French President Emmanuel Macron is seen at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland. Photo: Reuters/Martial Trezzini

French President Emmanuel Macron has announced that France will recognize a Palestinian state.

Well, that makes perfect sense. After all, we’re talking about an indigenous people whose ancestral homeland was stolen by foreigners with no real connection to the region. I am, of course, referring to — France.

Surely, the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo are turning over in their secular graves with laughter.

France’s move isn’t truly about expressing solidarity with oppressed minorities — though that’s how it plays in progressive media circles. Macron’s decision is not humanitarian, and it has nothing to do with sympathy for starving children in Gaza. Nor is it rooted in a genuine desire to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As usual, it’s a domestic political calculation: an attempt to appease France’s growing Muslim population at the expense of its Jewish minority.

Macron knows full well that Muslims in France now vastly outnumber Jews. He’s pulling yet another rabbit out of the Élysée Palace hat: recognition of a Palestinian state. He’s naively hoping it might buy him some quiet in the streets of Marseilles and Saint-Denis.

Let’s be clear: this is not about peace in the Middle East. It’s about buying stability at home — even if it means rewarding the ideological supporters and perpetrators of October 7th.

But here’s the core fallacy: any radical Muslim elements that Macron hopes to win over with these declarative gestures aren’t interested in symbols. They want a new reality. And that reality, in some cases, is not a liberal republic. It’s an upgrade of the French state to align more closely with their religious and social values. Anyone who believes that recognizing a Palestinian state will create social harmony in France will soon discover that some areas of Paris, Lyon, and Toulouse are already informally governed by social norms rooted in Sharia law.

We’re talking about areas where women can’t walk outside in a tank top. Where pork can’t be sold. Where the Holocaust can’t be taught, and LGBTQ rights are unmentionable.

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité? Macron recites these words beautifully on Bastille Day, but they are vanishing from some parts of the streets of France. Not all Muslims in France feel this way, of course. But there is a definite population that does. And Macron’s “recognition of Palestine” is a smokescreen to cover just that.

American Jews, who are fighting to preserve liberal Jewish life in the face of rising campus-born antisemitism disguised as “progressive justice,” must take note: what starts at the Élysée doesn’t stay in France. When leaders surrender to ideological blackmail in the name of peace, they always sacrifice the Jews first.

France — the country of Descartes, Voltaire, and Emile Zola — has become a republic that meekly removes statues, erases the legacy of the Enlightenment, and quietly bends to the sensitivities of religious extremism. And now it wants to lecture the Middle East about peace?

Perhaps it’s time France looked to its own problems first.

Itamar Tzur is the author of The Invention of the Palestinian Narrative, and an Israeli scholar specializing in Middle Eastern history. He holds a Bachelor’s degree with honors in Jewish History and a Master’s degree with honors in Middle Eastern studies. As a senior member of the “Forum Kedem for Middle Eastern Studies and Public Diplomacy,” he leverages his academic expertise to deepen understanding of regional dynamics and historical contexts.

The post Macron Wants to Recognize a Palestinian State? He Should Start by Recognizing 21st Century France first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

A pro-Palestinian protester holds a sign that reads, “Faculty for justice in Palestine,” during a protest urging Columbia University to cut ties with Israel, Nov. 15, 2023, in New York City. Photo: Sipa USA via Reuters Connect

The $221 million settlement between Columbia University and the US government is a watershed moment — less for what it says about one Ivy League institution, and more for what it reveals about the deeper structural and cultural crisis gripping American higher education.

Columbia didn’t merely face a funding dispute. It failed in its duty to protect Jewish students from targeted bias and harassment. And so the Federal government had to do what the university would not: uphold civil rights law and enforce basic standards of safety and inclusion.

At issue is more than just a financial agreement. Columbia agreed to sweeping Federal oversight in order to regain access to over $1 billion in research grants. Under the terms of the agreement, the university must allow an independent monitor to oversee reforms to its protest policies, DEI infrastructure, disciplinary procedures, and protections for both Jewish and Middle Eastern students. It is among the most extensive Federal interventions into a private university in recent memory — and it now stands as a model and a clear statement of Federal expectations: colleges and universities may not discriminate, and they will be held accountable when they allow protected groups to be targeted.

To be clear, most universities in the US have not faced such intervention. The Federal government has, for the most part, left higher education alone — even amid significant controversy around protests, speech, and rising reports of antisemitism across the nation.

But Columbia, along with a few other institutions, was warned. Students raised concerns. Faculty voiced alarm. Alumni and donors spoke out. And it was no secret — thanks to social media and various groups ranging from FIRE to the American Jewish Committee — that Columbia was out of control, and that members of its Jewish community were under real and direct corporal threat.

Despite all of these warnings, the university’s leaders did not act. Academic freedom was invoked — selectively — when it shielded ideologically convenient forms of protest and expression. But the equal protection of students was not enforced with the same energy.

According to the Brandeis Center, 73 percent of Jewish students reported feeling less safe on campus after the October 7 Hamas attacks.

A winter 2025 ADL/Hillel survey found that 83 percent of Jewish students had experienced or witnessed antisemitism at their schools, and most respondents said their administrations failed to respond meaningfully. Columbia was among the institutions most frequently cited, and was also the site of far too much violence. 

