city’s award of an exclusive trash collection franchise to Athens Services. Inside that same issue, a Christmas parade special section congratulated Athens on its selection and welcomed the company as the section’s new sponsor. The printed caption read: “Looking good, Athens!” [6]

The sponsorship was disclosed. The issue also printed Councilmember Nora Garcia’s objections to outsourcing. Those details belong in the record.

But the decision to congratulate a corporate sponsor for winning a public contract while reporting on the award is embarrassingly homie like. A public decision affecting residents’ trash service deserves editorial distance, not a corporate greeting card.

The paper’s corrections show another problem: what happens when information supplied by an outside PR operation reaches readers without a crucial error being caught.

In its September 28, 2023 issue, La Nueva Voz clarified an August 24 story about a STIIIZY check presentation. The original piece included Lopez Urban Farm among organizations the cannabis company had worked with. The farm had not worked with STIIIZY. The paper said the information and photograph came from an external PR team representing the company. According to the clarification, an invitation list apparently accounted for the confusion. La Nueva Voz apologized to readers. [7]

An invitation is not a working relationship. The published error supplied a company with a community connection it did not have. A PR team has a client to represent. The newspaper has readers to answer to.

The School District Blunder

The May 27, 2021 correction involving Oliver Unaka, then Pomona Unified School District’s public information officer, was more consequential. La Nueva Voz acknowledged two factual errors in an opinion column. His open microphone comment happened after discussion of an Asian American and Pacific Islander vigil, during a different presentation. It had nothing to do with the AAPI discussion. The paper said it obtained and reviewed the meeting recording after publication. [8]

For its description of board member Roberta Perlman’s surprise at the comment, the newspaper pointed to three question marks in a text message. It also printed PUSD’s critical response and disputed the district’s broader accusations, including whether it had sought comment before publication. [8]

Whatever those disagreements, the correction acknowledged that the paper had attached the comment to the wrong discussion. Context affects how readers judge a person. Calling a column opinion does not make that context optional.

Checking the primary source before printing would have been a better use of editorial energy than explaining the mistake afterward.

The Printing Press as a Personal Weapon

In March 2015, the paper published a restaurant review labeled opinion criticizing a Pomona Papa John’s after staff declined to use customer supplied non dairy cheese for a lactose intolerant customer. The paper said it had called ahead, that the store had accommodated the request previously and that it later sought a response. [9]

Those details give the service complaint context. Then the review dragged in how well known the paper’s advertising and public relations director was around Pomona, complained that the staff did not know her and mocked the assistant manager’s youthful appearance. [9]

What the fuck did her local prominence have to do with the pizza? Dragging personal status into the review made it read like a wounded ego had found access to a printing press.

The paper’s dealings with other publications deserve attention, too. In September 2025, The Poly Post’s student editorial board announced that its Spanish language section, La Voz de Pomona, would become La Verdad. The students said Schenkel had demanded they drop the former name to avoid confusion with La Nueva Voz. They described the approach as a legal demand and criticized the absence of an earlier conversation. [10]

Schenkel disputed their account of his outreach. In a November 4, 2025 response, he said he had attempted contact before emailing and calling the faculty adviser. He cited his history of speaking to classes and sharing stories with student journalists. He defended protecting the business name and described his actions as consistent with “real world business tactics.” [11]

Fine. Readers can assess those tactics with his explanation included. Experience in the business does not place the way you conduct it beyond criticism.

The Pomonan has a connection to this subject that readers should know. Our archive carries a notice published September 19, 2019, attributed to Barbee, demanding that PomonaVoice.org change its name to avoid possible further action and expense. The notice claimed that federal copyright protection extended to La Nueva Voz’s name itself. This is our published archive of the notice; the original correspondence has not been independently authenticated in this review. [12]

The copyright claim is dead wrong. The U.S. Copyright Office identifies names and titles as material copyright does not protect. Trademark protection is a separate question, and that distinction does not settle every possible naming dispute. But a publication warning another outlet about legal expense ought to get the law it invokes right. [13] Additionally, there is a radio station called La Nueva Voz to say the least.

For a publisher whose own website describes deliberately retaining a predecessor’s appearance, demands that other publications change their names invite an obvious question: How much room does this self-described community newspaper believe the community should have to publish?

A Community Deserves More Than Congratulations

But ok, La Nueva Voz has published work that deserves credit. Its September 2024 issue pressed Councilmember Victor Preciado, who is up for reelection, over the closure of Pomona’s Foothill Transit store. That is a useful subject for a community newspaper to pursue. Pretending the paper never challenges institutions would be dishonest and would make this criticism easier to dismiss. [14]

But useful work does not cancel out bad judgment elsewhere. Neither does longevity, a Chamber title or an award from an institution you have worked with. The proximity between Pomona’s political establishment, corporate interests and its “only community newspaper” is, in my view, far too chummy for comfort.

Pomona deserves a transparent, independent watchdog. A paper can cover the community’s celebrations and still ask uncomfortable questions. It can sell advertising and still keep its reporting accountable to readers. What it cannot do is expect a respected predecessor, a familiar masthead or a roomful of institutional friends to answer for its mistakes.

Until this town gets a press that knows the difference between a hard-hitting report and a greeting card for a corporate sponsor, The Pomonan will be right here to hold the mirror up.

The irony in all of this is that La Nueva Voz may finally gain more readers from this article than it would have otherwise. After all, nothing generates curiosity quite like a public colonoscopy. And if The Pomonan ends up introducing a new audience to Pomona’s self-proclaimed “only local newspaper,” perhaps La Nueva Voz should consider sending a thank-you note. Or better yet, a sponsorship acknowledgment. They seem to know more about those things than actual journalism.

Reporting note: This article is fact checked and is based on published documents and statements, including La Nueva Voz’s corrections and Schenkel’s published response. The 2019 notice remains attributed to The Pomonan’s archive; the original correspondence has not been independently authenticated in this review. The accompanying medical scene is a parody illustration.

Julian Lucas is a darkroom photographer, writer, and bookseller, though photography remains his primary language. He is the founder of Mirrored Society Book Shop, publisher of The Pomonan, and creator of Book-Store and Print Pomona Art Book Fair. And he will charge you $ 2.5 million for event photography.

The City of Highland: A Great Place to Raise a Warehouse. City Hall Will Even Provide the Binkies

City Hall is out here playing wet nurse, breast feeding developers, changing their diapers and handing them another three years to get their warehouses off the ground.

