RSS
Cancel or condemn? Jewish groups decrying UPenn’s ‘Palestine Writes’ festival are split on ideal response.
(JTA) – A number of Jewish organizations have condemned an upcoming conference on Palestinian culture, taking place at the University of Pennsylvania, that includes speakers accused of antisemitism. But the groups decrying the conference disagree about what the school should do about it.
The biggest name speaking at the “Palestine Writes” festival taking place next weekend, from Friday, Sept. 22 to the afternoon of Sunday, Sept. 24, is that of Roger Waters, the former Pink Floyd frontman who uses Holocaust imagery to bash Israel during his concerts. Other speakers at the conference, the Jewish organizations say, have used language that condones or encourages Israel’s destruction.
Jewish organizational responses have ranged from a call on the university to condemn the conference — which it did last week, albeit in terms that critics called inadequate — to a demand that the university shut the conference down or face legal consequences.
The disparate response point to a divide within the pro-Israel ecosystem over how universities should handle anti-Israel and arguably antisemitic speech on campus. While both sides of the discussion abhor such statements, one cohort of activists believes that federal law requires the university to quash the offensive speech, while the other says the dictates of academic freedom demand that even repugnant speech be allowed, though they say it should be condemned.
Miriam Elman, executive director of the Academic Engagement Network, which works to counter antisemitic and anti-Israel activity on campus, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that her group would not demand the conference be canceled “unless there is a case of imminent threat, or bodily harm.” She added, “Our system of academic freedom and campus free expression is that: Offensive speech? Meet it with better speech.”
That approach contrasts with the demand issued by the Zionist Organization of America, which has urged its activists to tell the university to cancel the conference. If the university fails to do so, a recent ZOA action alert said, the right-wing pro-Israel group “may have a moral obligation to file a complaint under Title VI if this conference takes place.” Title VI refers to a section of the Civil Rights Act that bars discrimination in any institution that receives federal funds. Although the University of Pennsylvania is a private university, it receives federal research grants.
Palestine Writes has organized the annual festival since 2020, saying on its website that its founding was “born from the pervasive exclusion from or tokenization of Palestinian voices in mainstream literary institutions.”
Susan Abulhawa, the executive director of “Palestine Writes,” said in an email that most of the festival was about Palestinians, and not Israel, but that naturally there would be expressions of criticism of the country.
“We have a glorious and rich heritage that is either being erased or appropriated by a 20th-century colonial enterprise that has worked overtime to denigrate us where they cannot fully erase us,” she told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “It’s disappointing, though unsurprising, that the university could not muster the courage to defend an indigenous people’s moral and necessary struggle against Israeli colonial fascism.”
A festival spokesperson clarified that the event ends several hours before the beginning of the Jewish High Holiday of Yom Kippur, which starts on the evening of Sept. 24. The conference ends at 1 p.m.
Josh Gottheimer, a Jewish New Jersey Democratic congressman and Penn graduate, said in a letter to the university leadership that the university should at least disinvite Waters as well as Marc Lamont Hill, a Temple University professor and commentator fired from CNN in 2018 for calling for a free Palestine ”from the river to the sea” — a phrase many interpret as calling for the elimination of Israel. Hill said at the time that he was unaware of the phrase’s origins and that he was calling for a single binational Israeli-Palestinian state.
Abraham Foxman, the ADL’s former national director, told JTA that the event should trigger an inquiry by the Biden administration as part of its new plan to combat antisemitism. He also said Jewish alumni should organize to stop donating to the university. “The time has come for alumni to be more active,” he said, not just at Penn but on other campuses that have accommodated vehement critics of Israel.
After complaints from Jewish groups, the university made a statement acknowledging that the conference includes “several speakers who have a documented and troubling history of engaging in antisemitism by speaking and acting in ways that denigrate Jewish people. We unequivocally — and emphatically — condemn antisemitism as antithetical to our institutional values.”
Elman’s group and the Anti-Defamation League each told JTA that they hoped the university’s condemnation would be more robust.
For Jewish and pro-Israel groups criticizing the conference, the most objectionable speaker is Waters, who is scheduled to speak on a Friday evening panel about the costs incurred by those who speak out on behalf of Palestinians. Rogers has used Holocaust imagery to criticize Israel, a practice watchdogs have called antisemitic because it trivializes the Holocaust and implies that Jews are now perpetrating its horrors on another people.
A number of other speakers have also been singled out by pro-Israel groups for their praise for members of designated terrorist groups or because they have used incendiary language to implicate all Israelis, not just their government’s policies.