I’ve spent years studying campus culture, trust, and administrative behavior. In that time, I’ve found that only a small minority of student-facing administrators identify as conservative — and even fewer report regularly engaging with views different from their own.

This ideological homogeneity within the leadership class deeply shapes which concerns are recognized and which groups receive institutional support. When antisemitism is cloaked in activist rhetoric or aligned with political causes that administrators sympathize with, it is too often minimized — or even excused.

Columbia’s failure fits this pattern. Jewish students were shouted down, doxxed, excluded from student groups, and harassed for expressing support for Israel. Campus DEI offices — designed to foster inclusion — remained largely silent. Faculty contributed to the problem by justifying violence, dismissing student fears, or openly supporting ideologically motivated harassment. The university’s senior leadership responded with ambiguity, delay, and bureaucratic hedging.

Some scholars quoted in Inside Higher Ed have dismissed the settlement as a “political stunt.” That’s nonsense and reveals their biases and inability to showcase the import of viewpoint diversity.

This is not about ideology — it’s about law. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bars discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in Federally funded programs, including antisemitic harassment. Columbia’s agreement is a reminder that universities are not above these standards. Nor should they be.

I am a firm believer in the importance of the ivory tower. Higher education at its best is a cornerstone of American life — an engine of opportunity, a protector of inquiry, and a space where difficult conversations take place. But when the ivory tower loses its moral compass, ignores its foundational beliefs about inclusion and diversity, and breaks the law — when it embraces selective inclusion, suppresses dissent, and allows entire communities to be marginalized — it must be confronted. Columbia’s failures harmed not only its Jewish students, but the civic credibility of the institution itself.

The Columbia settlement is so painful to those in higher education because it confirms that internal accountability mechanisms are broken; those working in higher education have failed to confront and accept the fact that they have not lived up to their values of inclusion and admit that they unsuccessfully carried out their jobs to lift all students up.

This is a tough moment for many in higher education, but is a good day for America. It reminds the nation that our public values — equality, dignity, and opportunity for all — still matter. When elite institutions forget those values, it is the responsibility of a democratic society to remind them.

Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The post Higher Ed Failed Its Jewish Students — So the Government Stepped In first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Members of the United Nations Security Council meet on the day of a vote on a Gaza resolution, at UN headquarters in New York City, US, March 25, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

We are in the middle of the nine days preceding Tisha B’Av, a precarious time for Jews. One important warning during the nine days is not to engage in baseless hatred among Jews that led — or at least made a major contribution to — the destruction of the First and Second Temples. Unfortunately, we are doing the opposite, and infighting in the Jewish community is rampant. It is right against left and left against right, Zionists against anti-Zionist, Reform rabbis against Orthodox rabbis, haredim vs. the rest of Israel, etc.

Right now, Jews worldwide — and especially Israel — are under attack. Many in the European Union and UK want to impose sanctions on Israel over the humanitarian situation in Gaza. These moves are easier for Europeans to plan when they sense infighting in Israel and among Jewish organizations. Antisemitic and pro-Palestinian groups are very astute in taking advantage of discord among us, and it is causing real harm on the ground.

Contradictory news is coming out of Gaza about who is stealing food, not delivering aid, and starving people. Many US and European media outlets go into detailed descriptions of inhumane treatment of Gazans by Israel. Does anybody mention the hostages suffering in Hamas tunnels who have not received real food since October 7 — along with no medical care? And who is talking about the problems with the aid being delivered by the UN or stolen by Hamas?

Yes, it is troubling to see the photos coming from Gaza — and Israel is responding by increasing the amount of aid and access to it. Is this going to be appreciated or acknowledged? It’s highly unlikely.

The accusations made by the UN about famine in Gaza a few months ago were retracted later by UN officials themselves. Whether that will happen again this time, we do not know. And yes, we don’t want civilians to starve. But why isn’t it also reported that Hamas started the war, and gives food to its fighters but not to the population?

Does anybody realize that the EU and UN encourage Hamas in sabotaging hostage release talks and imposing more demands and conditions to seal the so-called deal when all they do is amplify this coverage?

This week, I read a statement by Khalil al-Hayya, one of the exiled chiefs of Gaza, that “ceasefire negotiations were meaningless under continuing blockade and starvation.” The irony of this statement cannot be missed, but it is ignored by Western sources. Don’t European governments, and various Jewish groups, organizations, and prominent personalities, realize that they should press Hamas (and Qatar) to reciprocate Israeli increased humanitarian aid with pressure for an unconditional release of the hostages ?

By the way, I wonder how many people demonizing Israel know about the IDF protecting the Syrian Druze population from assaults and massacres by the new Syrian regime — or are paying attention to more acute crises involving food insecurity across the world, like what is happening in Sudan.

Dr. Jaroslava Halper has been a professor of pathology at The University of Georgia in Athens, GA for many years. She escaped from communist Prague because of antisemitism, and lack of freedom and free speech. The gradual increase of antisemitism and anti-Zionism in certain circles in her second homeland, and the devastating October 7 massacre by Hamas, led her to realize that more active engagement is necessary to combat antisemitism, including anti-Zionism.

The post Jewish Infighting Is Having Real and Negative Consequences in Today’s World first appeared on Algemeiner.com.