Cyanotype by Fernanda Durazo ©2026

Some slick—suit, cheap suit architect Kevin Alcantara stands up at a 2023 Planning Commission hearing and starts shamelessly bragging about how much he loves gentrifying and paving over the Inland Empire. This is his team’s seventh industrial monolith in Highland, and their pet architect is busy droning on about how "the market dictates the building’s height" because their faceless corporate tenants need maximum vertical clearance to stack their plastic imported garbage.

"We definitely like developing in this city," Alcantara says, grinning like an absolute parasite who just swallowed a zoning loophole.

Later in the meeting, Chair Randall Hamerly asks the groundbreaking question of why there aren’t taller trees along Fifth Street—because, you know, Highland is basically a sun-baked, asphalt dust bowl and shade is a baseline human right. Alcantara explains, with a completely straight face, that the design team didn't want to obscure the building. Let that sink in. They are actively blocking shade in a literal desert because nobody must disrupt the majestic vista of a concrete coffin. They act like Welton Becket personally descended from architectural heaven to sketch the damn thing. It’s a warehouse, you tools. What exactly are we supposed to stand across the street admiring? The exquisite texture of tilt-up concrete? They need room to stack merchandise, but actual living trees have to step aside so everyone can worship a glorified storage unit. Meanwhile, there is a preschool full of toddlers literally right next to the site. Somehow, the aesthetic feelings of a giant grey box have become a crisis requiring deep bureaucratic reflection before the thing even exists.

The corporate entity behind this masterclass in local degradation is called Patriot Partners. A guy named Kevin Rice is the applicant listed on the city’s paperwork for this 53,665-square-foot monstrosity on Fifth and Central. And because one concrete scar isn't enough to satisfy their greed, Patriot has another 48,000-square-foot warehouse proposed over on Sixth Street, positioned directly across from Indian Springs High School. The kids were already there. These aren't new schools moving into an industrial zone; these are existing classrooms full of human children being surrounded by diesel truck bays. But to these spreadsheet-bumping sociopaths, a school isn't a place of learning—it’s just a spatial constraint on a map that the developer has to maneuver around.

By 2026, the wheels started falling off the developer's grift. Patriot Partners slinked back to the city crying for more time. The July staff reports laid it out bare: limited tenant demand, trouble securing construction financing, and "economic uncertainty." In plain English, the magical, infallible "market" they used to justify the warehouse's massive height did a completely garbage job of actually getting it built. So Patriot demanded a three-year extension to keep their approvals on life support until the cash started flowing again. And what did Highland’s planning staff do? They immediately bent over backward and recommended giving the developers exactly what they wanted.

Meanwhile, the working-class families living around these dust lots get to keep waiting too. They get to spend their Tuesday nights sitting in drafty municipal gymnasiums, checking bureaucratic agendas, and explaining for the fiftieth time to a panel of glazed-eye politicians why staging hundreds of diesel semi-trucks next to a playground might be bad for developing lungs. The developer’s financial incompetence is treated as a valid excuse for a government handout, while the neighborhood’s real-world suffering is just filed away as a footnote in the public record.

Those recommendations to bail out the developer came straight from Community Development Director Lawrence Mainez, were rubber-stamped by Assistant Director Kim Stater, and meticulously typed up by Senior Planner Angela Tafolla. These people knew exactly what they were doing. Their own reports explicitly point out the Head Start preschool next to the Fifth Street site. They explicitly name Indian Springs High School on Sixth, the residential home to the west, and the Villa Del Rosa condominiums to the south. The city literally mapped out every single human being who will be forced to breathe in truck exhaust. It’s all right there in black and white. Nobody had to pretend the neighborhood was empty; they looked at every house, every school, and every crying parent, and still said, "Yeah, let’s build it." Apparently, knowing better is totally compatible with selling out your community anyway.

On July 21, the Planning Commission approved the extensions unanimously. Chair Randall Hamerly, Vice Chair Chandra Thomas, and commissioners Nicole McCance, Jarrod Miller, and Brent Merideth all eagerly voted yes. More than 20 locals showed up to beg them not to do it. Hamerly. Thomas. McCance. Miller. Merideth. Write those names down on a wall of shame. A completely spineless, unanimous decision shouldn’t get to hide behind the vague shield of "the commission." The residents did exactly what the civics textbooks told them to do: they showed up, they participated, and they got completely ignored so a developer wouldn't lose a buck. The public participated, which is apparently supposed to make losing your entire evening feel worthwhile.

Even the school district stepped in to fight the extensions. Thomas Pace, the director of facilities planning for the San Bernardino City Unified School District, sent a letter urging the city to kill the project, citing blindingly obvious concerns about toxic diesel pollution, pedestrian safety, blocked school buses, and trapped emergency vehicles. These are basic, everyday things you worry about when you're in charge of kids. Parents just want their children to cross the street without getting flattened by a logistics truck. But somehow, the community had to audition and plead just to keep these warehouse plans from hanging over their heads forever.

Don't worry, though—Highland’s bureaucrats have the warehouse's outfit completely under control. The Fifth Street report specifies that the site will feature five loading docks, an eight-foot screen wall next to the preschool, and a meticulously curated exterior color palette: Superwhite, Peppercorn, and Iron Ore. An entire little civilization of tasteful, artisanal industrial finishes, assembled right next to a playground. Wow! Superwhite! Peppercorn! Iron Ore! Truly revolutionary stuff. Whatever else happens to the air quality, at least the concrete coffin will look highly coordinated. The professionals have moved on to matching paint swatches while the parents are left worrying about asthma.

Back at the original hearing, Commissioner Miller actually abstained from voting because the building was way too damn high. But by July 2026, he folded like a cheap lawn chair, joining the unanimous cult of the yes-vote. The city defends this with the ultimate paper shield: an environmental justification under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, claiming their old reviews are "adequate" and no further environmental scrutiny is required. They claim their "mitigation measures" will magically reduce the toxic impact below a threshold of significance. That's the bureaucratic fiction. Parents are still allowed to look at a truck terminal next to a sandbox and see a disaster. Shuffling papers does not mean the locals have to applaud the poisoning of their zip code.

The final appeals dragged this mess all the way to the top—reaching Mayor Penny Lilburn, Mayor Pro Tem Jimmy Saldana, and council members Gregory Hogan, Larry McCallon, and John P. Timmer on October 13. The agenda featured a bunch of sterile LLC names like "Patriot 5th & Central" and recommended denying the neighborhood's appeals. Unsurprisingly, the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice reported that the council rammed the extensions through anyway, putting a corporate developer’s bottom line directly ahead of human health.

