Anti-Semitism, BLM & co-ops

To the editor:

(re: “Attacking Israel? It’s racism,” Sept. 10)

Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the boycott-divestment-sanction movement, has often had his comments from a 2013 talk taken out of context. In a July 20, 2019, Nation article, he put them back in context.

“In that talk, I advocated for a single democratic state that recognizes Jewish Israelis as equal citizens and full partners in building and developing a new shared society, free from all colonial subjugation and racial discrimination, and separating church and state,” he said. “Any exclusionary, supremacist ‘Muslim state,’ ‘Christian state’ or ‘Jewish state,’ I argued, would, by definition, deny equal rights to citizens of different identities and foreclose the possibility of a true democracy, which are the conditions for a just and sustainable peace.”

Barghouti also made clear this was his personal opinion, and not that of the BDS movement. “BDS does not take a position on the ultimate political solution for Palestinians and Israelis. It includes supporters of both two states and a single democratic state with equal rights for all.”

People can reasonably argue the merits of the BDS movement. But it is clear that it’s not anti-Semitic. It’s about time to end the practice of labeling all critics of Israel anti-Jewish. In particular, Charles Moerdler has a habit of referring to real anti-Jewish horrors and equating all of Israel’s critics with the perpetrators of them.

Next, let me deal with the point Alvin Gordon misses in his misguided attacks on Black Lives Matter (re: “You haven’t changed my mind,” Sept. 17). They emphasize “Black lives matter” because of all the cases of cops victimizing and killing innocent Blacks, while the same rarely happens to whites.

The murder of Breonna Taylor by Kentucky cops is just the latest example. None of the cops were indicted for killing her. The only charges are against one cop who fired shots through a wall, endangering the lives of whites who live in that apartment.

Yes, more Blacks are killed by other Blacks than by cops. But when those killers are caught, they go to jail for murder.

Also, the issue of Blacks killing Blacks has been noted by many Blacks, most recently Al Sharpton. Going back to 1991, Public Enemy noted this in their song, “Shut ‘Em Down.” It ends with a mock public service announcement by “Bernie Crosshouse.” He thanks Blacks (though he uses the N-word) for killing each other and saving the KKK the trouble of having to do it themselves.

Getting back to Taylor’s murder, there is something called the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.”

I do not see how a “no-knock warrant,” which allows cops to just break into a person’s home, can be anything but unreasonable. A Brooklyn family victimized by a no-knock warrant is suing the city for an incident from May 2019 in which New York Police Department officers busted down their door at 7 a.m., handcuffed the husband, and pointed their guns at his wife and kids. They looked for guns and drugs, found none, and left the apartment a mess.

As long as cops can treat Blacks like that, Black Lives Matter is needed. Racist cops must be removed from the force and replaced by good ones. De-funding the NYPD would do nothing but leave honest Blacks open to attacks from Black criminals, and that’s certainly not what Black Lives Matter is protesting for.

Also, Alan Saks proposes that newly hired cops be required to live in New York City (re: “Make cops live where they work,” Aug. 27). Fine, if such a law also requires landlords to provide affordable housing.

Finally, let me again deal with politics at the co-op where I live. To reiterate, the Amalgamated Housing Corp., was founded in 1927 by socialist labor leaders to provide affordable housing for working people. That’s why you have to make under a certain income to get in, and pay a surcharge if you surpass that income after you move in.

Board of directors member Jerzy Warman, who was just re-elected, made some arguments in his pre-election bulletin statement that indicates he has forgotten this. “Amalgamated was never intended to be a low-income housing project,” he said.

But it wasn’t intended as middle — and certainly not upper-middle — income housing either.

Despite Warman’s assertions, when you replace a perfectly good hallway floor with another simply because it looks nicer, that’s an unnecessary cost. But repairing roofs that have been leaking for decades is necessary. At least they have temporarily tabled the sub-metering proposal, which one Con Edison-employed co-operator estimated would cost $1 billion.

Obviously, many of the expenses are for necessities, and I’ll again give the board members credit for volunteering their time. Warman claims people may differ about what is “affordable.”

No, “affordable” is affordable. Though we want this place to be reasonably — thought not necessarily outrageously attractive — it definitely needs to be well maintained. It’s also important for it to remain affordable.

Richard Warren

Have an opinion? Share your thoughts as a letter to the editor. Make your submission to letters@riverdalepress.com. Please include your full name, phone number (for verification purposes only), and home address (which will not be published). The Riverdale Press maintains an open submission policy, and stated opinions do not necessarily represent the publication.