Features
Courage was the reason campus anti-Semites were beaten
A Tufts University student stood up to the mob of Israel-haters. His victory won’t necessarily prevent others from being targeted, but it showed how they, too, can prevail.
By JONATHAN TOBIN (March 5, 2021 / JNS) It was a familiar story but with an unfamiliar conclusion. A Jewish student objected to the anti-Semitic slanders promoted by a student organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction.
For his pains, he was targeted for harassment and then scheduled to be hauled before a disciplinary meeting at which he was likely to be impeached from his post in student government for his pro-Israel views.
The outcome—in which, for a change, the Israel-haters backed down—is not only a victory for the student. It also provides a template for others in similar situations to follow. That’s why, though dismissed by some as a tempest in an academic teacup, the drama that recently unfolded at Tufts University outside Boston is deserving of attention on the part of all those who worry about the future of American Jewry.
For those who follow the battles being fought on North American college campuses in recent years as pro-BDS groups have worked to delegitimize the State of Israel and its supporters, what happened to Tufts student Max Price was nothing new, even if the abuse hurled at him was pretty severe.
The Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter at Tufts promoted a student referendum aimed at rebuking the university’s former police chief for participating in a 2017 exchange program in which American law enforcement and first responders receive training in Israel. The exchange programs involve information-sharing and are useful because the Americans learn from the Israelis’ time-tested experience in dealing with emergencies.
These programs are, however, the centerpiece of a propaganda campaign called “Deadly Exchange” launched by the anti-Zionist group Jewish Voice for Peace. According to them, they are a diabolical plot in which Americans are taught how to abuse and kill minorities by Israelis. In this way, groups like JVP and SJP not only attack Israel, but also delegitimize the American Jews who sponsor the trips as somehow responsible for American police shootings of African-Americans. As such, it is not merely a false and defamatory argument, but a 21st-century blood libel in which Jews are blamed for crimes committed by others.
At Tufts, that took the form of a referendum promoted by SJP in which a resolution filled with misleading and false information about the exchanges was voted on by the students.
That’s where Price, a member of the Tufts Community Union Judiciary, stepped in. His post is tasked with the job of fact-checking and removing false information from student government legislation. Price denounced the falsehoods in the referendum text. That led SJP and its supporters to single him out for a campaign of harassment, culminating in an effort to get him thrown out of his position by a disciplinary committee because of his “pro-Israel bias.”
Price’s treatment—not just by SJP but also others in student government—was outrageous. Not only was he subjected to profane insults but also forced to sit through student government meetings in which he was questioned about his Jewish background and beliefs. At a Zoom meeting during which the referendum was discussed, he was muted and literally prevented from speaking. The message from the student government and from a university administration that stood by silently as Price suffered these insults was clear: If you are a pro-Israel Jew, you are going to be treated as a racist advocate of white supremacy who must be marginalized, rather than respected and heard.
It is fear of similar treatment that more often than not convinces Jewish students to keep their heads down and stay silent when Israel is being falsely besmirched as an “apartheid state.” Indeed, that’s the whole point of the BDS movement. While ostensibly a campaign of economic warfare against the Jewish state, it has done nothing to damage its vibrant economy through its pathetic drive to undermine, for example, sales of Sabra hummus. Instead, like other successful cancel culture efforts, it seeks to silence those who refute intersectional myths about the Palestinian war against Israel being linked to the struggle for civil rights in the United States and which brands Zionism as racism.
But Price wouldn’t be silent.
In similar situations, most college kids choose to avoid putting a bull’s eye on their backs by challenging fashionable leftist theories promoted by both professors and other students. Indeed, even many of those who do speak up respond to the personal attacks by quitting student government in disgust. The same thing happens in other venues, such as journalism, when those labeled as too interested in defending Jewish rights or Israel are singled out. Walking away from such fights as not worth the grief is understandable. When that happens, though, anti-Semites win. After all, their objective is to clear the public square of proud Jews and friends of Israel.
Rather than granting a hate group like SJP such an undeserved triumph, Price fought back. And he wasn’t alone. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which specializes in defending students in these situations, intervened to represent him. It rightly accused the university of failing to defend Price’s rights. Allowing him to suffer anti-Semitic harassment was in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which forbids such discriminatory treatment at educational institutions that, like Tufts, receive federal aid.
What followed was what usually happens when bullies are challenged. Rather than face a lawsuit or the escalation of this fight into something much bigger than a simple case of successful intimidation, SJP gave up. It withdrew its effort to throw Price out of his student government post.