While the politicians hide behind their official titles, the actual people of Highland deserve to be named too. Janet Seaton, a resident of 49 years, described a predominantly Black, Latino, and elderly neighborhood where people can’t just pack up and leave when the air turns toxic. Maria Sanchez spoke out about the pure terror of watching kids navigate a gauntlet of semi-truck traffic just to get to class. These women aren't waiting for a market correction to start utilizing the neighborhood; they actually live there. The homes are occupied. The schools are full. Nobody needed a logistics tenant to give this community a purpose. Yet the city treated the developer's broken wallet as an emergency, while treating the residents' lives as a bureaucratic nuisance.

Highland’s leadership owes everyone an explanation for why they are protecting these warehouse plans with such desperate, pathetic persistence. What makes a failed concrete box worth more than the families living in its shadow? The developer's financing problems explain why they want more time, but they don't explain why a mother living next door should be happy to give it to them. And when Lilburn, Saldana, Hogan, McCallon, and Timmer explain what kind of city they want Highland to be, they are telling the world that they prefer a profitable, smog-choked truck stop over their own citizens.

SOURCE

  1. Highland Planning Commission minutes, September 19, 2023⁠. Item 5, PDF pages 4–8. Architect’s remarks, building height, tree discussion and Miller’s abstention.

  2. Fifth Street warehouse staff report, July 21, 2026⁠. City report reproduced on Scribd. Project specifications, school proximity, exterior finishes, financing delays and staff recommendation.

  3. Sixth Street warehouse staff report, July 21, 2026⁠. City report reproduced on Scribd. Project specifications, surrounding schools and homes, financing delays and staff recommendation.

  4. Highland public hearing notice⁠. Identifies Kevin Rice and Patriot Partners as applicant/owner.

  5. Manny Sandoval, Inland Empire Community News: “Highland Extends Warehouse Permits Near Schools in Area Home to 20,000 Residents”⁠. Reporting on the July 21 commission votes, residents’ statements and school district letter.

  6. Fifth Street extension: October Notice of Determination⁠. City filing recording approval October 13, 2026, posted October 19.

  7. Sixth Street extension: October Notice of Determination⁠. City filing recording approval October 13, 2026, posted October 19.

  8. October 13 council agenda, reproduced by Muyni⁠. Items 18 and 19: appeals, applicant LLCs and staff recommendations.

  9. Official Highland City Council roster⁠. Councilmembers’ names and titles.⁠

Julian Lucas is a darkroom photographer, writer, and bookseller, though photography remains his primary language. He is the founder of Mirrored Society Book Shop, publisher of The Pomonan, and creator of Book-Store and Print Pomona Art Book Fair. And he will charge you $ 2.5 million for event photography.

Human Trafficking in Pomona: A Crisis Hidden in Plain Sight

Julian Lucas ©2023

When people hear “human trafficking,” they imagine something distant, another country, another city, another community. That narrative allows us to feel safe. It is also dangerously wrong! Human trafficking is happening in Pomona. It is not rare. It is not accidental. And it is not simply a criminal issue, it is the predictable result of housing instability, economic inequality, labor exploitation, and gaps in community-based services. In California, trafficking remains a persistent emergency. According to the National Human Trafficking Hotline, more than 1,700 trafficking cases were identified statewide in 2023, involving over 3,600 victims.  If we are serious about public safety and community well-being, we must stop treating trafficking as an isolated crime and recognize it as a structural crisis rooted in vulnerability.

As a Pomona resident, graduate social work student, and survivor of trafficking, I know exploitation does not begin with abduction. It begins with instability when rent consumes most of a paycheck, when youth age out of foster care without support, or when someone flees domestic violence with nowhere to go. Traffickers rarely present as strangers; they present as solutions! They offer housing, protection, employment, and stability. Over time, those promises become tools of control.

This crisis is visible in our community. Along corridors like Holt Avenue, prostitution unfolds in plain sight. Many residents see it daily. I do too. What some dismiss as “choice” is often survival shaped by trauma, poverty, and coercion! When exploitation becomes normalized on our streets, it signals deeper systemic failures in housing policy, mental health access, economic opportunity, and prevention.

Experts agree these figures likely represent only a fraction of actual cases due to underreporting, fear, immigration concerns, and distrust of institutions. Los Angeles County continues to rank among the largest hubs for labor and sex trafficking nationwide, according to the Polaris Project.

Pomona’s proximity to major transportation corridors, hotels, warehouses, and informal labor sectors increases vulnerability, especially in hospitality, domestic work, day labor, and logistics. Exploitation thrives where labor is hidden, unregulated, or dependent on silence. But statistics alone do not explain why trafficking persists. Structural conditions do.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services identifies housing instability, poverty, and prior trauma as major risk factors. Research from Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago found that nearly one in five youth experiencing homelessness report being trafficked in some form. That is not a coincidence; it is cause and effect. When stability disappears, leverage appears. When people lack options, traffickers gain power.

Pomona is already grappling with rising housing costs, visible homelessness, and economic insecurity. These challenges are not separate from trafficking; they are interconnected. When affordable housing is scarce, and wages stagnate, vulnerability grows. When trauma-informed mental health services are inaccessible, recovery becomes harder and re-exploitation more likely! When labor protections are weak, exploitation becomes normalized. Yet our response remains fragmented.

Survivors often encounter limited shelter beds, short-term services, and inconsistent case management. Legal processes can stretch for years. Funding is frequently reactive rather than preventative. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine emphasizes that effective anti-trafficking responses require coordinated, long-term, survivor-centered systems, not isolated efforts. We cannot arrest our way out of this crisis.

Law enforcement accountability is necessary, but prevention requires structural investment. Research consistently shows that access to stable housing, livable wages, healthcare, and coordinated social services reduces vulnerability to exploitation. When people have genuine stability, traffickers lose leverage.

If Pomona is serious about confronting human trafficking, city and county leaders must move beyond awareness campaigns and commit to concrete, sustained action. This means investing in long-term, trauma-informed housing so survivors have a safe place to rebuild their lives, while also implementing school-based prevention programs that educate young people about grooming and online recruitment. Educators, healthcare providers, and other frontline professionals should receive mandatory training to recognize the warning signs of trafficking and respond appropriately. At the same time, stronger labor protections and enforcement are needed to address exploitation in workplaces where trafficking often remains hidden. Finally, Pomona must support coordinated, survivor-centered service networks bringing together social services, legal aid, healthcare, and community organizations to ensure survivors receive the comprehensive support they need for long-term recovery.

These are not radical demands. They are evidence-based solutions! This is not only a moral issue. It is a public safety issue, an economic justice issue, and a community responsibility.
As someone who survived trafficking in a community where exploitation was normalized, I refuse to accept silence as the default response. Survival should not depend on luck. Prevention should not depend on chance. Pomona deserves a coordinated strategy grounded in evidence, compassion, and accountability. The time for passive concern has passed. The time for coordinated, community-wide action is now.

