Uncategorized
Harvard Anti-Zionists Dispute Survey Results on Divestment From Israel
Visitors enter the Harvard University campus in Cambridge, MA on June 3, 2025. Photo: Jason Bergman/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Anti-Zionists at Harvard University, including the Harvard Crimson newspaper which endorsed boycotting Israel in 2022, are contesting the interpretation of the results of an undergraduate survey onto which the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) muscled a series of questions which asked students if they support “divesting” from the Jewish state.
On Thursday, the Crimson reported that Harvard students “report favoring divestment from Israel” while downplaying the Harvard Undergraduate Association (HUA) Election Commission’s saying that about 600 of “roughly 7,000 students in Harvard College,” or 8.4%, had “responded ‘yes’ to the question on divestment.” Slightly more of the student body, 9.3%, said they support Harvard’s disclosing “investments in Israel.”
The HUA added that over 80 percent of students either declined to answer the survey, skipped the divestment question, or registered an agnostic opinion regarding the matter. The Harvard Crimson, however, said it had obtained a partially redacted copy of the survey results showing that the majority of votes cast in the Sports Team Office Election, an unrelated vote in which respondents had to participate in order to answer the optional Israel-related questions, supported divestment.
“Based on similar calculations, a majority of students also said they thought Harvard should disclose investments in Israel,” the Crimson reported.
Nonetheless, the newspaper admitted that “the results still have a question mark hanging over them” and that “many students interviewed by the Crimson … said they were not aware of the survey questions.”
PSC later used Harvard’s reporting as the basis of its own propaganda, accusing the administration of censoring results “after the Harvard Crimson reports majority support.”
As previously reported, the PSC — a self-described revolutionary movement which issued some of the world’s first endorsements of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel — overcame objections expressed by the Harvard Undergraduate Association, a student government body, to place the idea on this academic year’s fall survey. Another group, working in concert with PSC, prevailed over the HUA as well, and added a survey question which aims to build a consensus of opposition to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.
“Should Harvard disclose its investments in companies and institutions operating in Israel?” asked PSC’s question, which was originally framed to accuse Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. “Should Harvard divest from companies and institutions operating in Israel?”
On Friday, Middle East expert and columnist Alex Joffe told The Algemeiner that the Crimson confected a story which serves its ideological bias.
“Campus media is both politicized and incompetent,” he said. “The latter is not surprising and is forgivable, as no one should expect careful reporting from teenagers, even ones at Harvard. But the manner in which activists insert themselves into campus media is obvious, and the obfuscations in this particular case indicate how students tendentiously ‘report’ results — in this case fragmentary and contradictory ones — in order to present the conclusion that Harvard students ‘support divestment.’”
He added, “Better documented and reported surveys have suggested that a hard core of students on campus do indeed support divestment and other anti-Israel measure but that a majority are uncertain or disinterested in these issues. Painting all college students as anti-Israel is certainly false but campus media, and certainly mainstream media, almost exclusively feature anti-Israel voices.”
The Crimson has since reported another, similar story including the same numbers showing that over 85 percent of students declined to take the survey. This time, however, the Harvard administration used the occasion to restate its opposition to boycotting Israel, citing a 2024 statement regarding the matter.
“Harvard leadership has made clear that it opposes calls for a policy of boycotting Israel and its academic institutions,” the university said. “In the words of [former] President Bacow responding to a 2022 editorial in the Harvard Crimson that had endorsed the boycott, divestment, and sanctions [BDS] movement, ‘targeting or boycotting a particular group because of disagreements over the policies pursued by their governments is antithetical to what we stand for as a university,’ and ‘academic boycotts have absolutely no place at Harvard, regardless of who they target.’”
The Harvard Crimson has promoted anti-Zionism before, curating facts and quotes.
In 2022, the Crimson’s editorial board endorsed the BDS movement, which seeks to isolate the world’s lone Jewish state on the international stage as a step toward its eventual elimination.
