Trudy Rubin: 2024 isn’t 1968: University protesters need more clarity about their goals

posted in: Society | 0

As someone who remembers when Columbia University students took over Hamilton Hall 56 years ago, let me say that 2024 is not 1968.

Back then, our whole country was engaged in debate over the justice of a Vietnam War that involved tens of thousands of American troops. Today, students are setting up tent encampments to protest a war that is not ours, but where U.S. weaponry is being used to kill thousands of Palestinian women and children — after Hamas murdered and kidnapped about 1,200 Israeli civilians.

Today’s cause is far murkier, since some of the demonstrators are “anti-Zionist,” which can be seen as wanting an end to the Jewish state. Some are also pro-Hamas, ignoring that terrorist group’s murderous pledge to kill all Israeli Jews.

But many other protesters — understandably aroused by videos of starving, maimed, or dying Gazan children — aren’t thinking that far ahead. They want their universities’ endowment funds to divest from U.S. companies involved in sales of weapons to Israel that accelerate civilian deaths.

So are the universities justified in calling in the cops? Are the demonstrators current or future antisemites? Or have they opened a debate that even strong supporters of Israel ignore at their peril?

Here are four points that lay out my thinking. Feel free to email me your thoughts.

Why only Gaza?

It stuns, but does not surprise me, that student concern over civilian deaths and starvation does not extend to Vladimir Putin’s relentless and deliberate bombing of Ukraine’s schools, hospitals, markets, churches, and apartment complexes. This Russian terrorist campaign has turned dozens of Ukrainian villages, towns, and cities into ash and surpassed Israel’s destruction in Gaza many times over. The student outrage also ignores the massive and terrible civilian slaughter ongoing in Sudan, especially in Darfur.

I’ve concluded, after much reading, online videos, and talking with friends’ children and grandchildren at various universities, that the draw of the Israel-Hamas conflict is not necessarily antisemitic. It attracts many students who view it as the last white colonial project, where white people kill brown people.

Never mind that half of Israelis are brown or Black, having fled discrimination in Arab or African countries, and many of the rest are descendants of Holocaust survivors. And never mind that pre-1967 Israel was recognized by the United Nations. To undo its statehood by force (as Putin is trying to do to Ukraine) would delegitimize the borders of countless other post-World War II states.

But leaving those inconvenient realities aside, the colonial analogy has gained traction after negotiations failed over establishing a Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank and Gaza (virtually all of whose borders and economy are still controlled by Israel). Now that peace talks are dead, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is dominated by right wingers who want Israel to annex the West Bank and Gaza, so the colonial analogy becomes more attractive to many students.

Out of that analogy comes the slogan, “from the river to the sea,” which has been projected onto buildings and shouted by many students on and off campus. This means one Palestinian Arab state that would include Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

Many demonstrators and key student organizing groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine, along with Jewish Voices for Peace, call themselves “anti-Zionist,” meaning they oppose the existence of the Jewish state. This cannot help but unnerve Jewish students, whether or not they have relatives in Israel.

What does anti-Zionism mean?

I’ve heard students insist that theirs is only a search for justice, with equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis within one state. But no one has yet explained to me how 7 million Jews would be convinced, short of destruction, to dismantle a prosperous modern country.

I doubt that many campus demonstrators have thought through what the term anti-Zionist means or how to establish one Arab state from the river to the sea. The big question: Do those students who fly the Hamas flag even know how Hamas envisions that project? The terror group’s conception makes clear why Hamas can have no future role in ruling Gaza or negotiating over a Palestinian state. It also lays bare why student endorsements of Hamas are so ugly — even if they are protected speech.

The Hamas charter calls for killing all Jews in Palestine, with a later version merely calling for a temporary truce if a Palestinian state is established alongside Israel. In late 2021, at a Hamas-funded conference in Gaza, participants discussed how Israeli spoils would be distributed after Palestine was fully liberated “from the sea to the river,” and a new state established on the ruins. Jewish fighters would be killed, others might be given time to flee. But, said the concluding document, educated Jews and experts would be “retained” for some time to pay back for “the knowledge they had acquired while living in our land.”

It is time for pro-Palestinian demonstrators who call themselves anti-Zionists to clarify what they mean by that term, and how the concept differs (if it does) from the death and destruction that Hamas has in mind.

Protests, not encampments

However, and I stress this, students have every right to speak freely and to demonstrate for a Gaza cease-fire, for more humanitarian aid, and for divestment. I have written on conditioning U.S. support on Israel permitting more humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza and on its safe distribution.