Sarai Martinez is a graduate student at the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work and a Pomona resident.

Is Anti-Zionism, Anti Semitism?

Photography Courtesy Ahmed Abu Hameeda

By Gilbert Aguirre
Published 10/19/2023 | 7:22am PST
Photography Ahmed Abu Hameeda

NOTE to readers: This is a reprint of an article that The Pomonan printed a year and a half ago about what was happening not only on the University of California at Riverside campus, but on college campuses across the country. Now, here we are some twenty months later, and the question Is Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism? is just as pertinent - perhaps more so -  than it was back then. With the Israel-Hamas War raging in the Middle East, universities including Harvard, Stanford, Arizona State, Tufts, to name a few, are erupting over this issue. The Pomonan asks its readers to reconsider this issue in light of recent events. This opinion piece was written by former UCR student Gilbert Aguirre.


An email sent to UCR students from the UCR Life email list on May 27, 2021, caught this recipient’s attention with the subject heading: Anti Semitism: then and now. Instead of providing information on antisemitism, an abhorrent form of discrimination which has no place in civil society, the piece intended to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism and erase the existence and justified resistance of Palestinian people. 

This is my critique of the interview of UCR Jewish Studies professor Michael Alexander, and his interviewer Omar Shamout, for the disingenuous framing of critiques of the apartheid, settler-colonial state of Israel as antisemitic. Their discussion can be read here (1).

In the article’s opening lines, anti-Zionists, educated on what anti-Zionism and antisemitism is, are made aware that the framing of this article is entirely disingenuous— the working definition of antisemitism in the article comes from the Anti-Defamation League, which classifies antisemitism as being “based on age-old stereotypes and myths that target Jews as a people, their religious practices and beliefs, or the Jewish State of Israel” (2). 

I will repeat that antisemitism, like all forms of prejudice, is absolutely abhorrent and must be destroyed by any means necessary. However, in framing critiques of Israel as antisemitic, activists fighting for justice in Palestine are silenced, as the Anti-Defamation League’s definition of antisemitism functions to quell dissent of Israel. 

Shamout frames his interview of Alexander as a response to “data compiled by the Anti-Defamation League [which] shows an increase in violent attacks, vandalism and harassment of Jews in the U.S., around the world, and online, since fighting broke out between Israel and Gaza’s militant rulers Hamas earlier this month.” Shamout, in analyzing this framing, identifies that actual antisemitic attacks are being lumped in with “vandalism and harassment” - meaning that vandalizing the phrase “Free Palestine'' on a wall or critiquing Israel on twitter would  qualify as antisemitic under this definition. 

Again, critiquing Israel is not antisemitic, and this framing portrays a fictitious world in which critiques of Israel have the same material impacts on Jewish people as violent hate crimes committed by white supremacists.

Additionally, others have contested the data compiled by the Anti-Defamation League. In an analytical article published by Jewish Currents, a magazine committed to leftist Jewish discourse, Mari Cohen questions and analyzes the data and methods that contribute to the ADL’s report. Cohen is concerned by the weaponizing of anti-Zionism as antisemitism, and her analysis is critical to the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism contributes to misinformation and skewed data— which she states that the ADL’s report exemplifies (3).

My critique also includes the constant erasure of Palestinian people and Palestine as a sovereign state. In the quotation provided above, Shamout makes his first attempt, through the phrase “fighting broke out between Israel and Gaza’s militant rulers Hamas—“ not Israel and Palestine, not the Israeli Defense Force and Palestinian’s resistance movement, not Israel’s occupying force and the Palestinian resistance; Shamout erases Palestine entirely, as if it were a dirty word.

Shamout proceeds in the next paragraph to use the problematic framing that critique of Israel equates to antisemitism when he asserts, “while hatred toward Jews is sadly nothing new, these incidents are framed against the backdrop of recent Middle East violence, a surge in pro-Palestinian sentiment,” which implies that Palestinian existence is itself a problem.

So I ask, what exactly does the term “pro-Palestinian sentiment” imply? What makes “pro-Palestinian sentiment,” in other words defense of Palestinian’s right to exist and resist violence from the state of Israel, support hatred towards Jewish people? Would the international movements and demonstrations against police violence after the murder of George Floyd be considered “pro-Black sentiment”? Why is Palestinian existence framed as a problem?

Shamout seems to suggest that anti-Zionism is separate from antisemitism when he asks Alexander, “Many of the recent antisemitic incidents have used the term ‘Zionism.’ Can you explain what Zionism meant historically, what it means today, and how the term has been used by racists to target Jews?” To which Alexander gives a bloated, incoherent response that doesn’t state the clear intentions of Zionism, which is a colonial project whose modern conception was proposed and propagated by Theodor Herzl (4).

Zionism, a political position, is framed by Alexander as, “simply Jewish nationalism: the desire for the Jewish people to have and hold their own state,” ignoring that this political position hinges upon the colonization of Palestine, and the genocide of its native occupants. Alexander seems to support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians when he states, “Let’s not forget, the logic of self-determination implies the cleansing of everybody else in order to achieve a majority. Cleanse or be cleansed. The logic is stark, but to date it remains the main means by which nation states are formed.”

So I ask, how is it that  UCR News published this violent, genocidal speech that it circulated to its student body? How can a professor be unashamed of giving a defense of what he himself refers to as “the cleansing of everybody else in order to achieve a majority”?

Shamout, expecting an answer to the question, “So it’s fair to say that not all critics of Zionism should be cast as antisemitic?” instead receives another bloated, asinine response where Alexander further defends genocide. Alexander proposes a both-sides defense of genocide in his next monologue, by skirting the question, as he states, “Zionism is as legitimate and as problematic as any other nationalism.”(5)

To this, I argue that nationalism against an oppressive force is legitimate. Nationalism against colonizing forces is what has historically motivated the Cuban Revolution, the Irish Republican Army’s resistance against British colonial rule, and Palestinians’ fight against the Israeli government - to name a few. In the case of Palestine, Israel has  actively pushed Palestinians out of their homes, murdered Palestinian children, and bombed its densely populated territories (6). This kind of nationalism is quite different from the kind of nationalism that seeks to oppress another group while expanding the nation’s borders in disregard to human rights and international law.

Alexander continues, “it is problematic in the sense that having formed an ethnic majority, Israel turns around and polices its remaining minorities.” As a reminder, the minorities Alexander refuses to name are Palestinians. Additionally, the Palestinians Alexander refuses to name have only become minorities as a result of Israeli occupation, a modern project that ironically results in some Palestinians being older than the illegitimate state of Israel.