That’s good news for Max Price and more evidence of the necessity of the Brandeis Center’s efforts.
Price was right when he told JNS that SJP’s retreat didn’t absolve them of their responsibility for the anti-Semitic treatment he received. The university also deserves blame for the passive role it played. They wouldn’t step in to stop the harassment of a Jewish student because of his unwillingness to join with others in smearing Israel. Would they have been so slow to act had an African-American or other minority student been attacked for defending his community?
While Price won this fight, there’s little reason to believe that will stop SJP and cowardly university administrators, who fear being “canceled” more than they value the rights of Jewish students, from behaving in a similar fashion the next time a student calls out anti-Semitic groups for their conduct. After all, even a Jewish publication like The Forward covered this story as if it were a misunderstanding in which both sides had some right on their side rather than a straightforward example of anti-Semitic agitation.
But this also points the way to the answer as to how the BDS movement can be beaten.
Jewish students must be armed with the facts to enable them to respond to lies like those of the “Deadly Exchange” campaign with the truth. But they need more than just information. They need to have the courage that is necessary to swim against the intellectual tide on campuses in which BDS is considered enlightened thought and support for Israel is deemed reactionary.
That’s a difficult thing to ask of anyone, let alone a college student who at that age is more eager to fit in than to be a noisy dissenter against academic fashion. Yet as has always been the case throughout history, courage is what is needed if Jewish rights are to be successfully defended.
Not every student can be expected to be as tough or to suffer the kind of opprobrium to which Price was subjected by anti-Semitic BDS supporters. But if we are to end the idea that it’s always open season on Jews who care about Israel on college campuses, then we are going to need more young men and women who can learn from his example.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.
Features
Are Niche and Unconventional Relationships Monopolizing the Dating World?
The question assumes a battle being waged and lost. It assumes that something fringe has crept into the center and pushed everything else aside. But the dating world has never operated as a single system with uniform rules. People have always sorted themselves according to preference, circumstance, and opportunity. What has changed is the visibility of that sorting and the tools available to execute it.
Online dating generated $10.28 billion globally in 2024. By 2033, projections put that figure at $19.33 billion. A market of that size does not serve one type of person or one type of relationship. It serves demand, and demand has always been fragmented. The apps and platforms we see now simply make that fragmentation visible in ways that provoke commentary.
Relationship Preferences
Niche dating platforms now account for nearly 30 percent of the online dating market, and projections suggest they could hold 42 percent of market share by 2028. This growth reflects how people are sorting themselves into categories that fit their actual lives.
Some want a sugar relationship, others seek partners within specific religious or cultural groups, and still others look for connections based on hobbies or lifestyle choices. The old model of casting a wide net has given way to something more targeted.
A YouGov poll found 55 percent of Americans prefer complete monogamy, while 34 percent describe their ideal relationship as something other than monogamous. About 21 percent of unmarried Americans have tried consensual non-monogamy at some point. These numbers do not suggest a takeover. They suggest a population with varied preferences now has platforms that accommodate those preferences openly rather than forcing everyone into the same structure.
The Numbers Tell a Different Story
Polyamory and consensual non-monogamy receive substantial attention in media coverage and on social platforms. The actual practice rate sits between 4% and 5% of the American population. That figure has remained relatively stable even as public awareness has increased. Being aware of something and participating in it are separate behaviors.
A 2020 YouGov poll reported that 43% of millennials describe their ideal relationship as non-monogamous. Ideals and actions do not always align. People answer surveys about what sounds appealing in theory. They then make decisions based on their specific circumstances, available partners, and emotional capacity. The gap between stated preference and lived reality is substantial.
Where Young People Are Looking
Gen Z accounts for more than 50% of Hinge users. According to a 2025 survey by The Knot, over 50% of engaged couples met through dating apps. These platforms have become primary infrastructure for forming relationships. They are not replacing traditional dating; they are the context in which traditional dating now occurs.
Younger users encounter more relationship styles on these platforms because the platforms allow for it. Someone seeking a conventional monogamous partnership will still find that option readily available. The presence of other options does not eliminate this possibility. It adds to the menu.
Monopoly Implies Exclusion
The framing of the original question suggests that niche relationships might be crowding out mainstream ones. Monopoly means one entity controls a market to the exclusion of competitors. Nothing in the current data supports that characterization.
