Features
Witness to a mass murder
By DAVID and MILTON AMMEL Special to The Jewish Post & News Attacks on Jews have seen a sharp upsurge in recent years…indeed, many sources believe the epidemic of violence against Jews is the worst since Hitler. (In the latest perversion, some are even trying to blame the Jews for the Covid 19 pandemic!) The fact that 6 million Jews (or more) died in Hitler’s holocaust is beyond question; there are two questions that have faced the world ever since World War Two: 1. Did Allied leaders fighting Hitler know about the death camps long before their existence was known to the world? and 2. If the allies did know about it, then why wasn’t something done to at least limit Hitler’s atrocities?
We provide some answers in this article that have been overlooked by many…answers that some powers to be may not like. But truth is truth, and it’s past time to see what was really going on in the early days of World War II.
There has been a widespread belief among most historians that President Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and others had no idea of the scale of mass slaughter until the very end of the war when the death camps were finally liberated. But is this true? For the purposes of this article, we will limit our discussion to what Roosevelt surely knew.
By all accounts, President Roosevelt only had one meeting with Jewish leaders about the ongoing Holocaust, and this took place in December 1942. American Jewish leaders managed to arrange a meeting with President Franklin D. Roosevelt about the already tragic situation in Europe. A review of the meeting demonstrates a shocking lack of any great concern about the plight of the Jews, even after he acknowledged he knew what was transpiring. A report of the meeting is contained in the “Jewish Virtual Library” and we will quote extensively from this account that shows the President already knew about the death camps already in operation.
After the State Department confirmed reports that Hitler was planning to murder all the Jews in territories under German control, several American Jewish leaders including Rabbi Stephen Wise managed to arrange an audience with President Roosevelt. At this 29-minute meeting, the only one FDR had with Jewish leaders about the Holocaust, the President was presented with a document outlining the Nazi plan to annihilate European Jews. Adolph Held, the president of the American Jewish Labor Committee, wrote this report of the meeting, which indicates the president was acquainted with details of the atrocities being committed by the Nazis:
“The committee consisted of Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, of the Jewish Congress; Mr. Monsky, of Bnai Brith; Rabbi Rosenberg, of the Agudath, and Adolph Held, of the Jewish Labor Committee.
“The meeting with the President was arranged for Tuesday, December 8, 1942, at 12 o’clock. We were originally notified that the President would give us 15 minutes, but the conference lasted 29 minutes. The purpose of the conference was to present a prepared memorandum on the German atrocities in Poland consisting of an appeal to the President for immediate action against the German extermination of Jews, and also a 12 page memorandum citing the facts that have been gathered on this subject.”
After a few brief introductory remarks, the meeting got down to business.
Rabbi Wise then read the declaration by the committee.
“Rabbi Wise did not read the details but simply said: “Mr. President, we also beg to submit details and proofs of the horrible facts. We appeal to you, as head of our government, to do all in your power to bring this to the attention of the world and to do all in your power to make an effort to stop it.”
“The President replied: “The government of the United States is very well acquainted with most of the facts you are now bringing to our attention. Unfortunately we have received confirmation from many sources. Representatives of the United States government in Switzerland and other neutral countries have given us proof that confirm the horrors discussed by you. We cannot treat these matters in normal ways. We are dealing with an insane man- Hitler, and the group that surrounds him represent an example of a national psychopathic case. We cannot act toward them by normal means. That is why the problem is very difficult. At the same time it is not in the best interest of the Allied cause to make it appear that the entire German people are murderers or are in agreement with what Hitler is doing. There must be in Germany elements, now thoroughly subdued, but who at the proper time will, I am sure, rise, and protest against the atrocities, against the whole Hitler system. It is too early to make pronouncements such as President Wilson made, may they even be very useful. As to your proposal, I shall certainly be glad to issue another statement, such as you request.”
So, saving Jewish lives is “very difficult” because Hitler is insane?
There followed a discussion of possible options to help the Jews, and then FDR made these remarks.