Further Alexander states, “Nearly all majorities do this. This past year, we all saw once again how the American policing of minorities is no exception. The problem of minorities is systemic and is not particular to Israel or to the U.S. Yet that does not excuse Israel from the need to acknowledge and cease the violence of its nation building.”

Implicitly, excusing is exactly what Alexander is doing. To both-sides and what-about state violence via settler-colonialism and white supremacist policing in both Israel and the United States is a disingenuous deflection that attempts to justify the violence of Israel. Alexander is saying— Yeah, it sucks, but that’s just how it goes. By putting on an apolitical mask, in this case and in any other case, it is very clear that the person engaging in the both-sides / what-about argument is on the side of the oppressor.

In the last two sentences of his pro-genocide diatribe, Alexander attempts  to answer Shamout's question on whether or not all critiques of Zionism equate to antisemitism even though, thus far, he has shown a clear aversion to answering any question directly. He states, “I would say this is the great moral imperative and conundrum of the Jewish people in our time. Still, it is a conundrum that rightly should be admitted and shared by hundreds of nations and national movements.” Again, Alexander’s answer is an asinine non-answer that serves to conflate all Jewish people with the ideology of Zionism. It is all in service of Alexander’s personal political agenda.

At the interview’s conclusion, Shamout asks Alexander, “what do you think are the best ways to combat antisemitism in our communities, both physical and online?” to which Alexander does not speak to antisemitism, but once again to the prospects and effects of propagating Zionism without consequence. His opening statement to this sentence is, again, incoherent, so I’ve done the work of decoding it. He states, “I would need to expand the purview of the mandate to include the elimination of Islamophobia and the denial of Palestinian rights to a free and self-determined state.” This thirty-one word sentence means almost nothing, but serves to frame the Israeli occupation of Palestine as a religious issue.

Contrary to what Alexander is propagating, there are Palestinians of Muslim faith, Christian faith, Jewish faith, and atheists (7)— keep in mind the question Shamout asked concerned how to combat antisemitism, but Alexander’s monologue concerns Zionism.

In the following sentence, Alexander reveals his true intentions as he states, “it would also have to include complete civil rights for Palestinians and other minorities who are Israeli citizens.” By granting Palestinians citizenship status, he is finally revealing his agenda as a one state solution Zionist. Under the proposed civil rights, Palestinians won’t have their land, and they would be citizens of the illegitimate state of Israel that imposed itself onto the Palestinian people.

Ultimately, this interview published by UCR News is unacceptable in its disingenuous framing of a human rights issue that affects the lives of real people, and has affected the lives of Palestinian students at UCR. In framing critiques of Zionism as antisemitic, and speaking almost exclusively to Zionism in an interview which is supposedly about antisemitism, Alexander constructs an argument that, within the argument’s fabrication, cannot be critiqued without being antisemitic.

Furthermore, the answers Alexander gives are so bloated and incoherent, I don’t understand how he is a professor at UCR, as I’ve had more coherent and substantive conversations with my five-year-old brother, who would stand firmly against genocide if knowledgable enough to understand it— rather than providing  a both-sides / what-about defense so that his in-group can commit atrocities without critique.

To be explicit, my use of “in-group” is not an allusion to an antisemitic conspiracy, but a direct contention of the conflation of critiques of Zionism as antisemitic— a clear and obvious disingenuous framing that uses identity as a shield and weaponizes actual hate towards Jewish people, which has material consequences and thus should not be minimized to serve a political agenda.

,

Fight For Your Right to Programming

,

Photography Courtesy Julian Lucas ©2013

By Anthony Solorzano
Photography Julian Lucas
Published August 1, 2023 12:15 Pm

This might be too much information for you to handle right from the start, but when you have to go, YOU HAVE TO GO. A few years ago, I found myself in a situation where my business couldn’t wait until I got home. An emergency pitstop at Ganesha Park in Pomona was imminent. 

After quickly parking, I dashed out the car and ran towards the restroom. On my way in, I exchanged head nods with a teenage boy loitering outside the restroom. Once inside the restroom, I encountered a conundrum: Is my emergency worthy of a public restroom with no stall, only half a wall covering the restroom and a few squares of toilet paper? 

As I contemplated my situation, the teenager approached me. He introduced himself by extending his hand for a handshake and called himself Henry. After acknowledging his presence, Henry asked if there was anything he could do for me in a very objectifying manner. His eyes swept me from head to toe as he licked his own lips.

It's an uncomfortable situation that reminds me of how much the city of Pomona has failed its youth.

During my teenage years, I had the opportunity to play soccer and be involved in activities that kept me from the streets and occupied. I played soccer until I started working at the age of 16. 

When playing in the Sunday leagues, the popularity of soccer in the city was evident in numerous public parks. Regardless of which park you found yourself at on a Sunday, you would come across teams of various age groups, ranging from 5 years old to 30-something year olds, celebrating a goal.

Throughout my adult years, and especially since the pandemic, I have noticed a significant decline in the number of Sunday soccer leagues in the city, along with other types of teen programming. Currently, the city offers soccer and basketball programming for kids between the age of 4 to 7-years-old. The only options for teenagers are limited to tennis and music classes available for individuals aged 8 through 17 years.

Meanwhile, four private baseball leagues also operate within parks in the city.

According to the Gente De Pomona Equity Report, from 2021 to 2023, the city experienced an increase of $20,412,383 in their general fund expenditures. The majority of this funding is allocated to the Pomona Police Department, which has seen $15 million dollars increase since 2021.

Instead of prioritizing investments in youth and creating programs specifically for teenagers, the city places a higher emphasis on policing. According to the same report by Gente de Pomona, during the period of January 2019 through December 2021, it was found that 44% of the individuals arrested for gang-related crimes were youth and transitional age youth.

“Money for parks and [recreation]. That has been an issue for a long time,” explains Garey High School student Isabella Luna Tovar. “More than half the money [the city gets], it's going to the police, because crime rates are so high and everything, and that's understandable. But, they are so high because kids have nothing to do.”

Isabella became aware of the lack of teen programming in the city when she started playing soccer. After her high school season ended, she embarked on a search for leagues within the city by seeking recommendations from friends. Unfortunately, instead of discovering a league operated by the city,  Isabella had to rely on unorganized private leagues where she often feels  deceived due to the lack of effective communication.

“It took me a while to pay, because it's a random person,” explains Isabella. “I paid 50 dollars a couple of weeks ago and I still haven't gotten a uniform.”