Mainstream dating apps serve millions of users seeking conventional relationships. These apps have added features to accommodate other preferences, but their core user base remains people looking for monogamous partnerships. The addition of new categories does not subtract from existing ones. Someone filtering for a specific religion or hobby does not prevent another person from using the same platform without those filters.
What Actually Changed
Two things happened. First, apps built segmentation into their business models because segmentation increases user satisfaction. People find what they want faster when they can specify their preferences. Second, social acceptance expanded for certain relationship types that previously operated in private or faced stigma.
Neither of these developments amounts to a monopoly. They amount to market differentiation and cultural acknowledgment. A person seeking a sugar arrangement and a person seeking marriage can both use apps built for their respective purposes. They are not competing for the same resources.
The Perception Problem
Media coverage tends toward novelty. A story about millions of people using apps to find conventional relationships does not generate engagement. A story about unconventional relationship types generates clicks, comments, and shares. This creates a perception gap between how often something is discussed and how often it actually occurs.
The 4% to 5% practicing polyamory receive disproportionate coverage relative to the 55% who prefer complete monogamy. The coverage is not wrong, but it creates an impression of prevalence that exceeds reality.
Where This Leaves Us
Niche relationships are not monopolizing dating. They are becoming more visible and more accommodated by platforms that benefit from serving specific needs. The majority of people seeking relationships still want conventional arrangements, and they still find them through the same channels.
The dating world is larger than it was before. It contains more explicit options. It allows people to state preferences that once required inference or luck. None of this constitutes a takeover. It constitutes an expansion. The space for one type of relationship did not shrink to make room for another. The total space grew.
Features
Matthew Lazar doing his part to help keep Israelis safe in a time of war
By MYRON LOVE It is well known – or at least it should be – that while Israel puts a high value of protecting the lives of its citizens, the Jewish state’s Islamic enemies celebrate death. The single most glaring difference between the opposing sides can be seen in the differing approach to building bomb shelters to protect their populations.
Whereas Hamas and Hezbollah have invested untold billions of dollars over the past 20 years in building underground tunnels to protect their fighters while leaving their “civilian” populations exposed to Israeli bombs, not only has Israel built a highly sophisticated anti-missile system but also the leadership has invested heavily in making sure that most Israelis have access to bomb shelters – wherever they are – in war time.
While Israel’s bomb shelter program is comprehensive, there are still gaps – gaps which Dr. Matthew Lazar is doing his bit to help reduce.
The Winnipeg born-and raised pediatrician -who is most likely best known to readers as a former mohel – is the president of Project Life Initiatives – the Canadian branch of Israel-based Operation Lifeshield whose mission is to provide bomb shelters for threatened Israeli communities.
Lazar actually got in on the ground floor – so to speak. It was a cousin of his, Rabbi Shmuel Bowman, Operation Lifeshield’s executive director, who – in 2006 – founded the organization.
“Shmuel was one of a small group of American olim and Israelis who were visiting the Galilee during the second Lebanon war in 2006 and found themselves under rocket attack – along with thousands of others – with no place to go,” recounts Lazar, who has two daughters living in Israel. “They decided to take action. I was one of the people Shmuel approached to become an Operation Lifeshield volunteer.
Since the founding of Lifeshield, Lazar reports, over 1,000 shelters have been deployed in Israel. The number of new shelter orders since October 7, 2023 is 149.
He further notes that while the largest share of Operation Lifeshield’s funding comes from American donors, there has been good support for the organization across Canada as well.
One of the major donors in Winnipeg is the Christian Zionist organization, Christian Friends of Israel (FOI) Canada which, in September, as part of its second annual “Stand With Israel Support” evening – presented Lazar and Operation Lifeshield with a cheque for $30,000 toward construction of a bomb shelter for the Yasmin kindergarten in the Binyamina Regional Council in Northern Israel.
Lazar reports that to date the total number of shelters donated by Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry (globally) is over 100.
Lazar notes that the head office for Project Life Initiatives is – not surprisingly – in Toronto. “We communicate by telephone, text and Zoom,” he says.
He observes that – as he is still a full time pediatrician – he isn’t able to visit Israel nearly as often as he would like to. He manages to go every couple of years and always makes a point of visiting some of Operation Lifeshield’s projects.
(He adds that his wife, Nola, gets to Israel two or three times a year – not only to visit family, but also in her role as president of Mercaz Canada – the Canadian Conservative movement’s Zionist arm.)
