RSS
I Am a Professor at Rutgers — There Is Antisemitism on Our Campus
When he testified before the Congressional Committee on Education & the Workforce on May 23, Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway admitted that there is a problem with antisemitism at Rutgers and that his administration had been too slow to implement necessary changes in response to it.
Yet, in an opinion article in NJ.com on May 22, Rutgers Professor Todd R. Clear wrote, “Rampant antisemitism at Rutgers? In a word, no.”
Professor Clear’s opinion is diametrically opposed to that of many Jews at Rutgers and members of the investigating Committee, which is focusing on antisemitism on campuses including Rutgers.
The recent disruptive tent encampment by pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protesters on the Rutgers-New Brunswick campus was clearly antisemitic in nature. This opinion was expressed by many members of the Congressional committee, and by the testimony of President Holloway at the hearings.
To avoid violent conflict with students, like what occurred at UCLA and elsewhere, the Rutgers administration negotiated with students to have them withdraw, but not before finals on the New Brunswick campus were cancelled for thousands of Rutgers students.
An agreement, which may be discriminatory and violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, was reached behind closed doors, thus avoiding objections from other campus stakeholders including JFAS (Jewish Faculty, Administrators, and Staff), Hillel, Chabad, and the Chancellor’s own advisory committee on antisemitism.
Given that encampments at other universities had turned violent and destructive, it is no wonder that Rutgers administration chose to capitulate to avoid violence. But that’s exactly what they did — capitulate, and give in to the demands of antisemitic and anti-Israel bullies.
Professor Clear wrote that he and over 50 Jewish faculty members at Rutgers urged President Holloway last week “to hold his course — to resist the chorus of voices accusing Rutgers of antisemitism.”
Yet, on May 21, Rutgers JFAS submitted an open letter to President Holloway with 211 signatories, including myself, noting that “since the Hamas massacres of October 7, 2023, campus antisemitism reached historic levels and affected many of us deeply.”
More than 160 Rutgers students signed their own letter to President Holloway with the same message.
The pro-Palestinian protesters against the war in Gaza, which was precipitated by the vicious, dehumanizing Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, chant “Free, Free Palestine,” “From the River to the Sea,” “Divest,” and “Intifada!”
Professor Clear posits that “each of these chants says something about Israel — they say nothing about Jews.”
I and many other Jewish professors at Rutgers strongly disagree.
Let’s take the most egregious of these chants, “From the River to the Sea,” which is explained succinctly in an article entitled “Why ‘Free Palestine from the River to the Sea’ Means Genocide against Jews” published soon after the massacre.
In a video played at the Congressional hearing, students mindlessly repeated this chant, but upon questioning, they admitted they did not know which river and which sea they were talking about.
The area in question includes all of Israel, and the slogan implies that forming a Palestinian state would “eliminate” more than 7 million Jews. Like many other Jews, I find this chant terrorizing — especially since my brother lives in Israel and he would be subject, at least, to expulsion, if not worse, if this chant were realized.
Professor Clear states that such slogans constitute activism, not antisemitism. The participants at the Congressional hearings could not disagree more. The Committee chair, in her closing remarks, chided three university presidents for not doing enough to fight antisemitism on their campuses, not providing sufficient education, and not suspending and expelling offending students in contradiction to their own university policies to protect students and faculty. The university presidents’ permissive stance toward antisemitism likely contributes to increased attacks on Jews and vandalism against Jewish institutions across the US, including at universities like Rutgers.
I suggest that Professor Clear’s view is not representative of the wider Jewish community, including the dwindling numbers of Holocaust survivors, who feel threatened again by the October 7 massacre and rising antisemitism. And, as a reminder, if Hamas retains power in Gaza (which would happen in a ceasefire), Hamas has promised to repeat the October 7 massacre “over and over.”
It’s unfortunate that it may take criticism from Congress to provide for the rights of Jewish students and faculty at public universities. I hope these university presidents take the ongoing Congressional scrutiny seriously, and make their universities safer places where unbiased learning can thrive and truth be spoken without infringing on individual rights. Only then can we have productive dialogue to understand each other better in the university setting and beyond.