When the city does offer an opportunity for teenagers to participate in their desired sport, it often makes it challenging for them to access it without adult supervision. The city’s requirement to rent out a goal post at a park can be costly and necessitates the use of a credit card. In a community where most of the parents work overtime, having an adult to accompany them is not always feasible.

“The city attempts to counter our work, they are trying to give themselves credit for just ridiculous things,” states the co-founder of Gente Jesus Sanchez. “Under the scope of youth funding, you'll see Santa Cop. You’ll see a school resource officer. These are all our funds that go to our youth.” 

“It's misleading. They’re trying to claim something they’re not. There's no strategic plan to work with young people in this city that's effective. There's no [collaboration] that the city is behind that's leading us into the future and that's a problem.”

The citizens of Pomona are joining forces to take matters into their own hands by supporting an initiative called “ Pomona Kids First.” The initiative aims to allocate 10% of the city’s budget towards creating programming specifically for children throughout the city.

If the initiative is successfully passed, it will become the second largest department in the city of Pomona, trailing behind the Pomona Police department and Public Works. 

Anthony Solorzano II was born and raised in Pomona, California. He writes about the Dodgers and the LA Galaxy to overcome the anxiety the teams cause him.

Julian Lucas, is a photographer, a purveyor of books, and writer in training, but mostly a photographer, but don’t ever ask him to take photos of events. Julian is also the owner and founder of Mirrored Society Book Shop.

Abuse of Power, Lies and Videotape

It is well past time to call out the Pomona City Council for their egregious behavior during a City Council meeting nearly four months ago on February, 6, 2023.

By Julian Lucas

Published 06/06/2023 9:11 Am PST

Updated 06/06/2023
Last original paragraph retracted.


Pomona’s Mayor Tim Sandoval lost control of his meeting, and failed to stop his fellow Council Member, Robert S. Torres, son of Congresswoman Norma Torres and current candidate for the California State Assembly, from berating a member of the public from the dais.

The incident occurred during the beginning of the meeting on the agenda item listed vaguely as “ MAYOR / COUNCIL MEMBER COMMUNICATIONS. Reports on conferences, seminars, and regional meetings attended by Mayor and City Council and announcements of upcoming events, and also items for future City Council consideration as requested by Mayor or Members of the City Council.” 

No one in the public could have known from reading the agenda that this was the time that the Council would address two recent events within the last couple of weeks that involved the murder of three teens in the area: 

  1. On Saturday night, January 28th,  a 17-year-old Pomona boy and a man were killed in a shooting at a house party in Pomona. 

  2. A few nights later, on Thursday, February 2nd, a 15-year-old boy was killed in a shooting at Montclair Plaza. A second shooting victim was wounded. At least four people have been arrested as suspects in connection with the incident at Montclair Plaza shootings. The Montclair Police Department said detectives served search warrants in Pomona and arrested three suspects: two 20-year-old men and a 16-year-old boy.

Understandably, emotions ran high discussing these youth deaths and arrests in the recent weeks. Mayor Sandoval issued a call for “all community members to come together to bring forth change,” and Council Member Nora Garcia applauded several organizations in Pomona who have directed their efforts to helping teens - Gente Organizada among them. Even Council Member Torres, in the first part of his speech, spoke in favor of the organizations in the City who worked with teens and spoke of the need for the City Council to “engage the community” to do more to solve its problems.

However, after Torres announced that he had been instrumental in working with the City to secure a 4 million dollar federal grant for La Casita Teen Center at Palomares Park, he launched into what can only be characterized as a personal verbal attack on Jesus Sanchez, founder and former Executive Director of Gente Organizada, who now serves as the organization’s Economic Justice Director. 

In the past, Sanchez has been an outspoken critic of public officials who have used violent incidents such as the aforementioned as an opportunity to expand police presence. He has maintained that it is the wrong approach to the problem - insisting that the best allocation of resources are those that address the root of the problem. In the past few years, Gente Organizada has published several reports that have pointed out the inequities of arrests and incarcerations in the city. 

Sanchez had not yet spoken in this meeting, but Torres took exception to the fact that Sanchez shook his head at some of his comments. 

Torres’ diatribe against Sanchez began by warning members of the public that “we have individuals here who I call divisive individuals, who represent themselves, and they don’t represent this community. And the bottom line is each one of the City Council members here have been elected to represent this community whether you like it or not, Sir.”  Here, Torres began addressing Gente Organizada’s Jesus Sanchez directly, continuing: “And the sad part about it is this - we need more police presence - whether you like it or not. We need to hire more police on the street.” 

Torres’ comment about expanding police presence elicited a quiet rumble of dissent from the audience. 

Mayor Sandoval attempted to interrupt Torres, saying “Ro-, Ro-, Ro-,” but Torres continued: “the fact that you have a few officers patrolling the streets at one time is flat-out dangerous. And if you talk to the residents of Pomona . . . they want more investment in public safety. And . . . If you knock on that door, Jesus, (Here, Torres addresses Sanchez directly, while knocking 4 times on the dais)  and you tell them to defund the police . . . they will throw you out.”

This is the part of the meeting when Sanchez, from the audience, directed an expletive at Torres. It is easy to pin culpability on the person who is yelling and swearing in the audience, but upon examination, Sanchez was provoked. It is not the job of public officials to incite the audience in the way that Torres did.

From that time on, it became a cacophony of voices. Other members of the audience and City staff members chimed in.  At various junctures, Mayor Sandoval tried to address both Torres and Sanchez, by repeatedly calling them out by their first names. Sandoval also called out several times to Police Chief Ellis. 

From the audience, Sanchez yelled that he was angry that Council Member Torres took the topic of the teen deaths only to turn it around and make it about him. Sanchez said, “that’s the message here tonight. All of you haven’t done shit. And the kids are fucking dying.” 

The Mayor’s response was: “I want him removed,” and called for the Police Chief to do so.

Both staff and the Mayor called for a break, but even after the Mayor stood to leave the dais in order to walk toward the audience, and even while he was walking behind Council Member Torres and some of the other Council Members, Torres continued to taunt Sanchez: “Dude [he said to Jesus Sanchez] . . . Don’t be flipping people off. Don’t represent yourself like that. And, if you are the type of person who likes to dish it out, try to be the type of person that can take it.” 

It’s been reported that after speaking with the Pomona Chief of Police Ellis, Jesus Sanchez removed himself from Council chambers. 

When Gente Organizada’s Jesus Sanchez was escorted out, Mayor Sandoval told the remaining members of the organization that they should ‘keep him in check since he represents all of you”. When they replied that Council Member Torres represents the entire Pomona City Council and the Mayor should ‘keep his own Council Members in check, the Mayor disagreed and said that Council Member Torres “represents himself.” The double standard was definitely in play that night at the Council meeting.

