RSS
Israel faces charges of genocide at the International Court of Justice. Here’s why, and how Israel will respond.
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Perhaps the most famous court case in Israel history was the trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of the architects of the Holocaust. Next week, more than 60 years later, lawyers for the Israeli government will again grapple with an allegation of genocide — but this time as defendants and not as prosecutors.
That grim history helps explain why Israel has chosen to engage with the International Court of Justice, which will weigh a claim by South Africa that Israel is committing genocide in its war against Hamas in Gaza. Israel is furious at the accusation, which it called a perversion of the genocide charge.
The ICJ will base its judgment on the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, which Israel joined almost as soon as the state was established because the convention was written in the wake of the Holocaust, in hopes of preventing another genocide.
“Israel decided to send a legal team because this is an outrageous application by South Africa and we will defend ourselves against those lies,” Lior Hayat, the spokesman for Israel’s Foreign Ministry, said in an interview.
Here’s what’s behind the accusation, how Israel is defending it and what to anticipate.
Who is adjudicating the accusation, and when?
The International Court of Justice, based in The Hague in the Netherlands, adjudicates claims against states. In the past it has considered disputes on everything from maritime border disputes to the United States’ funding of the Contras rebel groups in Nicaragua in the 1980s. The court, first convened in 1946, is the culmination of a series of international conferences that aimed to adjudicate disputes between nations as a means of preventing war.
The court has previously considered cases involving Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, the moving of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and an incident in 1955 in which an El Al flight was shot down over Bulgarian airspace.
The International Criminal Court in the same city adjudicates criminal allegations against individuals, such as generals or notorious despots including Libya’s Muammar Ghaddafi and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The case was initiated late last month by South Africa, and the first hearings are next week, Jan. 11 and 12.
Why is Israel participating?
Israel has a tradition of not engaging with war crimes accusations against its officials, in part because it is not party to the 2002 compact that created the International Criminal Court. In light of the United Nations’ repeated votes and other measures placing blame on Israel, Israel sees the U.N. system as irredeemably biased, and feels that the charges are likely to be loaded.
But Israeli officials say the charge of genocide is too much for a state born in the ashes of the Holocaust to ignore.
“The State of Israel will appear before the International Court of Justice at The Hague to dispel South Africa’s absurd blood libel,” Eylon Levy, a government spokesman, said on Jan. 2.
Rumors have circulated that Alan Dershowitz, the emeritus Harvard Law professor and Israel advocate, will be part of Israel’s legal team, though he has not confirmed his participation. Dershowitz has been on the legal teams of other famous defendants, including O.J. Simpson and, more recently, President Donald Trump during his first impeachment trial. He did not reply to a request for comment.
Beyond seeking to stake a moral defense against a crime it has prosecuted against Nazi war criminals, there are practical reasons for Israel to participate. The ICJ’s process may take years, but if after next week’s hearing it finds enough evidence to go forward, it may call on the parties in the Gaza war to cease hostilities.
Such a court order would establish a legal basis for countries to boycott and isolate Israel and to restrict the movement of its officials if Israel does not comply.
Two years ago, Ukraine sought and received a similar order from the court in its efforts to repel Russia’s invasion. But while both cases involve genocide, the Russia and Israel trials differ: Ukraine is not accusing Russia of genocide. Rather, it went to the ICJ to contest Russia’s accusation that Ukraine is committing genocide — which Putin has cited as a pretext for the war.
Russia, which is massive and has built an insular economy, ignored the order. But Israel, a small country allied with the West, can’t afford to make the same choice, said Orde Kittrie, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, an influential Washington think tank with close ties to Israel’s government.
“If Israel is ordered to do what Russia [was] ordered to do, which would be to immediately suspend its military operations, it would certainly be bad for Israel from a PR perspective,” said Kittrie, who is a law professor at Arizona State University. “You don’t want to be violating international law. You don’t want to be fighting when you’ve been told to stop.”
The Biden administration has indicated that it will not honor any injunctions targeting Israel as a result of the genocide charges. “We find this submission meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever,” National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said on Wednesday.
Why is South Africa making the charge?
South Africa’s government sees itself as a bulwark against what it casts as western imperialism. It also wants to push back against perceptions in the West that, since the end of apartheid in the early 1990s, it has devolved into corruption, authoritarianism and alliances with repressive regimes.
