No ‘Understanding’ For Cop Killers

By: Eli Verschleiser

On the morning of July 7, Sgt. Michael Smith of the Dallas Police Department kissed his 9-year-old daughter Caroline goodbye as he headed off to his shift, and a terrible thought struck him.

“What if this is the last time you ever kiss me or hug me?” he asked, according to Caroline’s later account to CBS News. It was the result of some ominous intuition because, as we know all too well, it was indeed the last time. Michael and 13 other cops were gunned down on the streets of Dallas that day while keeping order and managing traffic at a protest rally. Michael was one of five who would never come home from the ambush.

We would barely have time to process the horror when it happened again: Three more would die just 10 days later in Baton Rogue, La. at the hands of another crazed gunman, with three more injured. Both shootings were ostensibly tied to anger over recent police killings of unarmed black men that are under investigation.

President Obama rightly declared that the murders were “cowardly and reprehensible”, while then declaring that there is “no justification” for the killing of cops. “They right no wrongs. They advance no causes.”

Why even present the other side of an argument that should not exist in the first place? Who believes this was justified or part of a cause? That there is some shred of logic and purpose to a war on police?

Few people, as far as public statements. But you could hear many interviewed in the streets, and many commentators walking a rhetorical tightrope, with words to the effect of “I don’t support the shootings” – wait for it – “But…”

In a July 19 USA Today column, Tavis Smiley urges us to “listen to the Baton Rouge killer.” He writes “How many more disaffected black men have to self-radicalize before we take their claims seriously? … We can call them lone wolves, deranged, cowardly and reprehensible until we’re blue in the face. But you know what I call them and many others in their generation? Discontented. Demonized. Disavowed.”

In doing so, he ascribes some blame for the violence to society, rather than hold the killers entirely liable for their actions.

Comedian and HBO host Bill Maher went even further, saying that he does not condone the shootings, “but I do understand it … How many videos can you see? How many years can go by when this is going on when black people are brutally assaulted? … I’m surprised somebody did not fire back sooner.”

It is gracious of Mr. Maher not to support the wanton murder of a human being simply by virtue of his or her occupation and uniform. It would be difficult, after all, to rationalize that this is any better than accepting the murder of a person based on race, religion, national origin or some other trait.

But shooting “back” means returning fire while under fire. Hours later, in cold blood, in another city, with uninvolved people is not revenge or retaliation or rebellion.

It is not a phase in a cycle of violence, no more than killing office workers in San Bernardino or night club patrons in Orlando or joggers in the Boston marathon is “retaliation” for any government-sponsored violence by troops or jet planes or drone strikes or American policy in another part of the world. It’s just murder. Period.

I understand the anger caused by incidents of questionable or blatantly unacceptable conduct by police, and the tendency of officers in such cases to get off scot free. Successful prosecutions seem to be rare, leading to a heated debate.

But if the shooter in Dallas (I will not mention the killers’ names as they deserve no publicity) was so concerned about the misdeeds of cops in St. Paul, Minn., and Baton Rouge, La., why did he attack cops in Dallas who were protecting the rights of protesters?

And why did the shooter in Baton Rogue target a black cop, Montrell Jackson? None of the 19 cops involved had any connection to the incidents that touched off the protests.

Rational people around the world address grievances through peaceful activism, sometimes civil disobedience, and this has moved governments to action, toppled walls and dictators and forced the passage of just laws. Indiscriminate assassination and ambush cannot lead to anything constructive.

The killers of these cops each had a history of dysfunction and erratic behavior that predates the incidents in Louisiana and Minnesota. If society is at all to blame, it is for the notoriety we give mass shooters in the media — and sometimes excessive analysis of their motives — coupled with ridiculously easy access to guns. Their acts were nothing more than wanton murder by unstable people seeking to link their homicidal urges to a cause in order to be celebrated as a hero.

Let’s not elevate them by using their crimes and the words “justifiable” in the same sentence.