On the original videotape, Torres’ last comment to Sanchez is audible, but shortly after, the videotape is muted for the next 7 minutes or so. During this time, the Mayor is seen on screen, speaking to several individuals including staff and security officers, at least one member in the audience, along with several other Council Members.

However, the official ‘scrubbed’ version of the videotape, does not include Torres’ last comments to Jesus, nor does it show the muted film footage of all that ensued during the break. 

While there are no laws that require the City to show the full tape, it appears shady when the city’s original tape was specifically edited for public review. This raises the question of transparency. How can city council members including the mayor campaign and include transparency as a core value, but take time to edit something so minuscule as a city council meeting not being butterflies and unicorns as they often imply.

In addition, while it appears no laws were broken, a public meeting where the Mayor allows a member of the Council to single out, target and slander one member of the public reflects poorly on the entire City Council. It is the job of the Mayor to keep the individual members of the Council in check. At times during the meeting, the Mayor did try to interrupt Council Member Torres, but Torres disregarded him. This should be addressed. There is a risk here that this kind of action could become the norm, with any Council Member choosing to ignore the Chair. In this case chaos, rather than order, would rule. 

The Mayor needs to reaffirm his role to the Council as Chair, and the Council needs to reaffirm that they are a body dedicated to representing and making decisions on behalf of the public - rather than attacking them. 

The kind of behavior, exhibited on February 6th, could very well have had a chilling effect on public participation. No member of the public wants to feel like they could be potentially singled out and publicly ridiculed as a consequence for their attendance at a public meeting.

The appropriate remedy is for the Mayor to apologize to the public directly and schedule a meeting with the Council to discuss and adopt norms and protocols for public meetings. Currently, it does not appear that Pomona has anything on the books concerning such for its Council Members, other than referring to Robert’s Rules of Order. That said, there's an existing version of Robert's Rules  recommended by League of California Cities called Rosenberg's Rules of Order, which states that:

"The chair should always ensure that debate and discussion of an agenda item focuses on the item and the policy in question, not the  personalities of the members of the body. Debate on policy is healthy, debate on personalities is not. The chair has the right to cut off  discussion that is too personal, is too loud, or is too crude."

While this particular rule applies to the conduct between Council Members, it would seem like this rule would apply to the conduct between Council Members and the public as well.

No meeting should begin with elected officials taking jabs at people. It needs to be made very clear that Council Members should only speak directly to members of the public if they are seeking clarification on issues that the members of the public addressed in their comments during the time allotted for public participation. It is not the job of an elected official to berate, argue or debate the public from the dais. The job of an elected official to take on the role of active listener - it is not always easy, but officials were elected to respond to the public's concerns.

It is important that the Council determine clear requirements for agenda items that include more specificity - preventing abuse of the topic in the future. It’s very hard for the Mayor to call out ‘point of order’ when the topic has not been defined.

Ordinarily, cities and school districts begin meetings with recognition of typically positive things that are happening in the district. This sets a positive tone for the meeting. No one should be surprised about the topic. This means that the agenda should be specific enough so that members of the public can decide beforehand whether they want to speak on a topic.

Once the Council passes a set of protocols or norms, these should be posted so that the public can hold the Council accountable. The City of Pomona, though a fairly large City, lacks a newspaper that consistently reports on its Council meetings. In lieu of this kind of reporting, it is particularly necessary that the Council have systems in place to hold themselves accountable to the public who elected them in the first place.

The bottom line is politicians should not be attempting to catapult their careers over the deaths of two Black kids.

The Pomonan delayed writing about this incident out of respect for the families, friends and loved ones of the victims, and offers sincere condolences to all who have been adversely-affected by these deaths.

Download transcript of the Pomona City Council Member Robert Torres’ speech here

Julian Lucas, is a photographer, a purveyor of books, and writer in training, but mostly a photographer, but don’t ever ask him to take photos of events. Julian is also the owner and founder of Mirrored Society Book Shop.

Critique of Zionist Propaganda

By Gilbert Aguirre
Published 2/23/2022 6:00Am PST
Photography Ahmed Abu Hameeda

An email sent to UCR students from the UCR Life email list on May 27, 2021, caught recipient’s attention with the subject heading: Antisemitism then and now. Instead of providing information on antisemitism, an abhorrent form of discrimination which has no place in civil society, the piece intended to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism and erase the existence and justified resistance of Palestinian people. This is my critique of the interview of UCR Jewish Studies professor Michael Alexander, and his interviewer Omar Shamout, for the disingenuous framing of critiques of the apartheid, settler-colonial state of Israel as antisemitic. Their discussion can be read here (1).

In the article’s opening lines, anti-Zionists educated on what anti-Zionism and antisemitism are, are made aware that the framing of this article is entirely disingenuous— the working definition of antisemitism in the article comes from the Anti-Defamation League, which classifies antisemitism as being “based on age-old stereotypes and myths that target Jews as a people, their religious practices and beliefs, or the Jewish State of Israel” (2). I will repeat that antisemitism, like all forms of prejudice, is absolutely abhorrent and must be destroyed by any means necessary. However, in framing critiques of Israel as antisemitic, activists fighting for justice in Palestine are silenced, as the Anti-Defamation League’s definition of antisemitism functions to quell dissent of Israel. Shamout proceeds to frame the purpose of his interview with Alexander as a response to “data compiled by the Anti-Defamation League [which] shows an increase in violent attacks, vandalism and harassment of Jews in the U.S., around the world, and online, since fighting broke out between Israel and Gaza’s militant rulers Hamas earlier this month.” So, in analyzing this framing, actual antisemitic attacks are being lumped in with “vandalism and harassment,” keeping in mind that the working definition of antisemitism in Shamout’s piece includes critique of Israel as antisemitic, vandalizing the term “Free Palestine” on a wall, or critiquing Israel on twitter would also qualify as antisemitic. Again, critiquing Israel is not antisemitic, and this framing portrays a fictitious world in which critiques of Israel have the same material impacts on Jewish people as violent hate crimes committed by white supremacists.

Additionally, the data compiled by the ADL reporting an increase in antisemitism is contested. In an analytical article published by Jewish Currents, a magazine committed to leftist Jewish discourse, Mari Cohen questions and analyzes the data and methods that contribute to the ADL’s report. Cohen, like many leftists, is concerned by the weaponizing of anti-Zionism as antisemitism, and her analysis contributes greatly to how the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism contributes to misinformation and skewed data— which the ADL’s report exemplifies (3).