In 2017, it ignored an ICC warrant for the arrest of then-Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir on genocide charges, allowing him to enter the country.
In addition to the genocide accusation, it has embraced charges that Israel is guilty of apartheid, the crime of institutionalized racial discrimination that was South Africa’s hallmark under white minority rule for decades. Its leaders have never forgiven Israel for cozying up to the apartheid regime. Its parliament in November, in a non-binding vote, said the government should expel Israeli diplomats.
“South Africa has been engaged on the Palestinian issue since really the end of apartheid and the founding of the state,” Michael Walsh, a visiting scholar at the University of California Berkeley, told Vox. “It’s been a prominent issue in South African politics and among South African leaders.”
What is the basis for the genocide accusation?
Pro-Palestinian activists and anti-Zionist figures have been accusing Israel of genocide since the earliest days of the war — an allegation Israeli and other scholars across the political spectrum have strenuously denied both in this conflict and previous rounds of fighting. (A recent letter by a group of Israeli public figures — unconnected with the ICJ case — did accuse some Israeli officials of incitement to genocide, though not of the crime of genocide itself.)
South Africa’s charging document in the ICJ case, which outlines what it calls acts of genocide and also intent, relies on many of the same arguments pro-Palestinian activists have made in recent months.
The acts are drawn from news accounts of the carnage, which according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry has topped 22,000 Palestinian casualties, including thousands of children. That number doesn’t differentiate between civilians and combatants.
Also included are warnings by international bodies that the population of the enclave is on the verge of mass starvation and disease. “The acts in which Israel has engaged … are genocidal in character, having regard to their nature, scope and context,” the charging document says.
In seeking to establish intent, South Africa quotes statements by Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that South Africa claims are genocidal in scope.
That is an “extraordinarily challenging” standard to meet, according to an analysis by Alaa Hachem and Oona Hathaway at Just Security, an online security think tank run out of the New York University School of Law. “It requires proof of a specific intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.”
The South African charging document quotes a speech Netanyahu delivered to the Knesset, describing the war as “a struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness, between humanity and the law of the jungle,” which South Africa called a “a dehumanizing theme to which he returned on various occasions.”
That quote and some of the others in the document, the FDD’s Kittrie noted, refer not to the Palestinians as a whole but to Hamas. Kittrie said that Israeli leaders on other occasions have made clear that their war is with the terrorist group that launched the conflict with massacres that took the lives of some 1,200 people, most of them civilians, on Oct. 7.
“Our war against Hamas, the Hamas terrorist organization, is a war — it’s not a war against the people of Gaza,” Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said last month at a press conference with Lloyd Austin, the U.S. defense secretary.
Other more damning quotes cited in the document come from figures on the far right. It quotes for instance Amichai Eliahu, the minister of heritage who is a member of the Otzma Yehudit, or Jewish Power, party, who has said, “There is no such thing as uninvolved civilians in Gaza” and has called to nuke the territory.
Those figures are not making decisions in the war, Kittrie said. “The South Africans point to a few statements by members of the Knesset,” he said. “They take some statements out of context.”
That may be the case, said Yaniv Roznai, a law professor at Reichman University in Israel, but it is incumbent on Netanyahu and others to get their allies to avoid indulging fantasies of ethnic cleansing at an extraordinarily risky time.
“Instead of understanding that words have meanings, and that we are in wartime and to watch their mouths and not say really stupid things,” Netanyahu and others are “trying to explain them,” Roznai said in a podcast for UnXeptable, a group that opposes the massive judicial reforms Netanyahu sought before the war.
What will Israel’s case be?
Kittrie said Israel will be able to show it has instituted mitigation measures in its military campaign.
“Israel’s extensive advance warning and other measures to mitigate harm to Gaza civilians make clear that Israel’s goal is not to commit genocide but, far from it, to instead minimize Palestinian civilian casualties while lawfully exercising Israel’s rights to rescue its hostages, apprehend the Oct. 7 perpetrators, and ensure that Israel’s population is secure from further attacks,” he said.
Israeli spokespeople have also suggested that Israel will seek to turn the tables, and level charges of genocide against Hamas.