“The President then plunged into a discussion of other matters. “We had a Jewish problem in North Africa” — he said. “As you know, we issued orders to free all the Jews from concentration camps, and we have also advised our representatives in North Africa to abolish all the special laws against the Jews and to restore the Jews to their rights. On this occasion I would like to mention that it has been called to our attention that prior to the war, Jews and Frenchmen enjoyed greater rights than Moslems in some of the North African states. There are 17 million Moslems in North Africa, and there is no reason why anyone should enjoy greater rights than they. It is not our purpose to fight for greater rights for anyone at the expense of another group. We are for the freedom for all and equal rights for all. We consider the attack on the Jews in Germany, in Poland, as an attack upon our ideas of freedom and justice, and that is why we oppose it so vehemently.” “Now you are interested in the Darlan matter. I can only illustrate this by a proverb, I recently heard from a Yugoslav priest—”When a river you reach and the devil you meet, with the devil do not quarrel until the bridge you cross.”
These Jewish leaders were beseeching Roosevelt to stop the genocidal mass-murders of Jews going on in Europe!! They were not asking him for “greater rights….at the expense of another group!
“Apparently, at the end of this quotation the President must have pushed some secret button, and his adjutant appeared in the room. His eyes and broad shoulders showed determination. We rose from our seats, and, as we stood up, the President said: “Gentlemen, you can prepare the statement. I am sure that you will put the words into it that express my thoughts. I leave it entirely to you. You may quote from my statement to the Mass -Meeting in Madison Square Garden some months ago, but please quote it exactly. We shall do all in our power to be of service to your people in this tragic moment.”
“The President then shook hands with each of us, and we filed out of the room.”
Contained in this narrative already are suspicions that FDR may have harbored prejudices against Jews. At best FDR appeared to be indifferent about the Holocaust, which he admitted he already was aware of. At worst it would be like a witness to a murder who does nothing to stop the crime.
Another troubling glimpse of Roosevelt’s view of Jews is an article published in the May, 2018 issue of the Jerusalem Post. The article was entitled “FDR wanted Jews spread thin and kept out of the U.S., documents reveal.”
These documents from the FDR Library reveal something called the “M Project” which was a study commissioned by Roosevelt to study the migration of millions of peoples displaced by the War, most of them Jews.
“Describing the M Project to UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1943, Roosevelt said the study is focused on “the problem of working out the best way to settle the Jewish question,” adding that the solution “essentially is to spread the Jews thin all over the world,” rather than allow them amass in large numbers in one specific place. The conversation was recorded in the diary of Vice President Henry Wallace, who was present at the meeting.”
This all points to a shocking realization that Roosevelt’s view of Jews was that they were a race of troublemakers, to be scattered all over the planet to minimize their chances of gaining any meaningful power.
Another claim that many historians use in excusing the allies in their refusal to help the Jews in the death camps is the claim that it would divert considerable resources from the air campaign, and so would not be worthwhile.
An article in “The National Interest” dated October 8, 2017 asks the question: “Could the Allies Have Stopped the Killing at Auschwitz Sooner?” What follows is a discussion of the supposed dilemma military planners faced, which included their claim that the death camps were out of range of the bombers. For the purposes of this article, we take notice of these facts.
“In considering the feasibility of bombing Auschwitz, one needs to know if the Western governments knew about the world’s largest killing center. The answer is a definitive yes. As historian Tami Davis Biddle has discovered, the first report about Auschwitz was made as early as January 1941—only six months after it had opened and before the gas chambers were installed. A report from the Polish underground was sent to the Polish government in exile in London, where it was forwarded on to Sir Charles Portal, the chief of the British Royal Air Force. The report said Auschwitz was one of the Nazis’ “worst organized (sic) and most inhuman concentration camps.”
“The American public was first introduced to the horrors of Auschwitz on November 25, 1942, when the New York Times published an article on page 10 that stated, “Trainloads of adults and children [are] taken to great crematoriums at Oswiencim [Auschwitz], near Cracow.” In March 1943, the Directorate of Civilian Resistance in Poland reported that 3,000 people a day were being burned in a new crematorium at Auschwitz.”
Roosevelt knew everything that was going on in this German genocide of the Jews, including every detail of it.
It is a brutal fact that an unending stream of reliable reports from various sources in various parts of Europe were provided to Allied forces.