“Palestinians, in our board’s view, deserve dignity and freedom. We support the boycott, divest, and sanctions movement as a means to achieving that goal,” the board wrote. “In the past, our board was skeptical of the movement (if not, generally speaking, of its goals), arguing that BDS as a whole did not ‘get at the nuances and particularities of the Israel-Palestine conflict.’ We reject and regret that view.”
It also pushed back against “accusations” of antisemitism over its stance, condemning “antisemitism in every and all forms, including those times when it shows up on the fringes of otherwise worthwhile movements.”
“BDS remains a blunt approach, one with the potential to backfire or prompt collateral damage in the form of economic hurt. But the weight of this moment — of Israel’s human rights and international law violates and of Palestine’s cry for freedom — demands this step. As a board, we are proud to finally lend our support to both Palestinian liberation and BDS — we call on everyone to do the same.”
Anti-Israel animus, while present at Harvard for years, exploded across campus following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
After the atrocities, the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee issued a statement blaming Israel for the attack and vowed to pressure the university to cut ties with the Jewish state. Later, students stormed academic buildings chanting “globalize the intifada”; a faculty group posted an antisemitic cartoon on its social media page; a mob followed and surrounded a Jewish student, screaming “Shame! Shame! Shame!” into his ears; and the Harvard Law School student government passed a resolution that falsely accused Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing.
While largely present among left-wing campus groups on campus, such sentiments have recently emerged among Harvard’s far right.
Earlier this year, a conservative student magazine published an article that echoed the words of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.
The Harvard Salient published an opinion piece in September which bore likeness to key tenets of Nazi doctrine, as first articulated in 1925 in Hitler’s autobiographical manifesto Mein Kampf, or My Struggle, and later in a blitzkrieg of speeches he delivered throughout the Nazi era to justify his genocide of European Jews.
Written by David F.X. Army, the article chillingly echoed a January 1939 Reichstag speech in which Hitler portended mass killings of Jews as the outcome of Germany’s inexorable march toward war with France and Great Britain. Whereas Hitler said, “France to the French, England to the English, America to the Americans, and Germany to the Germans,” Army wrote, “Germany belongs to the Germans, France to the French, Britain to the British, America to the Americans.”
Army also called for the adoption of notions of “blood, soil, language, and love of one’s own.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Sister of pro-Israel stalwart Lindsey Graham secures GOP Senate nomination
(JTA) — South Carolina Sen. Darline Graham defeated U.S. House Rep. Ralph Norman in a special primary runoff on Tuesday, putting her in a dominant position to win the Senate seat left vacant with the death in July of her older brother, the pro-Israel stalwart Lindsey Graham.
The Associated Press called the race two hours after polls closed at 9:01pm. By the time 99% of votes were tallied, Darline Graham had secured 52.3% of the votes to Norman’s 47.7%.
“Tonight is a great victory, but it’s not the finish line,” Graham told her supporters on Tuesday night. “In fact, it is the starting line for an even bigger fight, which lies ahead.”
If Darline Graham goes on to win November’s general election against Democrat Annie Andrews, she will have big shoes to fill. Her brother served 23 years in the Senate and eight in the U.S. House. He traveled to Israel about a dozen times between Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023 attack on the Jewish state and his death at age 71.
Heading into the primaries, analysts expressed no doubt that Darline Graham would be pro-Israel. But matching Lindsey Graham’s level of foreign policy activity, they warned, would be a formidable task. Meanwhile, her campaign to date has largely avoided discussion of international affairs. Instead, she has focused on domestic concerns like reducing spending, securing borders and promoting Trump-backed policies.
During a debate aired on C-SPAN last week, Graham struggled to respond to a foreign policy question about Taiwan and the South China Sea, ultimately admitting that she’s “not that informed on national security.”
“I’m not a polished politician up here,” she said. “National security is not my thing, not my area of expertise.”
Later addressing issues of affordability, Graham linked the domestic economic situation to the war in Iran and said she trusts President Donald Trump “to get the Strait of Hormuz open.” She also voiced her preference for financial sanctions over putting troops on the ground.
Asked about the country’s relationship with Israel, Graham described the Jewish state as “one of our strongest allies.” Recognizing her brother’s close relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, she added that during a recent meeting with the Israeli premier, she vowed to “continue supporting Israel in any way” she can.