“The Hamas terrorist organization — which is committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and sought to commit genocide on 7 October — is responsible for the suffering of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by using them as human shields and stealing humanitarian aid from them,” the Foreign Ministry’s Hayat said in a statement.
—
The post Israel faces charges of genocide at the International Court of Justice. Here’s why, and how Israel will respond. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
Glazed over: 2010s vibes abound in Ilana Glazer’s made-in-Toronto comedy special ‘Human Magic’
In 2016, the American comedian Ali Wong put out a comedy special. As reviewer Michelle Ruiz put it at the time for Vogue, “Until her, I’d never seen a pregnant stand-up. I’d never seen a pregnant stand-up pretending to trap a man’s head between her legs in simulated cunnilingus either, but this is the beauty of Baby Cobra.” Jason Zinoman of the New York Times meanwhile called Wong’s performance “something new, a pregnant woman in her third trimester delivering a deliriously filthy and funny hour of comedy woven into a sneakily feminist assault on the double standards of parenting.”
Going on a decade ago, it was refreshing, raw, what have you, to see a woman in this deeply domestic state, speaking about sex and bodies in a way more commonly associated with… well, with men. And a racialized woman, too—a further change of pace in the white, male world of stand-up.
During that era, American comics Abbi Jacobson and Ilana Glazer had moved their web series Broad City onto cable television, showing that young women—not just young men—could be hijinks-having stoners. We were still in the era (Knocked Up, 2007) where men (perhaps played by Seth Rogen) could be slackers and some no-nonsense woman, perhaps played Katherine Heigl, would be the responsible one. We’re kind of back in that era now, but for five minutes there, it was allowed that women sometimes slacked.
Like seemingly all Jewish women at the time, I was a huge fan of this show. I particularly loved the 2015 episode, “Knockoffs,” that weaves together a plot with Abbi’s character trying out a certain new act with a male partner and Ilana’s discount handbag shopping with her mother. It was the second of the two that truly made the episode, showcasing a part of the New York mother-daughter experience never before seen, or at least not seen since The Nanny. But you need both threads to make sense of what follows: The bargains turn out to be found underground, as in literally beneath the road, yielding one of the best comedic lines of all time: “All the good shit is always down a manhole.”
Art about slackerdom, told from the slacker’s perspective, is always a challenge, but they nailed it. Broad City was objectively delightful, but also innovative in a way of specific interest to me: it presented unambiguously Jewish, Jewish-looking young women as protagonists, not sidekicks. They were the comic relief and the ones out having sexual adventures, and going on a satirical version of Birthright Israel. After growing up surrounded by a Gwyneth-led beauty standard, I got a kick out of knowing that I now lived in a world where women like these were considered desirable. What’s it to me if men think Scarlett Johansson’s hot? Abby and Ilana, this is another matter.
I’m a few months older than Jacobson and (this will be relevant) a few years older than Glazer, but close enough in age to both that it was a bit like watching my own early-20s Brooklyn-dwelling life, except hilarious. I remember it as a kind of counterpoint to Lena Dunham’s Girls, about a not-dissimilar milieu and life stage, but just so much sillier, and therefore more my speed. While I can’t say I’m committed to realism or representation in my television viewing generally (or else why so devoted to Midsomer Murders?) there was something special about how this show was covering familiar-to-me territory and getting it so right.
***
As I will be the first in human history to observe, time passes. For most of us, it’s a bit who cares. It’s unremarkable if the classmate who partied hard at 19 is more settled-down at 39. Not so if you made a name for yourself as your own free-spirited slacker-stoner alter ego, the picture of unfettered youth. If you’re Ilana Glazer, if you played the less responsible of the Broad City broads, and had the audacity to grow up, get married, and have a kid, your fans may demand an explanation.
Glazer’s comedy special, Human Magic, filmed at the Elgin and Winter Garden Theatre in Toronto last May and released for streaming in the final days of 2024 (on Hulu in the U.S. but via the adult side of Disney Plus in Canada) , brings the fans up to speed. It reconciles the filthy-mind-possessing Ilana Wexler alter ego from Broad City with the grown-up, responsible, professionally accomplished Ilana Glazer before us today. It is also an attempt at making a 2010s… vibe? ethos? relevant to the 2020s.