Of course, free speech — including speech some may find offensive — does not extend to blocking or threatening others, whether intimidating Jewish students at Columbia, or attacking pro-Palestinians at UCLA. Nor does it confer the right to disrupt the functioning or safety of the university, including the taking of finals and graduation ceremonies.

Permanent encampments, or occupations of buildings, provide magnets for outsiders and encourage radicalization. Mark Rudd, president of the Students for a Democratic Society who led the 1968 Hamilton Hall occupation, recalled to NPR in 2010 how another SDS student leader burned 10 years of research papers in the Hamilton Hall office of a faculty member who had annoyed him by trying to mediate with students.

Better if university leaders can negotiate a student exodus, as happened at Brown University, and avoid the viciousness of law enforcement at the University of Texas at Austin. But if repeated and final warnings are rejected, along with compromise proposals, the only option for administrators is to call in law enforcement.

Extremists on both sides

Where the student mantra against occupation has legs is in the West Bank. While all eyes are on the Gaza war, Netanyahu’s far right ministers are encouraging settler violence against Palestinians on the West Bank and pushing for massive new Jewish settlements there.

The Israeli far right’s openly expressed goal is to make life untenable for Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza, and it hopes to drive many Palestinians into Egypt or Jordan. Enabled by Netanyahu, the far right’s written objective is a reverse parallel to the Hamas charter: one Jewish state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, where reduced numbers of Palestinians can either submit to Israeli rule, leave, or die.

If the right wing succeeds, then future student demonstrations will be protesting against a true apartheid state.

The only way to block Hamas and Israel’s far right is to reach a humanitarian cease-fire, as the White House is urging. That opens the door for new Palestinian leadership in Gaza, rebuilding the strip, and a possible path to a two-state solution.

But (as of this writing) neither Netanyahu nor Hamas appear eager for such a U.S.-backed cease-fire because it could lead to the political demise of both. Hamas leader Yehya Sinwar says he would be willing to sacrifice 100,000 Palestinians for his goals. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s prime goal is clinging to power.

Each will use the scenes of student demonstrations on American campuses to encourage his followers to hew to his destructive hard line. Students, beware.

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for The Philadelphia Inquirer, P.O. Box 8263, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101. Her email address is trubin@phillynews.com

Related Articles

Opinion |


Thomas Friedman: Israel and Saudi Arabia are trading places

Opinion |


Jonathan Zimmerman: It’s ‘academic freedom’ when you agree but not when you don’t?

Opinion |


Anthony Vaccaro: Does social media rewire kids’ brains? Here’s what the science really says

Opinion |


Isaacs, Rosenbaum: America’s ‘big glass’ dominance hangs on the fate of two powerful new telescopes

Opinion |


Tyler Cowen: Trump’s plans for the Fed make no sense, even for him

‘Blended Harmony: The Kim Loo Sisters’ points spotlight on overlooked story

posted in: News | 0

Two sets of sisters, both raised in Minneapolis in the early 20th century. Each family forms a swing-centered nightclub act full of tight harmonies and lavish choreography. Both sets of siblings end up in Hollywood movies and entertaining American troops during World War II.

One group was the Andrews Sisters, the other the Kim Loo Sisters. And it says something that History Theatre — which specializes in spinning stories about Minnesota history — has created two musicals about the Andrews Sisters and none about the Kim Loo Sisters.

Until now. The story of this quite popular but largely forgotten sister act from Minneapolis is at last being told in a co-production from History Theatre and Theater Mu called “Blended Harmony: The Kim Loo Sisters.” With a book and lyrics by Jessica Huang and a swinging score by Jacinth Greywoode, it’s a production with a lot of promise and much to recommend it.

But Huang seems so intent on cutting into the historical deficit of information about the Kim Loo Sisters that she tells us a lot more than we need to know.

The result is a two-hour-and-45-minute musical that features 24 songs, but would probably be more entertaining if it were trimmed down to two hours and 14 songs. By show’s end, I felt that I didn’t know enough about half of this sister act, but way more than I needed to about sometime collaborator Ann Miller, their mother, the producer of their shows, the husband of one and a Chinese general.

Audrey Parker, from left, Audrey Mojica, Morgan Kempton and Suzie Juul in the History Theatre’s world premiere production of “Blended Harmony: The Kim Loo Sisters,” a musical by Jacinth Graywoode and Jessica Huang about four sisters from Minnesota who became a very popular nightclub act in the first half of the 20th century before anti-Asian sentiment during World War II sabotaged their career. Co-produced with Theater Mu, the show runs through May 26, 2024 at the History Theatre in St. Paul. (Rich Ryan / History Theatre)

In short, it’s an overstuffed musical that takes the audience off on unnecessary tangents. As the powers-that-be at Theater Mu and History Theatre discussed what to leave in and what to take out, it seems the answer was invariably, “Leave it in.”