Originally Published: The Huffington Post

‘Stargate’ Does Not Make Trump An Anti-Semite

By: Eli Verschleiser

The trouble with politics in the social media age is that the need to take fullest advantage of this massive, free platform for connecting and promoting ideas becomes so powerful that it often obscures good common sense. A candidate who is not Donald Trump, with his temperament and spontaneity, would have been undone by this a long time ago. I won’t list all of his controversial tweets here, but suffice it to say he’s an equal opportunity and bipartisan offender with remarks about Hillary Clinton, his Republican opponents, climate change, immigrants, fellow celebrities and more. Even when he tries to say something positive, as in the case of his Cinco de Mayo message featuring a taco bowl, he gets hammered. But Trump seems to eat bad publicity for breakfast, a larger than life figure who somehow defies convention by taking hits from the media and numerous other public critics and emerging politically stronger.

That will likely be the case following the recent dust-up, in which an anti-Hillary meme, reportedly tied to a neo-Nazi message board, found its way into the Donald’s Twitter feed. It features, as you have undoubtedly heard, a Magen David star with the words “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever,” superimposed over a picture of cash.

Yes, the tweet is may be offensive, and yes it may have been intended as a subliminal message that the Democratic nominee, former New York senator and former secretary of state is a tool of Jewish money as the source of her corruption. It may have been bad judgment to use it rather than a campaign generated attack on Hillary, but the ironically low-budget campaign seems to be strapped for talent these days.

Trump at first deleted the Tweet, replacing it with a doctored starless image, but later doubled down and said the original could easily have been a sheriff’s star rather than a religious symbol. And then silly season really began, when the campaign showed a Disney book with a similar star on the cover. If they’re not anti-Semitic, he argued, neither am I.

As having done business with the Donald, I am certain he is not even close to being anti-Semitic. There were more Jewish religious individuals around his office than in a local synagogue. 

L-R Donald Trump & Eli Verschleiser (2005)

Throughout his meteoric rise in this election cycle Trump has evoked comparisons to Hitler. Google their names and you’ll find pages of discussion on this topic, with most saying the comparison is egregious (I agree), even if his tactics may evoke elements of Third Reich populism. So it was only a matter of time before he was accused of Antisemitism.

The shoe does not fit. It’s not just that Trump has a Jewish son-in-law and a daughter who converted, and Jewish members of his campaign.The guy responsible for the tweet, he declared, has a Jewish wife

Trump has built his success in a city in which it’s pretty difficult to navigate the business landscape without dealing with Jewish peers, and in all the decades he’s been on the real estate scene none has ever publicly accused him of prejudice. I recall an episode of “The Apprentice,” Trump’s signature NBC reality show, in which he defended the right of an Orthodox Jewish contestant to observe a Jewish holiday rather than participate in a scheduled group project. He counseled the other contestants to accept that this was a reality of the business world and they should learn to adapt.

Many of Trump’s critics in this matter are sincere, understandably offended by the tweet and his ambiguity about its message that is so clear to others. The Anti-Defamation League’s national director, Jonathan Greenblatt scoffed at the Disney comparison. “Connecting the Star of David to money and politicians is intended to invoke anti-Semitic stereotypes,” he told Buzzfeed News.

“I wish he would bring the same firmness to his rejection of anti-Semites and racists as he brings to members of the media and other candidates.”

Fair. But let’s accept that some of the people co-opting the right to be indignant over this matter are motivated by politics. They see that, given Hillary Clinton’s complicated relationship with Israel in her various public roles and the significant questions about her trustworthiness, the Jewish vote in large part could go either way in this election, straining the traditional Democratic loyalty.

Those critics, angered and worried about his position on Muslims and immigration would like to see Jews drawn into the fray. Not just the liberal Jews who have already steadily denounced him, but the mainstream, middle of the road leaders in swing state communities.

Donald Trump’s campaign made a mistake sending that Tweet, and I hope he makes up for it in the final stretch of the election by being more careful and denouncing bigotry in all its forms, including the people supporting him who practice it. But there are more than enough real anti-Semites and real would-be Hitlers out there. Trying to label Trump as one of them for political reasons based on one Tweet also takes our national discourse in a bad direction.

After this dies down, maybe we can actually talk about some of the serious issues facing the country, and what the candidates plan to do about them.

Originally Published: The Times of Israel