Human Magic is the 2020s’ answer to Baby Cobra, which may be where things go awry. It’s no longer groundbreaking to be a pregnant woman or new mom who (glances around anxiously) does sex stuff. It is maybe slightly edgy to admit to being a mom who consumeth the marijuana, as Glazer does, as is central to her personal brand, but stonerdom itself isn’t the rebellion it once was, not with legal dispensaries surrounding the theatre she’s performing at on Yonge Street—to say nothing of the rest of North America—not with all the much-publicized research about alcohol as a carcinogen, making Team Weed seem as if they had the right idea all along.
That’s not to say there isn’t a twist. The twist is that Glazer is not like those other women who love their husbands and have babies with them and enjoy cleaning the house and help their inept-shopper husbands buy T-shirts. And I don’t just mean because she’s a famous person.
Glazer now describes herself as a “queer Jewy woman,” but does not elaborate on what sort of queer she—a woman with a husband—identifies as. A non-practising bisexual, one might guess. (Human Magic includes what might be the lewdest-ever way of expressing the fact that the speaker is monogamous, and much of the special is about her sexual history with men, though she does mime a sex act involving another woman, but only—hard to explain—to make a feminist point about microphones being too phallic.) And perhaps that as well, I have no idea.
A glance at Instagram and recent media coverage attests that Glazer uses she/her as well as they/them pronouns, suggesting that this is core to what Glazer’s referring to when speaking of queerness. Per a recent profile in The Independent—which was picked up by other clickbait headline outlets like it was still 2014—having a baby paradoxically tapped her into her own gender multitude (as versus the boring thing where it reminds you just how female you are), and today, “she identifies as a non-binary woman.”
“Broad City” star Ilana Glazer has opened up about their pregnancy, saying that the experience helped them realize that they are nonbinary. https://t.co/Q6bR2wkCfJ
— Them (@them) August 12, 2024
If this has you wondering who among us identifies as a binary woman, you are not alone. If you’re not wondering this, you are mad at me for having done so. Those are, you see, the only options.
But the interview got picked up, as they will, and held up as evidence that a beloved celebrity had Come Out As Queer. Fine, an assigned-female-at-birth, feminine-presenting, husband-having one, but why should any of that matter? It’s a big tent! Vogue publisher Condé Nast’s gender-celebrity website Them celebrated this revelation-of-sorts as follows: “We love a subtle nonbinary slay, especially when it comes from none other than Ilana Glazer.”
The subtlety is undeniable. Blink and you’d miss it.
***
You can never know, when talking about another person, what’s a tentative first step on a journey, and what’s a gesture taken on for symbolic reasons. It’s entirely possible that tomorrow, Glazer will announce exclusively they/them—or he/they, or he/him—pronouns, and whichever material transitioning in whichever direction, and I will feel like a terrible person for having even fleetingly interpreted this as a case of a functionally if not technically straight lady presenting herself as more interesting (or oppressed) than she is.
It is also possible that I will wake up tomorrow with the politics and inclinations of someone born a micro-era later than I was (Glazer was born in 1987, whereas I’m an ancient ’83er, and this seems a critical difference for this sort of thing) and be putting she/they into my bios and—despite nothing substantively changing about me or how I live my life—everyone will have to walk on eggshells when discussing me and my bog-standard hetero household.
Everyone apart from the right-wing rabble-rousers, who take a different tack. Well those, and people who from-the-left critique such things, often with the derisive term, spicy straights.
My commitment to the she/her (or, more precisely, to not stating my pronouns and letting others come to the likeliest conclusion) is more a matter of generation or sensibilities than place on any gender spectrum. I have no reason to believe I am more comfortable in my femininity, or however you want to phrase such things, than Glazer is in hers. My hunch here—and it can only be a hunch, I’m not in her brain—is that we have different frameworks for understanding the same kinds of experiences.
Why, then, am I walking on eggshells talking about this? Why am I questioning my choice to use she/her for Glazer, wondering at 9:15 p.m. whether the Wikipedia entry’s use of they/them (which it notes is for consistency, just to pick something) ought to have trumped the Independent profile’s she/her? If I had reason to believe Glazer consistently preferred they/them, I would use they/them, I have no whole thing about this, and believe in using the pronouns people request. Why do I feel like a bad guy here?