Martin Grumet is a Professor of Cell Biology & Neuroscience, Rutgers University, Piscataway NJ.
The post I Am a Professor at Rutgers — There Is Antisemitism on Our Campus first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Treasure Trove remembers how Jewish Canadians reached out to rebuild poor neighbourhoods in Israel
Canadian Jewry should be proud of the support it has given to Israel during this very difficult time in its history. The outpouring of love and support is nothing new: it is something we have been doing since long before Israel was born.
To cite one example, this is a street sign in Jaffa that reads that the street is dedicated to the Canadian charities that donated funds to rehabilitate the neighbourhood.
The neighbourhood is Jaffa Dalet, which was built in the 1950s for new immigrants. By the 1970s it was a down-and-out area, one of the poorest in Israel, which had streets with numbers and no names.
Jaffa Dalet was one of 160 distressed neighbourhoods throughout Israel that prime minister Menachem Begin announced in 1978 would be rehabilitated in a joint project between the government of Israel and world Jewry. Named “Project Renewal”, the Jewish Agency joined as a partner, and undertook to twin Jewish communities around the world with specific neighbourhoods in Israel.
Jaffa Dalet was twinned with Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Regina and Saskatoon, and it is the support from these communities, and donations from other Canadians, that is memorialized in this street sign. Other Canadian Project Renewal twinnings were Montreal with Yerucham, Toronto with Beit Dagan, and unfederated communities in Ontario and the West with Or Yehudah.
Today, Jaffa is a mixed community of Jews and Arabs and includes many Falash Mura who arrived from Ethiopia about 20 years ago. The area is again going through a phase of urban renewal (Pinui Binui in Hebrew, literally “evacuation and construction”) in which old apartment buildings are being demolished and replaced with more modern and larger buildings. The process allows existing residents to enjoy new and more spacious apartments without having to leave their neighbourhood, while the area’s infrastructure is updated and more residential units are built.
Jewish Canadians responded when the call came from Israel in the 1970s to help build the country. There is much rebuilding required now as a result of the wars Israel has fought since Oct. 7, 2023, and no doubt Canadian Jewry will continue to respond to the call. Our actions today will long be remembered, whether in the name of a street or in the knowledge that when help was needed, we were there.
Here’s hoping that 2025 finally brings a quick return of the hostages, safety for Israel’s soldiers, comfort to those who have lost so much, and peace for Israel and the entire region.
The post Treasure Trove remembers how Jewish Canadians reached out to rebuild poor neighbourhoods in Israel appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
Shabbat Mikeytz: The Power of Dreams
A Torah scroll. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
Dreams play a very important part in the Biblical narrative. We have read in recent weeks about Yaakov’s dream of angels going up and down a ladder. Yosef dreamt about his own future — as well as the dreams of the baker and the butcher and those of Pharaoh. The implication is that these dreams were all reliable messages, coming as Yosef says, from God.
The question we have to answer is to what extent dreams should be relied on. To this day, there are people who make a living out of interpreting dreams. Are they charlatans taking advantage of the credulous, or are they onto something?
When it comes to Yosef and Pharaoh, they both had dreams which came true. In the case of Yosef, it’s his turning from a victim in a pit to the ruler of Egypt. In the case of Pharaoh, it’s a premonition of seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine. But later on, when the Torah talks about false prophets, it’s talking about dreamers who should not be relied on (Devarim 13).
It will come as no surprise that the Talmud has pages about how to react to dreams and interpret them. Most take dreams very seriously, but disagree over interpretations and their validity. Others do not. The variety and disagreements that you can find in the Talmud are proof of how controversial dreams were then — and indeed, remain so for many people now.
Rav Chisdah said a dream that’s not interpreted is like a letter that’s not read. So if you ignore it, you’re not going to get any message. He also said that neither a good nor a bad dream is entirely fulfilled. On the cynical side, Rav Yochanan said that there’s no such thing as a dream without idle information — which is about right for most of my dreams.