Perhaps “Blended Harmony” would be a stronger show if the focus remained more squarely on the sister act at its center. The musical is most interesting when exploring their relationships with one another and how they were shaped by their Minneapolis upbringing, their father a Chinese-American chef at downtown Minneapolis restaurant Nankin and their Polish-American mother escaping life as a laundress to become the sister act’s crafty, deal-cutting (and dress-making) manager.

Alas, the story veers off into that long-distance marriage and how it got started, negotiating contracts, Mom’s upbringing in Poland, life on a Chinese military base, and whatever is on Ann Miller’s mind. While Audrey Parker does some impressive dancing as that great Hollywood tapper, her soliloquies do nothing to drive the story forward.

That said, there’s a whole lot of talent onstage. Among the sisters, the conflicted Jenee is the one we get to know best, and Kelsey Angel Baehrens makes her invariably intriguing, while Audrey Mojica is magnetic as the flirtatious youngest sister, Bubbles. Meanwhile, Ann Michels makes the most of her turn as their enterprising mother, while J.C. Cutler is an eminently convincing head honcho of their musical revues.

Kudos are also due choreographer Rush Benson, the costumes of Mathew J. LeFebvre and the inventive use of projections by Mina Kinukawa and Miko Simmons. Here’s hoping that this story that richly deserves to be told re-emerges in a more svelte rendition.

Rob Hubbard can be reached at wordhub@yahoo.com.

‘Blended Harmony: The Kim Loo Sisters’

When: Through May 26

Where: History Theatre, 30 E. 10th St., St. Paul

Tickets: $74-$15, available at 651-292-4323 or historytheatre.com

Capsule: A story worth telling, but with fewer digressions.

Related Articles

Theater |


Opera review: 21st-century retelling of ‘La Bohème’ succeeds on universal themes and talented cast

Theater |


Theater review: Penumbra’s ‘Flex’ delivers winning coming-of-age story

Theater |


Criticizing ‘nightmare of an experience,’ a lead actor quit ‘Frog and Toad’ two days before opening night. What happened?

Theater |


Review: The show goes on as ‘Frog’ quits CTC’s ‘Frog and Toad’ two days before opening

Theater |


Through an irreverent and sensitive musical, cancer doctor (and singing comedian) Stuart Bloom pushes back against burnout

That Xcel Energy/HomeServe mailer offering insurance for exterior water lines or electrical systems? Here’s what it’s about.

posted in: News | 0

Xcel Energy customers taken aback by a mailer marketing insurance coverage for the water line and electrical systems on the exterior of their home can rest assured the offers are legitimate. The utility company previously owned HomeSmart, a monthly subscription service that offers check-ups and in some cases replacement coverage for home appliances.

Xcel, which operates in eight states, has sold its HomeSmart coverage line to HomeServe, a nationwide provider that has been soliciting homeowners with offers to cover exterior water line and electrical system repairs.

“It’s a legitimate mailer,” said Theo Keith, a Twin Cities-based Xcel Energy spokesman. “It’s co-branded between us and HomeServe. It’s approved by us. … This mailer was meant as an introduction to customers that it’s now called HomeServe.”

The two types of coverage are being advertised for about $72 annually, or a combined $130.

“The whole point of it is to minimize unexpected repairs on the customer side, because the customer owns that part of the infrastructure,” Keith said.

Exterior water, electrical lines

Homeowners may not be aware that they own the water line extending from their house, out under the sidewalk and into the public water main in the street. If that should rupture or crumble with age, they could be on the hook for repair and replacement costs, which can stretch into thousands of dollars.

Homeowners also own certain aspects of exterior electrical systems, such as a meter base, service entrance conductor, weatherhead and riser.  The weatherhead is the gooseneck-like rod, or entry point, where overhead power lines enter the home or transition between overhead and underground cables.

In an email, a HomeServe spokesman said the company works with some 5 million customers and 1,250 municipal and utility providers across North America, offering a variety of coverage types for appliances and other home repairs. Residents who may not have received the mailing can visit homesmartplans.com to see all their program offers or call HomeServe at 1-844-245-3657 for more information.

“We sold our HomeSmart service business to HomeServe because they have an excellent track record of customer service and will offer our customers a greater variety of product offerings to fit their needs,” Keith said.

The financial terms of the sale have been kept private.