My jumpiness isn’t much of a mystery, though. It’s because I’m a repeat visitor to rodeos of this nature. There’s a subset of people who will be next-level furious at me for what they will call erasure, gatekeeping, transphobia. All this because of what is essentially a semantic difference of approach between two people whose lives are—apart from one of them being a famous person who helped create the brilliance that is Broad City—remarkably alike.
Who cares, and more to the point, what does any of this have to do with Human Magic?
The subtext of Human Magic is that Glazer is not just some straight-lady comic offering up relatable anecdotes. She’s someone you’d least expect to be leading such a conventional life. And she describes it all in this cool-kid tone that makes you almost forget that the things she’s talking about (loving your baby, enjoying sex with your husband) are, well, square.
***
I am not an Ilana Glazer-ologist, which is to say, my interest is the persona, not the person. And the persona she presents in Human Magic is no more or less conventionally feminine than the typical straight woman. It is not just the gushing about the husband (more on that in a moment), but visible to anyone with any familiarity with gendered self-presentation in our society. She’s dressed in a black, off-the-shoulder minidress or shirt-and-miniskirt (mini-skort?) combo, with black stockings, a chic necklace, and gorgeous shimmery eyeshadow.
Now someone could be as described and use any pronouns. But the overall effect—combined with Glazer’s own references to herself as a woman and “mom” throughout the special—suggests that one would not be misgendering Glazer to call her a woman. She calls herself a woman! (Why am I walking on eggshells?) And unlike her Broad City co-creator and co-star, who is married to another woman, Glazer is what one might call straight-passing. (A wife, if you’re a woman, is a dead giveaway about the not-straight thing.)
What I keep returning to is the T-shirt interlude. In this part of Human Magic, Glazer pokes gentle fun at her husband for his inability to buy his own clothes. She has to show him the websites and tell him what size he wears. Men!
This is standard stand-up fare. The bumbling husband, flummoxed by a domestic task, or maybe he deems it too trivial. There’s also something mildly absurd about how specifically I related to this (the scientist husband, those exact T-shirt websites). Queer Jewy women, straight Jewy women, not so different after all!.
Glazer is nothing if not a member of her moment. She admits that she’s married, but encourages applause for the divorcees in the audience at the start of the show, calling herself a “divorce enthusiast.” She performs—literally, she is on a stage—the requisite feminist ambivalence of being in an opposite-sex relationship. “I feel so lucky to be married to my husband, but it’s hard at baseline to be a woman married to a man. Cause I see him sometimes as [here she gets dramatically angry] SOME MAN, instead of the person I chose to spend my life with.”
It’s performative misandry, but it’s also heteropessimism—or what would be called that if the person experiencing it identified as heterosexual. Glazer negotiates a squickiness surrounding her quasi-straight-womanhood (straight quasi-womanhood?) by describing herself as pro-guys, anti-men, with a whole routine about the difference between guys and men. Something about guys wearing sweatpants to buy groceries and men wearing jeans to work out in.
The guys-good, men-bad bit is a little funny, maybe? Not earth-shattering. It taps into something in the culture, though. Specifically, to the loophole according to which you’re permitted to be a ban-men feminist and have a male partner, so long as you tell anyone who’ll listen that you’ve found one of the good ones. Where this is meant to leave the women married to less-good ones (are they victims or just bad feminists?) I’m never clear.
***
Human Magic has its moments, in the Baby Cobra mould. Glazer describes a medical exam she had before giving birth as being “fingered” and in a positive sense—something I think I might find unnerving to hear if I were the doctor who’d performed the exam, but it’s a comedy special, maybe this never happened! She recalls the expletives she uttered when in awe of the miracle of having just had her baby. She confesses—in a scandalous tone—that she enjoys performing oral sex. Is the audience meant to be scandalized because sex, or because the sex-haver is a mom, or is it that third thing: that it’s yeah kinda shameful to be into sex with men, if you’re a queer feminist?
Loving your husband, enjoying sex with him, liking that he can carry heavy items (“I’ll tell you one thing daddies can do: carry shit”) not liking that he can’t be bothered to order his own T-shirts, loving your baby, worrying about your baby eating solids and how that’s going, enjoying cleaning your house (this is, Glazer explains, her Shabbat ritual), these are all things that put Glazer in community with the wide world of basic straight ladies. (I detest cleaning my house, which puts me where on the gender spectrum?) She presents her preferences for ordinary things as shocking revelations—the subtext being, can you believe someone like ME is into this stuff?