“We have to stand with Israel,” Graham said.
At their previous face-off, Graham had secured 33% of the vote, while Norman came in second place, at 25%, against eight fellow Republicans. But South Carolina requires primary winners to earn a majority of votes in order to avoid a two-candidate runoff. In the November general election, Graham will contend with Democrat Annie Andrews, a pediatrician who is unlikely to prevail in the solidly Republican state.
Tuesday’s runoff marked the third time in two months that South Carolina Republicans came to the polls to select a Senate candidate. Lindsey Graham, won the first primary in June but died suddenly the next month from an aortic dissection.
A few days later, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, appointed Darline Graham to finish her brother’s term. Though she only had minimal policy experience, including a leadership role at the South Carolina Commission for the Blind, she earned President Donald Trump’s endorsement and declared her candidacy in the full race.
Trump celebrated Graham’s nomination in a Tuesday night Truth Social post, writing that “Darline Graham rides Trump endorsement to win GOP nomination for brother’s South Carolina seat.”
Graham thanked Trump profusely during her Tuesday night acceptance speech, recognizing the president as one of her brother’s “closest friends” and crediting him for helping her secure a victory.
Norman, meanwhile, thanked his supporters on Tuesday night for their “prayer crusade of a campaign,” stressing that he “did not prepare a concession speech.” He accused “outside PACs” of spending $8 million opposing him and blamed the Democrats for this situation, adding that “they got what they wanted.”
He recognized Trump’s role in the race as a supporter of Graham, noting that he “never understood why he got involved” but that it is the president’s prerogative to do so. Nonetheless, Norman pledged that there “won’t be any tears” and that he planned to back Graham.
“I’m not supporting a Democrat, so I will support her, Darline, as best I can,” he added. “We’ll live to fight another day.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Sister of pro-Israel stalwart Lindsey Graham secures GOP Senate nomination appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Progressive politics notches another deep-red win in Oklahoma race, bolstered by anti-AIPAC messaging
(JTA) — Oklahoma nurse and activist N’kiyla Jasmine Thomas, who ran a campaign with anti-AIPAC messaging, defeated centrist Jim Priest in a Democratic Senate primary runoff on Tuesday that marked the latest victory for a progressive politician in a solidly conservative state.
The Associated Press called Tuesday’s race, a sequel to the state’s June primary, less than an hour after polls closed. By the time 80% of votes were tallied, Thomas had accrued 59.9% of the votes to Priest’s 40.1%.
Like many progressives in the current election cycle, she repeatedly vowed during her campaign to reject funds from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the influential pro-Israel lobby.
Although AIPAC has not participated in this race, Thomas posted a social media reel in November that showed her pulling a giant red trash bin, labeled “AIPAC Funds” and “Corporate PAC Funds.” Adjacent to the reel is a caption that reads, “Just taking out the trash.”
“I am a sole grassroots candidate,” she said in the reel. “And we are not accepting AIPAC or corporate PAC funds. It’s garbage.”
Asked about her rhetoric on AIPAC, Thomas told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in a written statement that her “concerns [with AIPAC] have NEVER been about Jewish people, Judaism, or Israel’s existence,” adding that she instead prioritizes human rights, civilian lives and the accountability of all governments.
“When I discuss political influence or organizations, my focus is on the broader role of money, lobbying, and special interests in our political system, not on any one religion or community,” she added.
In their previous matchup, a five-candidate race, neither candidate had earned the majority required to secure a win. Thomas earned 45% of votes in June, while Priest, a lawyer and ordained minister, accrued 24%.
Heading into Tuesday’s runoff, it was already clear that both Thomas and Priest would be longshots this November in a state that hasn’t sent a Democrat to the Senate in more than three decades. The Republican opponent, Rep. Kevin Hern, swept his primary and has the endorsement of President Donald Trump.
But Thomas’s win served as yet another litmus test on the potency of progressivism in a deep-red state, just a week after democratic socialist Angie Nixon knocked trounced a moderate candidate in Florida’s Democratic Senate primary.