The university’s statement, which was signed by Penn President Elizabeth Magill and two other senior officials, noted that the festival is not organized by the university, although a number of university-affiliated entities — such as the Wolf Humanities Center — are cosponsors.
“As a university, we also fiercely support the free exchange of ideas as central to our educational mission,” the statement said. “This includes the expression of views that are controversial and even those that are incompatible with our institutional values.”
Some critics said that Penn’s leadership had a duty to condemn university-affiliated cosponsors of the conference.
“Universities can definitely express disappointment, chagrin, dismay in faculty choices,” Elman said. “They can say ‘this is terrible judgment.’”
Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, said in an email to JTA, “Supporting academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas on campus, which ADL joins Penn in supporting, does not abdicate Penn leadership from taking a position.”
According to Jewish Insider, the ADL, along with the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, led a weeks-long effort to get the university to make a statement. The ADL recently released an analysis showing a sharp uptick in what it called “anti-Israel events” on college campuses.
“If Penn truly wants to show real support for the Jewish community, it must stop equivocating and start speaking out and taking action to stand with the Jewish community in an unequivocal, unambiguous manner,” Greenblatt said. The Jewish federation did not return a request for comment.
Elman and ZOA both noted a difference in the treatment the university has accorded the festival and a Jewish law professor, Amy Wax, who has made incendiary comments about Black and Asian students on the campus. Wax is embroiled in disciplinary hearings, which has spurred criticism of Penn by free speech advocates.
The university’s caution with “Palestine Speaks” may stem in part from a reluctance to wade into another battle over academic freedom. The controversy comes as Wax has invited a white supremacist, Jared Taylor, to campus for a second time. His presence at a 2021 event at Penn stirred protests. The Philadelphia Inquirer quoted students who believe Wax invited Taylor in order to portray the university as an institution that represses free expression.
Michal Cotler-Wunsch, who this week was named as Israel’s envoy to combat antisemitism, told JTA that the university’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion demanded a tougher response.
“Held in a DEI campus reality proclaiming commitment to provide and ensure equal access, safety and security to all students and faculty members, [the conference] must be measured with the same yardstick as any other group, recognizing that double standards in the application of any principle or rule undermines it,” she said.
—
The post Cancel or condemn? Jewish groups decrying UPenn’s ‘Palestine Writes’ festival are split on ideal response. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
Letter from Vancouver: A monument draws on Jewish tradition to remember victims of Oct. 7
The garden of Temple Sholom Synagogue in Vancouver is a serene and contemplative place to remember the horrific events of Oct. 7, 2023—and the Israeli civilians, soldiers and foreign nationals who […]
The post Letter from Vancouver: A monument draws on Jewish tradition to remember victims of Oct. 7 appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Deal ‘Tantamount to a Hezbollah Defeat,’ Says Leading War Studies Think Tank
Israeli tanks are being moved, amid cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel, in the Golan Heights, Sept. 22, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Jim Urquhart
The terms of the newly minted ceasefire agreement to halt fighting between Israel and Hezbollah amounts to a defeat for the Lebanese terrorist group, although the deal may be difficult to implement, according to two leading US think tanks.
The deal requires Israeli forces to gradually withdraw from southern Lebanon, where they have been operating since early October, over the next 60 days. Meanwhile, the Lebanese army will enter these areas and ensure that Hezbollah retreats north of the Litani River, located some 18 miles north of the border with Israel. The United States and France, who brokered the agreement, will oversee compliance with its terms.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), in conjunction with the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project (CTP), explained the implications of the deal on Tuesday in their daily Iran Update, “which provides insights into Iranian and Iranian-sponsored activities that undermine regional stability and threaten US forces and interests.” Hezbollah, which wields significant political and military influence across Lebanon, is the chief proxy force of the Iranian regime.
In its analysis, ISW and CTP explained that the deal amounts to a Hezbollah defeat for two main reasons.
First, “Hezbollah has abandoned several previously-held ceasefire negotiation positions, reflecting the degree to which IDF [Israel Defense Forces] military operations have forced Hezbollah to abandon its war aims.”
Specifically, Hezbollah agreeing to a deal was previously contingent on a ceasefire in Gaza, but that changed after the past two months of Israeli military operations, during which the IDF has decimated much of Hezbollah’s leadership and weapons stockpiles through airstrikes while attempting to push the terrorist army away from its border with a ground offensive.