The more I think of it, the stranger it all seems. Annoying, but also kind of brilliant? There’s a part about how the first time she had fully unprotected intercourse was when trying for a baby. She describes this entirely banal fact of how one plans a pregnancy in extremely funny terms that sound both erotic and sordid.
What Glazer does—and what puts her in the spirit of Ali Wong—is remind that getting older, moving through the various life stages, does not magically remove women’s humanness. (Human Magic the title refers to reproduction, but could as easily refer to what’s imagined happens to women when no longer 22 and carefree.) Human Magic reminds that mothers are also women, that women are also people. Not just as in, people deserving of human rights, but people whose minds go to places that our culture ascribes to teenage boys.
The breakthrough of Broad City was showing that what’s thought of as teenage-boy-ness exists in young women as well. Human Magic extends the privilege to slightly older women. In a way.
***
Is the special not that funny because it’s too sanctimonious? After all, Glazer is an outspoken progressive, Broad City had a Hillary Clinton cameo in 2016 (whole lot of good that did, but I digress), and is a supporter of the Palestinian cause.
But we are not in the realm of humourless scolding a la Hannah Gadsby’s 2018 anti-comedy comedy special, Nanette. Glazer’s comic timing is still there, her exaggerated expressions, and if some of her qualities that were charming on Broad City now inspire a bit of, you do realize you’re borderline middle-aged now yes?, like when she refers to her toddler as “dawg,” it is clear she does in fact realize this, and is in on the joke.
Glazer comes across as aware she’s known for having righteous left-wing politics, and uses this as a way of offering unexpected twists. She talks about how dreadful it was, developing breasts early—“shtetl titties,” she calls them—and being sexualized from a young age. She then pivots to how, in her 30s, she’s no longer gently patted in public spaces and how she misses this. That’s it, that’s the joke.
Then there’s the interlude where Glazer admonishes mainstream (non-feminist) pornography for its emphasis on incest. She digresses a bit and you think she’s about to condemn the 1995 movie Clueless for its step-sibling romance. Really, you think, she’s out here cancelling Clueless? Instead she mimes her then-pubescent self let us say really enjoying the film—and in doing so, going somewhere far franker than Clueless itself ever did.
I suppose a part of me reacted to the knowledge that Glazer doesn’t fully identify as a woman the way I would have had I learned that she no longer considered herself Jewish. (Note: she absolutely does consider herself Jewish; it’s an analogy.) Broad City was such a triumph of Jewish female representation that maybe I am, on some level, unjustly attached to the idea of its creators as female and as Jews.
The CJN’s opinion editor Phoebe Maltz Bovy can be reached at pbovy@thecjn.ca, not to mention @phoebebovy on Bluesky, and @bovymaltz on X. She is also on The CJN’s weekly podcast Bonjour Chai. For more opinions about Jewish culture wars, subscribe to the free Bonjour Chai newsletter on Substack.
The post Glazed over: 2010s vibes abound in Ilana Glazer’s made-in-Toronto comedy special ‘Human Magic’ appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
Columbia University Professors Calls on President to Denounce Pro-Terror Activism
Columbia University is being called on to respond to accusations that it has enabled the proliferation of antisemitic and pro-terror ideologies on campus.
“Dear Katrina Armstrong, the interim president of Columbia University,” Professor Shai Davidai, a faculty member who is one of the most renown pro-Israel activists in higher education, wrote in an open letter published on the X social media platform. “At some point your bulls—t needs to be called out. At some point, your silence must be addressed. Why haven’t you said anything about CU Apartheid Divest, the faculty supported organization that operates like an ideological terrorist cell? (They would never strap-on a suicide belt, but they praise and support those who do).”
Shai then enumerated a slew of grievances regarding the university’s handling of pro-Hamas and anti-Zionist extremists, including its declining to ever disavow Middle East Studies professor Joseph Massad, who praised Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel and described the men who paraglided into the Nova Music Festival to murder the young people there as “the air force of the Palestinian resistance.” He also cited the university’s allowing pro-Hamas students to crash a memorial service for the men, women, and children who Hamas murdered on the anniversary of the Oct. 7 attack.