Thomas, unlike Nixon, is not a member of Democratic Socialists of America, but she has openly identified with socialist policies. The 31-year-old is a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation who says she represents “the next generation of leaders.” Among her priorities are women’s health and safety, civil rights and LGBTQIA+ protections.
During a debate this past Saturday, both Thomas and Priest described a “genocide” in Gaza. Priest linked the word to Israel, while Thomas connected it to the actions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
She emphasized that “we can be for our Jewish brothers and sisters, and we can be against Netanyahu and what he is doing.”
“He is committing genocide. He is absolutely murdering children,” Thomas said at the debate. “We have to stop providing funding for these wars.”
In her statement to JTA, Thomas expressed her commitment to a two-state solution, adding that “both Israelis and Palestinians deserve the opportunity to live in peace, security and self-determination.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Progressive politics notches another deep-red win in Oklahoma race, bolstered by anti-AIPAC messaging appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Montreal passes Palestinian solidarity motion after removing text on cutting ties with Israel
(JTA) — Montreal has passed a motion of solidarity with Palestinians after stripping a clause that called for severing institutional and diplomatic ties with Israel.
Montreal’s city council late Monday adopted the measure, which also removed earlier references to Israeli “apartheid” and “genocide,” after a contentious debate about the role of local government in denouncing conflicts abroad. The amended motion passed with 54 councillors voting in favor and six against.
The motion was introduced by Projet Montréal, a progressive, environmentalist municipal party that forms the opposition in the city council. An original version demanded the city “immediately suspend its institutional ties with the current government of Israel, its institutions, and its municipalities.” Major Canadian Jewish organizations pushed to discard that clause.
Montreal Mayor Soraya Martinez Ferrada clashed with progressive councillors during Monday’s debate. She argued that it was not the role of a city government to make determinations about international crises, saying that “recognizing the limits of our institution is not turning a blind eye to Gaza.” Changes to the final motion from Martinez Ferrada’s administration focused on diversity and inclusion in Montreal.
According to the original proposal by Projet Montréal, Israeli government representatives would no longer have been invited to Montreal City Hall until Israel “returns to its internationally recognized borders, ceases its violations of the rights of the Palestinian people and ends its violations of international law.”
The initial motion also stipulated that Montreal “recognizes and denounces the apartheid regime imposed in Palestine and the genocide perpetrated there,” citing definitions of “apartheid” and “genocide” that international human rights groups and scholars have used to describe Israel. Another clause condemned rising antisemitism and said “the Jewish communities of Montreal and elsewhere, as well as people of Israeli origin, cannot be held responsible for the actions of the State of Israel.”
The measure’s dilution comes after national Jewish organizations raised strong opposition to the initial language. B’nai Brith Canada said in an open letter to the city council earlier this month that it would be “inappropriate and exacerbate tensions between communities” if Montreal weighed in on the Middle East.
“It is deceitful and inflammatory to conflate Israel with Apartheid South Africa, and Canada has rejected the view that Israel’s actions constitute apartheid,” the group said. “No court of competent jurisdiction has found that a genocide has occurred.” B’nai Brith also linked the proposed policy with antisemitism, saying it would “further normalize the targeting of our Jewish community.”
After Monday’s vote, B’nai Brith Canada celebrated the motion’s transformation.
“We are pleased that the city council did not adopt the deceitful and distorted language contained in the original motion,” Paola Samuel, the regional director for Quebec and Atlantic Canada, said in a statement.
Rabbi Yehoshua Ellis, a member of the clergy at the Montreal-area synagogue Shaar Hashomayim, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the final motion resulted from Jews “mobilizing” in support of Israel.
Projet Montréal called the solidarity motion a “historic breakthrough,” but lamented the changes that “significantly weakened the scope of the original motion.”
“Palestine deserves the same solidarity as Montréal has expressed towards so many other peoples,” the party said in a social media statement. “Thousands of Montréalers have loved ones directly affected and we have the responsibility to stand by their side.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Montreal passes Palestinian solidarity motion after removing text on cutting ties with Israel appeared first on The Forward.
