LA City Council Considers Funding Former IDF Soldiers to Patrol Its Streets
Introduction:
The Los Angeles City Council is discussing the allocation of public funds to private armed security patrols for religious communities in response to a violent protest at an LA synagogue. The council initially proposed giving $1 million to Jewish security organizations, including Magen Am, a nonprofit that provides armed patrol services and firearm training programs. However, concerns have been raised about the group’s political stances and accountability. A new motion has been introduced to provide $2 million to various faith groups for additional security, but activists are still worried about the potential involvement of armed groups with hard-line ideologies.
The Controversy Surrounding Magen Am:
Magen Am, the recipient of $350,000 in the original motion, is primarily composed of former Israeli soldiers and U.S. military veterans. The group’s founder has ties to the National Rifle Association, and many members are “lone soldiers” who immigrated to Israel to serve in the military. Activists from Jewish Voice for Peace express concern about funding individuals associated with a military accused of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and the West Bank. They argue that supporting an organization with hard-line political stances raises questions about accountability and the use of force by a private militia.
Questionable Figures within Magen Am:
Further scrutiny reveals troubling individuals associated with Magen Am. One of their firearms trainers, former U.S. Navy SEAL Jason Pike, has a public Instagram account filled with violent, homophobic, transphobic, and extremist military content. In one video, Pike is seen waterboarding his son, a practice banned by the U.S. government due to its lack of instructional value. Pike also shared a video condoning an Israeli soldier’s mistreatment of a blindfolded Palestinian man, dismissing the “Rules of Engagement” in war. Another post seemed to support violent threats made by a U.S. veteran against anti-Trump protesters. Pike’s online presence raises concerns about the organization’s choice of instructors and their suitability for patrolling the streets.
Lack of Accountability and Response:
Despite multiple requests for comment, Magen Am’s leadership and the city council offices have remained silent. Activists argue that an organization employing individuals with such views is not suitable for ensuring public safety. They emphasize the need for accountability and express concern that the city would hire an organization with questionable staff members. The lack of response from both Magen Am and the city council raises doubts about transparency and the willingness to address these concerns.
The Origins of the Funding Proposal:
The push to fund security firms for Jewish communities began after a protest at the Adas Torah synagogue, where companies were marketing properties in Israel and West Bank settlements deemed illegal under international law. Pro-Israel counterprotesters clashed with advocates, resulting in fights, injuries, and arrests. Councilmember Katy Yaroslavksy, representing the affected district, immediately called for armed guards to prevent future incidents. Subsequently, a motion was introduced to allocate funds to Jewish organizations, including Magen Am, as a response to the threats faced by religious communities.
Opposing Views and Criticism:
While some Jewish leaders have used the LA synagogue incident to advocate for increased security funding, Jewish Voice for Peace and other activists express concerns about the potential consequences. They fear that funding a pro-Israel group like Magen Am could embolden violent agitators who share similar leanings. Activists argue that the organization’s staff members pose a danger to marginalized communities rather than ensuring their safety. The opposition emphasizes the need to protect all residents of Los Angeles and questions the city’s priorities in providing funding to such groups.
Conclusion:
The debate surrounding the allocation of public funds to private armed security patrols highlights concerns about accountability, political stances, and the suitability of certain individuals associated with these organizations. While the city council has introduced a new motion to provide funding to various faith groups, activists remain wary of the potential involvement of armed groups with hard-line ideologies. The lack of response from Magen Am’s leadership and the city council offices further raises doubts about transparency and the willingness to address these concerns. As the LA City Council resumes its session later this month, the decision on funding private security patrols will have significant implications for the safety and well-being of religious communities in Los Angeles.