“You know perfectly well that they aren’t criticizing Israel’s policies. You know perfectly well that they’re criticizing its existence,” he continued. “It doesn’t take much to say that praising the death of Israelis is unacceptable. Silence isn’t violence, but it surely enables it. And true leaders never remain silent. Shame on you for not saying anything. Shame on you for your silence.”
The Algemeiner has asked Columbia University to respond to Davidai’s allegations and will update this story if the school responds.
Davidai’s missive follows 15 months of explosions of antisemitic hatred and extremism on Columbia University’s campus, a trend which began immediately after the Oct. 7 massacre. As The Algemeiner has previously reported, the treatment to which pro-Israel Jewish students, faculty, and staff have been subjected since that day is unprecedented in the school’s history. Jewish students have been beaten up, battered with hate speech, and even prevented from publicly promoting their own self defense.
The professor, a native of Israel, has himself been allegedly persecuted for criticizing the university’s alleged indifference to the proliferation of pro-Hamas sentiment.
Columbia launched an investigation of Davidai in February, several months after he described former university president Minouche Shafik as a “coward” for coddling pro-Hamas activists who, after the Palestinian terrorist group’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel, waged a campaign of harassment, intimidation, and violence to demoralize Jewish students and pressure the university into boycotting Israel. The immediate cause cited for the inquiry, as told to The Algemeiner by the professor, was a series of spurious accusations that his denunciations of mass casualty events inspired by jihadist extremism equated to racism against Muslims and minorities of color.
Undeterred by what appeared to Davidai and his lawyers as a cynical attempt to use the disciplinary system to silence a political dissident and shroud him in suspicion, the professor continued advocating for Israel’s existence and Jewish civil rights all the way up to the first anniversary of Oct. 7, a day which saw dueling demonstrations held by pro-Hamas and pro-Israel students across the campus. It also saw a fateful exchange of words between Davidai and a Columbia administrator, Cas Holloway, whom the professor reproached for permitting pro-Hamas students to use the Oct. 7 anniversary for celebrating the terrorist organization’s atrocities, which included wantonly murdering Israelis, sexually assaulting Jewish women, and kidnapping over 200 hostages.
Columbia and Davidai’s legal team interpreted what transpired between the professor and Holloway differently. Davidai defended his approach as a genuine expression of grief and concern for the welfare of Jewish students, while Columbia felt that an unmoored professor had engaged in “threats of intimidation, harassment, or other threatening behavior.” Following the incident, Columbia “temporarily” banned him from campus, a severe disciplinary sanction which to this day prevents him from attending university functions and accessing his office.
The professor is not the first to accuse the university of inadequately responding to the misconduct of pro-Hamas activists.
In August, the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce denounced school officials for punishing only a few of the anti-Zionist activists who last spring occupied an administrative building and staged a riot which prompted the university to advise Jews to refrain from coming to campus. According to documents shared by the committee, 18 of the 22 students who were given disciplinary charges for their role in the incident were later upgraded to “good standing” despite the university’s earlier pledge to expel them. Another 31 of 35 who were suspended for illegally occupying the campus with a “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” were restored to good standing as well.
Amnestying those students was “disgraceful and unacceptable,” former education committee chairwoman Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said at the time.
“The vast majority of the student perpetrators remain in good standing,” she added. “By allowing its own disciplinary process to be thwarted by radical students and faculty, Columbia has waved the white flag in surrender while offering up a get-out-of-jail-free card to those who participated in these unlawful actions.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Columbia University Professors Calls on President to Denounce Pro-Terror Activism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran Congratulates Maduro on Inauguration, ‘Stands in Solidarity’ With Venezuela Against US ‘Coercive Measures’
Iran has congratulated Nicolás Maduro for beginning his third term as Venezuela’s president, despite international outcry over what many leaders have described as an “illegitimate” presidency only won through a “desperate attempt” to seize power.
The Iranian government sent its best wishes to Maduro and vowed to strengthen ties with Venezuela, describing their bilateral relationship as a way to stand up to the United States.
“Congratulations to President #NicolasMaduro on his inauguration into office as President of the Bolivarian Republic of #Venezuela,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said in a post on X/Twitter on Saturday. “We wish him all the success in serving his great people & country and are looking forward to working with the elected government for the good of our nations in furtherance of Iran-Venezuela’s extensive bilateral ties.”