Another part of my critique will include the constant erasure of Palestinian people and Palestine as a sovereign state. In the quotation provided above, Shamout makes his first attempt, through the phrase “fighting broke out between Israel and Gaza’s militant rulers Hamas—“ not Israel and Palestine, not the Israeli Defense Force and Palestinian’s resistance movement, not Israel’s occupying force and the Palestinian resistance; Shamout erases Palestine entirely, as if it were a dirty word. Shamout proceeds in the next paragraph to use the problematic framing that critique of Israel equates to antisemitism to assert, “while hatred toward Jews is sadly nothing new, these incidents are framed against the backdrop of recent Middle East violence, a surge in pro-Palestinian sentiment,” which implies that Palestinian existence is itself a problem. So I ask, what exactly does the term “pro-Palestinian sentiment” imply? What makes “pro-Palestinian sentiment,” in other words defense of Palestinian’s right to exist and resist violence from the state of Israel, support hatred towards Jewish people? Would the international movements and demonstrations against police violence after the murder of George Floyd be considered “pro-Black sentiment”? Why is Palestinian existence framed as a problem?

Shamout almost comes to see that anti-Zionism is separate from antisemitism when he asks Alexander, “Many of the recent antisemitic incidents have used the term ‘Zionism.’ Can you explain what Zionism meant historically, what it means today, and how the term has been used by racists to target jews?” To which Alexander gives a bloated, incoherent response that doesn’t state the clear intentions of Zionism, which is a colonial project whose modern conception was proposed and propagated by Theodor Herzl (4).

Zionism, a political position, is framed by Alexander as, “simply Jewish nationalism: the desire for the Jewish people to have and hold their own state,” ignoring that this political position hinges upon the colonization of Palestine, and the genocide of its native occupants. Alexander seems to support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as he states, “Let’s not forget, the logic of self-determination implies the cleansing of everybody else in order to achieve a majority. Cleanse or be cleansed. The logic is stark, but to date it remains the main means by which nation states are formed.” So I ask, how did UCR News allow this violent, genocidal speech to get published to its student body? How can a professor be unashamed of giving a defense of what he himself refers to as “the cleansing of everybody else in order to achieve a majority”?

Shamout, expecting an answer to the question “So it’s fair to say that not all critiques of Zionism should be cast as antisemitic?” receives another bloated, asinine response where Alexander goes to further defend genocide. Alexander proposes a both-sides defense of genocide in his next monologue, again not answering the question, as he states, “Zionism is as legitimate and as problematic as any other nationalism”— to this point I argue that nationalism against an oppressive force is legitimate (5). Nationalism against colonizing forces has been used historically by Cubans proud of their nation’s decolonial revolution, the Irish Republican Army’s resistance against British colonial rule, and Palestinians’ fight against the Israeli government that actively pushes Palestinians out of their homes, murders Palestinian children, and bombs densely populated territories (6).That nationalism is quite separate from nationalism that seeks to oppress another group, and expand the nation’s borders, disregarding human rights and international law— which is precisely what Palestinians have been resisting since the birth of Zionism. Alexander continues, “it is problematic in the sense that having formed an ethnic majority, Israel turns around and polices its remaining minorities.” As a reminder, the minorities Alexander refuses to name are Palestinians. Additionally, the Palestinians Alexander refuses to name have only become minorities as a result of Israeli occupation, a modern project that ironically results in some Palestinians being older than the illegitimate state of Israel. “Nearly all majorities do this. This past year, we all saw once again how the American policing of minorities is no exception. The problem of minorities is systemic and is not particular to Israel or to the U.S. Yet that does not excuse Israel from the need to acknowledge and cease the violence of its nation building.” Although implicitly, excusing is exactly what Alexander is doing. To both-sides and what-about state violence via settler-colonialism and white supremacist policing in both Israel and the United States is a disingenuous deflection that attempts to justify the violence of Israel. Alexander is saying— Yeah, it sucks, but that’s just how it goes. By putting on an apolitical mask, in this case and in any other case, it is very clear that the person engaging in the both-sides / what-about argument is on the side of the oppressor. In the last two sentences of his pro-genocide diatribe, it appears Alexander returns to answer Shamout's question on whether or not all critiques of Zionism equate to antisemitism, I am not sure because Alexander has thus far shown a clear aversion to answering any question directly. He states, “I would say this is the great moral imperative and conundrum of the Jewish people in our time. Still, it is a conundrum that rightly should be admitted and shared by hundreds of nations and national movements.” Again, an asinine non-answer that serves to conflate all Jewish people with the ideology of Zionism, to serve Alexander’s personal political agenda. 


At the interview’s conclusion, Shamout asks Alexander, “what do you think are the best ways to combat antisemitism in our communities, both physical and online?” to which Alexander does not speak to antisemitism, but once again to the prospects and effects of propagating Zionism without consequence. His opening statement to this sentence is, again, incoherent, so I’ve done the work of decoding it. He states, “I would need to expand the purview of the mandate to include the elimination of Islamophobia and the denial of Palestinian rights to a free and self-determined state.” This thirty-one word sentence means almost nothing, but serves to frame the Israeli occupation of Palestine as a religious issue. Contrary to what Alexander is propagating, there are Palestinians of Muslim faith, Christian faith, Jewish faith, and atheists (7)— keep in mind the question Shamout asked concerned how to combat antisemitism, but Alexander’s monologue concerns Zionism. In the following sentence, Alexander reveals his true intentions as he states, “it would also have to include complete civil rights for Palestinians and other minorities who are Israeli citizens.” By granting Palestinians citizenship status, he is finally revealing his agenda as a one state solution Zionist. Under the proposed civil rights, Palestinians won’t have their land, and they would be citizens of the illegitimate state of Israel that imposed itself unto the Palestinian people.

Ultimately, this interview published by UCR News is unacceptable in its disingenuous framing of a human rights issue that affects the lives of real people, and has affected the lives of Palestinian students at UCR. In framing critiques of Zionism as antisemitic, and speaking almost exclusively to Zionism in an interview which is supposedly about antisemitism, Alexander constructs an argument that, within the argument’s fabrication, cannot be critiqued without being antisemitic. Furthermore, the answers Alexander gives are so bloated and incoherent, I don’t understand how he is a professor at UCR, as I’ve had more coherent and substantive conversations with my five year old brother, who would stand firmly against genocide if knowledgable enough to understand it— not provide a both-sides / what-about defense so that his in-group can commit atrocities without critique. To be explicit, my use of “in-group” is not an allusion to an antisemitic conspiracy, but a direct contention of the conflation of critiques of Zionism as antisemitic— a clear and obvious disingenuous framing that uses identity as a shield and weaponizes actual hate towards Jewish people, which has material consequences and thus should not be minimized to serve a political agenda.

LINKS