Pros and cons

HomeServe’s U.S. offices are based in Norwalk, Conn., and opened in 2003. The company was founded in Britain in 1993 and has since expanded to France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Canada and Japan.

Like home warranties, subscription repair services are not without their critics.

“My main concern would be families feeling pressured to enroll in a service that seems to be coming from their utility provider when it’s actually from a random third party with little to no verifiable local presence,” said Matt Privratsky, a St. Paul-based clean energy advocate.

“It can be hard, particularly for new residents, to learn what’s truly needed and necessary to maintain your home and these kinds of services, in particular, feel tailor-made to take advantage of that fear and anxiety,” he said.

Then again, there’s something to be said for sleeping worry-free.

Consumer websites like Marketwatch.com say homeowners would do well to calculate the cost of an unused home warranty or subscription repair service over time — say, multiply the subscription cost by five or six years — and weigh that against the cost of an unexpected appliance repair and the impact on personal savings. Coverage may be less important for new or frequently updated appliances and service systems.

“You may pay a bit more in the long run by purchasing a home warranty than going without one, but millions of homeowners feel that the benefits are well worth the price,” reads Marketwatch.com.

St. Paul replacing lead lines

Some potential HomeServe customers have questioned why they would buy coverage for their water line when the city of St. Paul and water utility are currently replacing thousands of lead service lines free of charge for homeowners.

Working alongside the city, St. Paul Regional Water Services has made it a goal over the next decade to replace 26,000 lead lines servicing private homes, most of them in St. Paul.

Using state and federal aid, those replacement costs have been free to date for hundreds of homeowners, though officials have acknowledged that it will be a challenge to find full funding for what could be a $223 million undertaking over the course of a decade.

St. Paul homeowners can determine if they have a lead service line by visiting the interactive map available at StPaul.gov/Water.

Related Articles

Business |


Donald Trump to visit St. Paul for Republican fundraising dinner

Business |


St. Paul officers fatally shoot woman after she pointed gun at them, department says

Business |


Final defendant in deadly St. Paul funeral home gunfight sentenced to six months

Business |


Hudson teacher charged with sexually assaulting 11-year-old student

Business |


Man who served as firefighter in Eagan, Eden Prairie lost his life in Minneapolis shooting

TikTok sues US to block law that could ban the social media platform

posted in: News | 0

By HALELUYA HADERO (AP Business Writer)

TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance are suing the U.S. over a law that would ban the popular video-sharing app unless it’s sold to another company.

The lawsuit filed on Tuesday may be setting up what could be a protracted legal fight over TikTok’s future in the United States.

The popular social video company alleged the law, which President Joe Biden signed as part of a larger $95 billion foreign aid package, is so “obviously unconstitutional” that the sponsors of The Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act are trying to portray the law not as a ban, but as a regulation of TikTok’s ownership.

“Congress has taken the unprecedented step of expressly singling out and banning TikTok: a vibrant online forum for protected speech and expression used by 170 million Americans to create, share, and view videos over the Internet,” ByteDance said in its suit. “For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban, and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than 1 billion people worldwide.”

The law requires TikTok’s parent, ByteDance, to sell the platform within nine months. If a sale is already in progress, the company will get another three months to complete the deal. ByteDance has said it “doesn’t have any plan to sell TikTok.” But even it wanted to divest, the company would have to get a blessing from Beijing, which previously opposed a forced sale of the platform and has signaled its opposition this time around.

TikTok and ByteDance argued in the lawsuit that is really isn’t being given a choice.

“The ‘qualified divestiture’ demanded by the Act to allow TikTok to continue operating in the United States is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally,” they said.

Under the act, TikTok will be forced to shut down by Jan. 19, 2025, according to the lawsuit.

The parties argued that they should be protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression.

The fight over TikTok takes place as U.S.-China relations have shifted to that of intense strategic rivalry, especially in areas such as advanced technologies and data security, seen as essential to each country’s economic prowess and national security.

U.S. lawmakers from both parties, as well as administration and law enforcement officials, have expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data or sway public opinion by manipulating the algorithm that populates users’ feeds. Some have also pointed to a Rutgers University study that maintains TikTok content was being amplified or underrepresented based on how it aligns with the interests of the Chinese government, which the company disputes.

Opponents of the law argue that Chinese authorities – or any nefarious parties – could easily get information on Americans in other ways, including through commercial data brokers that rent or sell personal information. They note the U.S. government hasn’t provided public evidence that shows TikTok sharing U.S. user information with Chinese authorities, or tinkering with its algorithm for China’s benefit. They also say attempts to ban the app could violate free speech rights in the U.S.