Congratulations to President #NicolasMaduro on his inauguration into office as President of the Bolivarian Republic of #Venezuela.
We wish him all the success in serving his great people & country and are looking forward to working with the elected government for the good of our… pic.twitter.com/FVmKecZqrp
— Esmaeil Baqaei (@IRIMFA_SPOX) January 11, 2025
Baghaei then said that Iran will stand by Venezuela in opposition to the US government.
“Iran stands in solidarity with Venezuelan people and government in the face of malign interventions and unilateral coercive measures led by the United States,” he said.
Maduro on Friday began his third term as Venezuela’s president, despite US Secretary of State Antony Blinken referring to his “illegitimate presidential inauguration in Venezuela” as a “desperate attempt” to seize power.
“The Venezuelan people and world know the truth — Maduro clearly lost the 2024 presidential election and has no right to claim the presidency,” Blinken said in a statement. “The United States rejects the National Electoral Council’s fraudulent announcement that Maduro won the presidential election and does not recognize Nicolás Maduro as the president of Venezuela.”
Opposition candidate Edmundo González Urrutia should have been sworn in as the Venezuelan president, according to the US State Department.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar agreed, posting on X/Twitter that the Jewish state “expresses concern over the political persecution and arbitrary arrests by the regime and joins the call of many in the international community to restore freedom and democracy in Venezuela.”
“Today, Jan. 10, Edmundo González Urrutia, the elected president of Venezuela, who won the presidential elections by a significant majority, was supposed to be inaugurated,” Sa’ar added. “However, the election results are not being respected, and his inauguration is not taking place. The ruler, Nicolás Maduro, an ally of Iran, must honor the will of the people in his country.”
US President-elect Donald Trump also lambasted Maduro after Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado — who emerged from months of hiding last week to join anti-Maduro protesters in the capital city of Caracas and demand that González be sworn in instead — was briefly detained by government security forces.
“Venezuelan democracy activist Maria Corina Machado and President-elect Gonzalez are peacefully expressing the voices and the will of the Venezuelan people with hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating against the regime,” Trump wrote on social media. “These freedom fighters should not be harmed, and must stay safe and alive.”
According to reports, Machado was forced to record several videos before she was released, although details of those recordings remain unclear and Maduro’s supporters have denied that the opposition leader was arrested.
Meanwhile, Iran is also increasing its military presence in Venezuela, with some members of the country’s elite even acquiring properties in the Latin American country and being offered political asylum should they need it, The Latin Times reported on Friday.
Iran has reportedly established a drone development base at the El Libertador air base in Venezuela, where training for Venezuelan military personnel also takes place in addition to the production and training in the use of a wide range of unnamed aerial vehicles (UAVs).
The two countries have also strengthened economic ties in recent years, such as Iran’s Mahan Air making direct flights between Caracas and Tehran. According to Infobae, a Spanish-language Argentine online newspaper, these flights have been used to violate international sanctions by transporting Venezuelan gold in exchange for Iranian oil.
The US and allied countries have imposed heavy sanctions on both Iran and Venezuela for a range of illicit activities, from human rights violations to supporting terrorist groups.
In 2021, for example, the US Justice Department announced charges against Iranian intelligence agents for plotting to kidnap an American citizen, journalist Masih Alinejad, in the US and take her by boat to Venezuela before forcibly returning her to Iran, where she was born.
Iran’s latest expression of support for Venezuela came about two weeks after a senior adviser to the Iranian health minister said that one of Iran’s top foreign policy priorities will be working to enhance its relationship with Cuba across several domains and to expand cooperation with Latin American countries more broadly.
Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela have all continued looking for ways to combat US sanctions, which are only expected to become harsher when Trump enters office on Jan. 20.
It is unclear if Iran will end up pursuing a relationship with Venezuela to resist US sanctions in a formalized way as it has with Russia.
Iranian and Russian leaders have been working on an initiative to form an international alliance against US sanctions known as the International Union Against US Sanctions. An Iranian lawmaker spearheading the effort said last month that it will soon be completed.
The post Iran Congratulates Maduro on Inauguration, ‘Stands in Solidarity’ With Venezuela Against US ‘Coercive Measures’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login