The Gemara deals with the charlatans who make a living out of interpreting dreams. Rav Akiva said that there were 24 interpreters of dreams in Jerusalem, and each one disagreed as to what the interpretation was. Bar Hadaya, a popular interpreter, would give a good interpretation of a dream to anybody who paid him money and a bad interpretation if they did not. One rabbi who had a bad interpretation because he wouldn’t pay the first time, came back with money and then got a good interpretation. Plenty of those are still around today.
Then you have what I might call the Freudians. Shmuel bar Nachmani said that a person is shown in his dream only the thoughts of his own heart (i.e., mind). In other words, dreams are a reflection of the subconscious, which sounds as though it was written by Sigmund Freud himself. Of course they didn’t use those terms at that time. Rava said that one is neither shown a golden palm tree nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle in a dream. Dreams only contain images that a person has actually seen.
Nevertheless, these pages are full of all kinds of attempts to interpret what one dreams. I have to say that after a year of almost constant nightmares, I’m at last beginning to have sweet dreams. And so I wish you all a very happy Hanukkah and may all your dreams be sweet and amusing.
The author is a writer and rabbi, currently based in New York.
The post Shabbat Mikeytz: The Power of Dreams first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
How the Media Blamed Israel for Ruining Bethlehem’s Christmas (Again)
Tourists walk in Manger Square outside the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, Dec. 2, 2019. Photo: Reuters / Mussa Qawasma.
Once again, it’s that time of the year. But we won’t repeat the obvious: the media love blaming Israel for ruining Christmas in Bethlehem.
We will, however, point at the strategy they use to achieve this.
Here is the issue: The media need to cover what they see. And in Bethlehem, they see a baby Jesus doll placed in rubble; no foreign tourists; and protests in solidarity with Gaza. It is undoubtedly a somber Christmas in Jesus’ traditional birthplace, and it should be reported.
But the media should and can apply critical thinking in their choice of interviewees and background material. And they are not doing so.
The Only Priest in Bethlehem?
The media star of the season, except for Jesus, was (again) Munther Isaac, a pastor at Bethlehem’s Lutheran Church.
Outlets like Reuters, BBC, ABC News, and NBC News were happy to quote Isaac for a simple reason: His church was responsible for the media stunt showing baby Jesus as a Palestinian child amid Gaza rubble.
Fair enough. But nowhere did these outlets mention that Isaac has also justified the October 7 massacre, and has been described as “the high priest of antisemitic Christianity.”
Respected news outlets should not fall prey to the manipulations of one priest. Professional coverage should have bothered to contrast his view with that of other voices in the local Christian community.
But the problem runs deeper. These media outlets rely on Palestinian producers in Bethlehem who would never undermine — out of fear or bias — this anti-Israeli narrative. And their foreign bosses would not dare question their work, because they need their connections.
Selective Background
More proof of the media’s seasonal bias against Israel can be gleaned from the background information provided in certain stories.
Instead of reminding news consumers about the Palestinian Authority’s responsibility for the dwindling numbers of local Christians, many outlets include lengthy background paragraphs about Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
In Reuters‘ story, for example, a whole section is dedicated to Israel’s settlement activity. One exceptionally irrelevant passage reads:
Israel has built Jewish settlements, deemed illegal by most countries, across the territory. Israel disputes this, citing historical and biblical ties to the land. Several of its ministers live in settlements and favour their expansion.
Similarly, the AP’s “Christmas in Bethlehem” photo collection includes a picture of the security barrier that partially surrounds the city, as a man just happens to walk past graffiti that reads: “Walls are meant for bombing.” Never mind that this wall stood there when Bethlehem enjoyed crowded and celebratory holiday seasons.
And let’s not forget that this bias is not limited to the Christian holidays. Every holiday celebrated by Palestinians in the region — from Ramadan to Easter — gets automatically evaluated based on Israel’s actions.
It never works the other way around, making it seem that Palestinians bear no responsibility whatsoever. For example, the media never outright blamed Hamas for ruining the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, which was deliberately chosen as the date for the October 7 massacre.
For the media, it seems, the “oppressed” Palestinians are granted automatic virtue, while the Israeli “oppressors” are seen as innately evil. The holiday season is just another opportunity to show it.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post How the Media Blamed Israel for Ruining Bethlehem’s Christmas (Again) first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login