Additionally, the think tanks noted, “current Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem has also previously expressed opposition to any stipulations giving Israel freedom of action inside Lebanon,” but the deal reportedly allows Israel an ability to respond to Hezbollah if it violates the deal.
Second, the think tanks argued that the agreement was a defeat for Hezbollah because it allowed Israel to achieve its war aim of making it safe for its citizens to return to their homes in northern Israel.
“IDF operations in Lebanese border towns have eliminated the threat of an Oct. 7-style offensive attack by Hezbollah into northern Israel, and the Israeli air campaign has killed many commanders and destroyed much of Hezbollah’s munition stockpiles,” according to ISW and CTP.
Some 70,000 Israelis living in northern Israel have been forced to flee their homes over the past 14 months, amid unrelenting barrages of rockets, missiles, and drones fired by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah began its attacks last Oct. 8, one day after the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel. The Jewish state had been exchanging fire with Hezbollah but intensified its military response over the past two months.
Northern Israelis told The Algemeiner this week that they were concerned the new ceasefire deal could open the door to future Hezbollah attacks, but at the same time the ceasefire will allow many of them the first opportunity to return home in a year.
ISW and CTP also noted in their analysis that Israel’s military operations have devastated Hezbollah’s leadership and infrastructure. According to estimates, at least 1,730 Hezbollah terrorists and upwards of 4,000 have been killed over the past year of fighting.
While the deal suggested a defeat of sorts for Hezbollah and the effectiveness of Israel’s military operations, ISW and CTP also argued that several aspects of the ceasefire will be difficult to implement.
“The decision to rely on the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and UN observers in Lebanon to respectively secure southern Lebanon and monitor compliance with the ceasefire agreement makes no serious changes to the same system outlined by UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war,” they wrote.
Resolution 1701 called for the complete demilitarization of Hezbollah south of the Litani River and prohibited the presence of armed groups in Lebanon except for the official Lebanese army and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
This may be an issue because “neither the LAF nor the UN proved willing or able to prevent Hezbollah from reoccupying southern Lebanon and building new infrastructure. Some LAF sources, for example, have expressed a lack of will to enforce this ceasefire because they believe that any fighting with Hezbollah would risk triggering ‘civil war,’” the think tanks assessed.
Nevertheless, the LAF is going to deploy 5,000 troops to the country’s south in order to assume control of their own territory from Hezbollah.
However, the think tanks added, “LAF units have been in southern Lebanon since 2006, but have failed to prevent Hezbollah from using the area to attack Israel.”
The post Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Deal ‘Tantamount to a Hezbollah Defeat,’ Says Leading War Studies Think Tank first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
What Nutmeg and the Torah Teach Us About Securing a Long-Term Future
A Torah scroll. Photo: RabbiSacks.org.
Here’s a fact from history you may not know. In 1667, the Dutch and the British struck a trade deal that, in retrospect, seems so bizarre that it defies belief.
As part of the Treaty of Breda — a pact that ended the Second Anglo-Dutch War and aimed to solidify territorial claims between the two powers — the Dutch ceded control of Manhattan to the British.
Yes, that Manhattan — the self-proclaimed center of the universe (at least according to New Yorkers), home to Wall Street, Times Square, and those famously overpriced bagels.
And what did the Dutch get in return? Another island — tiny Run, part of the Banda Islands in Indonesia.
To put things in perspective, Run is minuscule compared to Manhattan — barely 3 square kilometers, or roughly half the size of Central Park. Today, it’s a forgotten dot on the map, with a population of less than 2,000 people and no significant industry beyond subsistence farming. But in the 17th century, Run was a prized gem worth its weight in gold — or rather, nutmeg gold.
Nutmeg was the Bitcoin of its day, an exotic spice that Europeans coveted so desperately they were willing to risk life and limb. Just by way of example, during the early spice wars, the Dutch massacred and enslaved the native Bandanese people to seize control of the lucrative nutmeg trade.
From our modern perspective, the deal seems ridiculous — Manhattan for a pinch of nutmeg? But in the context of the 17th century, it made perfect sense. Nutmeg was the crown jewel of global trade, and controlling its supply meant immense wealth and influence. For the Dutch, securing Run was a strategic move, giving them dominance in the spice trade, and, let’s be honest, plenty of bragging rights at fancy Dutch banquets.
But history has a funny way of reshaping perspectives. What seemed like a brilliant play in its time now looks like a colossal miscalculation — and the annals of history are filled with similar trades that, in hindsight, make us scratch our heads and wonder, what were they thinking?