“This is something I have been able to do to help safeguard Israelis,” Lazar says of his work for Operation Lifeshield. “This is a wonderful thing we are doing. I am glad to be of help. ”
Features
Patterns of Erasure: Genocide in Nazi Europe and Canada
By LIRON FYNE When we think of the word genocide, our minds often jump to the Holocaust, the mass-scale, systemic government-led murder of six million Jews by Nazi Germany during the Second World War, whose unprecedented scale and methods led to the very term ‘genocide’ being coined. On January 27th, 2026, we will bow our heads for International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the 80th year of remembrance.
Less frequently do we connect genocidal intent to the campaign against Indigenous peoples in Canada; the forced displacement, cultural destruction, and systematic killing that sought to erase Indigenous peoples. The genocide conducted by the Nazis and the genocidal intent of the Canadian government, though each unique in scale, motive, and implementation, share many conceptual similarities. Both were driven by ideologies of racial superiority, executed through governmental precision, and justified by the perpetrators as a moral mission.
At their core rests the concept of dehumanization. In Nazi Germany, Jews were viewed as subhuman, contaminated, and a threat to the ‘Aryan’ race. In Canada, Indigenous peoples were represented as obstacles to ‘progress’ and seen as hurdles to a Christian, Eurocentric nation. These ideas, this dehumanization, turned human beings into problems to be solved. Adolf Hitler called it the ‘Jewish question,’ leading to an official policy in 1942 called the ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Question,’ whereas Canadian officials called it the ‘Indian problem.’ The language is similar, a belief that one group’s existence endangers the destiny of another. The methods of extermination differed in practice and outcome, but the language of intent resembles one another.
The Holocaust’s concentration camps and carefully engineered gas chambers were designed for efficient, industrial-scale killing, resulting in mass murder. The well-organized plan of systematic degradation, deadly riots, brutal camp conditions, and designated killing centres were only a few of the ways the Nazis worked to eliminate the Jews. The Canadian government’s weapons were policy, assimilation and abandonment. Such as the Indian Act, reserves, and residential schools, which were all meant to ‘kill the Indian in the child,’ cutting generations off from their languages, families, and cultures. Thousands of Indigenous children died in residential schools, buried in unmarked graves near schools that called themselves places of learning. Both systems were backed by either religion or ideology; Nazi ideology brought together racist eugenic policies and virulent antisemitism, while Canada’s genocidal intent was supported by Christian Protestantism claiming to save Indigenous souls by erasing their heritage.
The Holocaust was a six-year campaign of complete industrialized extermination, mass murder with a mechanized intent, on a scale that remains historically unique. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission describes Canada’s indigenous genocide as a cultural one that unfolded over centuries through assimilation and the destruction of indigenous languages and identities. The Holocaust ended with the liberation of the camps and a global recognition of the atrocities committed. However, the generational trauma and dehumanization of antisemitism carry on. For Indigenous peoples in Canada, the effects of the genocidal intent continue to this day, visible in displacement, poverty, and intergenerational trauma. While these histories differ in form and timeline, both are rooted in dehumanization and the belief that some lives are worth less than others.
A disturbing similarity lies in the aftermath: silence and denial. The Holocaust forced the world to confront the atrocity with the vow of ‘Never Again,’ which has now been unearthed and reformed as ‘Never Again is Now,’ after the October 7th, 2023, massacre by Hamas. The largest massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust, and the denial of the atrocities committed on October 7th, highlight the same Holocaust denial we see rising around the world. In Canada, for decades, the genocidal intent was hidden behind narratives of kindness and social progress. Only in recent years, through survivor testimony for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the discovery of unmarked graves, has the truth gained recognition. But acknowledgment without justice risks repeating the same patterns of erasure.
Comparing these atrocities committed is not about comparing pain or scale; it is about understanding the shared systems that enabled them. Both demonstrate how racism, superiority, and dehumanization can be used to justify the destruction of human beings. Remembering is not enough in Canada. True remembrance demands accountability, land restitution, reparations, and education that confronts Canada’s ongoing colonial legacy. When we say ‘Never Again is Now’, we hold collective action to combat antisemitism in all forms. The same applies to Truth & Reconciliation; it must be more than a slogan; we must apply action to Truth & ReconciliACTION.
Liron Fyne is a 12th-grade student at Gray Academy of Jewish Education in Winnipeg. They are currently a Kenneth Leventhal High School Intern at StandWithUs Canada, a non-profit education organization that combats antisemitism.