RSS
December Was Filled with Outrage on Campus and Elsewhere; Here’s What Happened
Throughout December, campus BDS and antisemitism remained shaped by the ongoing war in Gaza.
The main event of the month was the appearance of the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology before a House committee investigating antisemitism on campus.
Most controversially, the presidents were asked if calls for genocide against Jews would be protected speech.
Then-UPenn president Liz Magill stated that “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes,” adding that “It is a context dependent decision.” The answer was echoed by Harvard president Claudine Gay, who stated that “it depends on the context,” and MIT president Sally Kornbluth, who noted the school would act “if the speech turns into conduct.” Gay added that calls for intifada were “evil,” and “personally abhorrent,”and “at odds with the values of Harvard,” but declined to say whether they violated university policies.
The presidents’ inept responses provoked a firestorm of criticism from the White House, the public, lawmakers, and alums, and resulted in Magill’s and Gay’s resignations, along with the head of Penn’s board of trustees.
The donor revolt against academia that began in October when universities faltered in issuing statements condemning Hamas widened in December. Several elite institutions, especially Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, reported losing major gifts, missing fundraising targets, lowering the “donor door” for special consideration, and expressing the need to reestablish relationships with alumni.
At the same time, the Hamas attack and the BDS-inspired campus responses have made the larger problem of academia’s intellectual and political monoculture more broadly understood.
This situation has long been cast in terms of political parties, such as the near absolute dominance of Democratic voters and donors within the humanities and social sciences. But the intellectual aspect was fully revealed by support for Hamas’ atrocities from students and professors defending “decolonization” and violence.
In response to the donor revolt at the University of Pennsylvania, some 900 faculty members signed a letter expressing opposition to what was described as “attempts by trustees, donors, and other external actors to interfere with our academic policies and to undermine academic freedom.”
Donor objections to specific presidents and policies, above all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and their powerful bureaucracies, have been in the open since October. Reports from Princeton and elsewhere have shown that concerns from Jewish students are dismissed and even ridiculed by DEI bureaucrats. As calls to dismantle DEI bureaucracies have increased, Jewish organizations have sought to integrate Jewish concerns within existing DEI initiatives. These run counter to the emerging political wave against DEI as a whole.
Faculty members remain at the forefront of “pro-Palestine” activities on campus. “Faculty for Justice in Palestine” chapters continue to be formed, including at Rutgers University, Princeton University, the University of Michigan, the University of Massachusetts, the University of Hawaii, and elsewhere. The groups are formed under the aegis of the leading BDS organization, the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.
Faculty groups in December also shifted to issuing statements affirming their right to “academic freedom.” This was cast exclusively terms of “Israel/Palestine” and demands that faculty be given absolute impunity to explicitly politicize pedagogy.
UCLA faculty demanded the university, “Publicly reject the deliberately mendacious and misleading conflation of criticism of the Israeli state with antisemitism,” and “Offer resources, services and accommodations to students, faculty, and staff affected by the genocide in Palestine and mounting repression campaigns.”
University of Wisconsin faculty stated that, “using stereotypes about Jewish people in criticism of Israel would indeed be antisemitic, but simple critique (or even condemnation) of the state of Israel must be protected as part of a healthy educational discourse.”
Swarthmore College faculty claimed that, “The suggestion that the classroom is not a political space or that the College is a neutral institution that is in some way hermetically sealed from our broader geopolitical context contradicts the College’s commitment to rigorous scholarship that engages with the most pressing contemporary issues. This fantasy also obscures the College’s ongoing complicity with U.S. militarism.”
The notion that faculty are among the real victims in campus politics is also widespread. Middle East studies faculty continue to complain that they are being “silenced” and that “academic repression” surrounding “Israel-Palestine” is “widespread.”
Revelations also continue to emerge regarding the antisemitic content forced into K-12 education through ethnic studies curricula, which cast Israelis and Jews as oppressors.