Another contender for history’s Hall of Fame in ludicrous trades is the Louisiana Purchase. In 1803, Napoleon Bonaparte, who was strapped for cash and eager to fund his military campaigns, sold a vast swath of North America to the nascent United States for a mere $15 million. The sale included 828,000 square miles — that’s about four cents an acre — that would become 15 states, including the fertile Midwest and the resource-rich Rocky Mountains.
But to Napoleon, this was a strategic no-brainer. He even called the sale “a magnificent bargain,” boasting that it would “forever disarm” Britain by strengthening its rival across the Atlantic. At the time, the Louisiana Territory was seen as a vast, undeveloped expanse that was difficult to govern and defend. Napoleon viewed it as a logistical burden, especially with the looming threat of British naval power. By selling the territory, he aimed to bolster France’s finances and focus on European conflicts.
Napoleon wasn’t shy about mocking his enemies for their mistakes, once quipping, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” But in this case, it’s tempting to imagine him swallowing those words as the United States grew into a global superpower thanks, in no small part, to his so-called bargain.
While he may have considered Louisiana to be a logistical headache — too far away and too vulnerable to British attacks — the long-term implications of the deal were staggering. What Napoleon dismissed as a far-off backwater turned out to be the world’s breadbasket, not to mention the backbone of America’s westward expansion.
Like the Dutch and their nutmeg gamble, Napoleon made a trade that no doubt seemed brilliant at the time — but, with hindsight, turned into a world-class blunder. It’s the kind of decision that reminds us just how hard it is to see past the urgency of the moment and anticipate the full scope of consequences.
Which brings me to Esav. You’d think Esav, the firstborn son of Yitzchak and Rivka, would have his priorities straight. He was the guy — heir to a distinguished dynasty that stretched back to his grandfather Abraham, who single-handedly changed the course of human history.
But one fateful day, as recalled at the beginning of Parshat Toldot, Esav stumbles home from a hunting trip, exhausted and ravenous. The aroma of Yaakov’s lentil stew hits him like a truck. “Pour me some of that red stuff!” he demands, as if he’s never seen food before.
Yaakov, never one to pass up an opportunity, doesn’t miss a beat.
“Sure, but only in exchange for your birthright,” he counters casually, as if such transactions are as common as trading baseball cards. And just like that, Esav trades his birthright for a bowl of soup. No lawyers, no witnesses, not even a handshake — just an impulsive decision fueled by hunger and a staggering lack of foresight.
The Torah captures the absurdity of the moment: Esav claims to be “on the verge of death” and dismisses the birthright as worthless. Any future value — material or spiritual — is meaningless to him in that moment. All that matters is satisfying his immediate needs.
So, was it really such a terrible deal? Psychologists have a term for Esav’s behavior: hyperbolic discounting — a fancy term for our tendency to prioritize immediate rewards over bigger, long-term benefits.
It’s the same mental quirk that makes splurging on a gadget feel better than saving for retirement, or binge-watching a series more appealing than preparing for an exam. For Esav, the stew wasn’t just a meal — it was the instant solution to his discomfort, a quick fix that blinded him to the larger, long-term value of his birthright.
It’s the classic trade-off between now and later: the craving for immediate gratification often comes at the expense of something far more significant. Esav’s impulsive decision wasn’t just about hunger — it was about losing sight of the future in the heat of the moment.
Truthfully, it’s easy to criticize Esav for his shortsightedness, but how often do we fall into the same trap? We skip meaningful opportunities because they feel inconvenient or uncomfortable in the moment, opting for the metaphorical lentil stew instead of holding out for the birthright.
But the Torah doesn’t include this story just to make Esav look bad. It’s there to highlight the contrast between Esav and Yaakov — the choices that define them and, by extension, us.
Esav represents the immediate, the expedient, the here-and-now. Yaakov, our spiritual forebear, is the embodiment of foresight and patience. He sees the long game and keeps his eye on what truly matters: Abraham and Yitzchak’s legacy and the Jewish people’s spiritual destiny.
The message of Toldot is clear: the choices we make in moments of weakness have the power to shape our future — and the future of all who come after us. Esav’s impulsiveness relegated him to a footnote in history, like the nutmeg island of Run or France’s control over a vast portion of North America.
Meanwhile, Yaakov’s ability to think beyond the moment secured him a legacy that continues to inspire and guide us to this day — a timeless reminder that true greatness is not built in a moment of indulgence, but in the patience to see beyond it.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post What Nutmeg and the Torah Teach Us About Securing a Long-Term Future first appeared on Algemeiner.com.