Despite a stream of revelations regarding teachers effectively preaching jihad in the classroom, few have been removed, particularly in systems such as New York City, where union regulations make it nearly impossible. Reports also note the widespread presence of Democratic Socialists of America’ members in schools and on school boards providing protection for anti-Israel and anti-capitalist propaganda. Statements such as that from the Massachusetts Teachers Union accusing the US of complicity in “genocide” confirms the far left and anti-Israel orientation of these groups.
Fortunately in California, the epicenter of ethnic studies, a University of California committee narrowly decided to drop ethnic studies as an admission requirement for the state university system. This would have forced high schools across the state to present such courses, which are have been developed by anti-Israel faculty.
The impacts of anti-Israel sentiment in academia after October 7 has also been felt in informal boycotts of Israeli faculty and institutions. Publications, invitations, collaborations, and requests for sharing of materials and data have reportedly been slowed. These boycotts have the potential for harming Israel’s economic and academic standings, and may have an impact on global science, given Israel’s outsized contributions.
Campus protests continued during December. Sit-ins were undertaken at Swarthmore College, the University of Massachusetts, Vassar College, Stanford University, Harvard University, Occidental College, and New York University, among others.
Many protests were aimed at disrupting university operations. University trustees, presidents, and Jewish events were particular targets:
BDS supporters also undertook a variety of illegal activities. A student referendum on BDS at the University of Michigan was canceled by the administration after pro-Palestinian students illegally accessed a campus wide email system to send messages. At George Washington University, students illegally recorded the university president and edited the audio to make it appear she had expressed “anti-Palestinian” views.
Consistent with the explicit calls to “Globalize the intifada,” public protests and riots ostensibly in support of the “Palestinian cause” were widespread in December. Transportation was specifically targeted. Traffic was stopped on bridges in the New York City area, the 110 freeway in Los Angeles, and the Bay Bridge in Oakland, access roads to JFK Airport, O’Hare Airport, and countless other locations. Grand Central Station, Penn Station, and other rail links were also targeted. Numerous sites including the Lincoln Memorial were vandalized with Free Gaza graffiti.
Christmas and festive celebrations and shopping were disrupted in parks, malls, stores and public venues ,such as midtown Manhattan and London, by protestors declaring “Christmas is canceled.” Assaults and arrests were reported. Protests were also held on Christmas morning outside the homes of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and national Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Efforts to shut down New Year’s celebrations were made in major cities.
The situation in Gaza was the ostensible motive but the actions were undertaken by pro-Palestinian groups as well as a wide array of communist and social groups including The People’s Forum and the Party for Socialism and Liberation. The support for “Palestine” given by climate change personality Greta Thunberg demonstrated the unity of these and other far left causes.
Another direct reflection of “Globalize the Intifada” protests were hundreds of bomb threats and swatting threats called in to Jewish institutions, apparently from outside the US. Violent protests were held outside of Jewish owned business in cities including Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City. Property crimes directed against Jewish owned businesses and other sites in New York City also rose 85% in December. S
Shabbat services at Temple Beth Am in Los Angeles were relocated for the first time in history after a pro-Hamas demonstration was scheduled in a park across the street.
The House of Representatives also passed a resolution condemning the October 7 attack and stating that anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism. The measure passed 311-14 but 92 Democrats voted “present.” The pro-BDS “Squad” comprised the no votes along with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY).
The increasingly wide distribution of Muslim communities in the US and their growing political action around the single issue of opposing Israel is a growing factor in future electoral calculations, particularly in states such as Michigan, Virginia, and New Jersey.
At the same time pro-Hamas activists have continued to target Democrats. In one incident a Michigan Democratic Party holiday event was disrupted when members of the Palestinian Youth Movement and Party for Socialism and Liberation entered the venue to harass Congresswoman Shri Thanedar (D-MI). The resulting fight sent several individuals to the hospital. Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY) was harassed by pro-Hamas protestors at the 92nd Street Y who shouted “Ritchie Torres, you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide.” Pro-Hamas protestors also vandalized the offices of several Democratic Congressmen. as well as the home of Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA). The willingness to attack politicians is a grave escalation in the war against Israel in the US.
The author is a contributor to SPME, where a version of this article was first published.
The post December Was Filled with Outrage on Campus and Elsewhere; Here’s What Happened first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login