“It was also discovered after the war that by the time Auschwitz had been liberated the Allies had photographed the camp at least 30 times during the course of the war. The photos, taken by the U.S. Army Air Forces, were stored at the Mediterranean Allied Photo Reconnaissance Wing in Italy, which was commanded by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s son, Colonel Elliott Roosevelt. Some photos even showed inmates being marched to the gas chambers.”
What about the claim that Auschwitz (and other death camps) was beyond the range of bombers?
“By May 1944, the USAAF had begun attacking the Third Reich’s synthetic oil plants located in Germany, Poland, and Romania. The goal was to bring Hitler’s war machine to a halt. On August 8, 1944, a raid numbering 55 bombers from the U.S. Eighth Air Force flew from airfields in the Soviet Union and dropped more than 100 tons of bombs on an oil refinery at Trzebinia, which was approximately 20 miles northeast of Auschwitz.” (emphasis ours.)
One more question that many have asked: considering that Jews and other fated people were brought in on railroad cars….wouldn’t bombing the railroad lines have hindered the death camps? The argument to that question is pretty much the same as others: bombing the death camps would’ve done no good because it would’ve killed inmates, they were out of reach, would’ve required too much diversion of air power, etc etc.
Strangely enough, even the Pope has gotten in on the last controversy. An article from the “Independent” from June 22 2015 carries the title “Pope Francis: Why didn’t allies bomb railway routes taking prisoners to Auschwitz?”
‘’The great powers had photographs of the railway routes that the trains took to the concentration camps, like Auschwitz, to kill the Jews, and also the Christians, and also the Roma, also the homosexuals,” Pope Francis said.
“Tell me, why didn’t they bomb” those railroad routes?”
In a 2004 interview concerning the bombing missions he flew as a young bomber pilot by Auschwitz, Senator and 1972 Presidential candidate George McGovern said, “FDR was a great man and he was my political hero. But…he made….the decision not to go after Auschwitz…God forgive us….there was a pretty good chance we could have blasted those rail lines off the face of the earth (and) interrupted the flow of people to those death chambers, and we had a pretty good chance of knocking out those gas ovens.” (December 2004 interview with Israel Television and the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies.)
Indeed, many experts now say that with a bomb load of 8000 pounds, only six of our bombers would have obliterated the rail line, the death chambers, the gas ovens, and the SS barracks.
The same could have been done to the other five death camps.
As for the real possibility that some inmates would be killed….think about this. Their fate was already sealed. So in the long run, it obviously would’ve saved many inmate lives overall.
We now turn to the question: we have established that FDR and others knew all about the death camps very early in the war….so when did Roosevelt begin to refuse helping the Jews?
It started even before World War II!
The steamship M.S. St. Louis, having crossed the Atlantic Ocean with over 900 German-Jewish passengers desperate to escape Nazi Germany, is steaming off the coast of Miami, Florida for about two weeks in June 1939. The passengers have formed a committee and are begging the U.S President himself for sanctuary in the U.S. Roosevelt refuses.
U.S. Immigration authorities then send the ship back to Europe. This rejection is a death sentence to many on the ship at the Nazis’ hands.
Throughout the following war, Roosevelt rejected all requests made by Jewish leaders to bomb the gas chambers or the rail line at Auschwitz.
When it comes to the unspeakable blood on his hands’ guilty refusal to save 2,000,000 or more men, women and children’s lives, Jewish and others, Franklin Delano Roosevelt has no excuse.
His actions are the utter opposite of a “great man.”
The ending of this tragedy only came when World War II ended in Allied victory. But many millions of innocent human beings never lived to see that victory and their salvation….in large part due to the tragic indifference of a U.S. President.
Features
What to Know About Canada’s Legal Cannabis Market
Canada legalised cannabis for adults in 2018, and the market has matured quietly ever since. What was once an unregulated guess is now a labelled, tested product sold through licensed channels. For adults who are curious but cautious, that shift changes everything.
In the regulated market, the printed label does the work that guesswork once did. Retailers such as The Herb Centre, an online dispensary, sit alongside the provincial stores in that legal system. This guide covers what the regulated market offers, how to read a label, and the habits that keep use lower-risk.
Why Does the Regulated Market Matter?
The regulated market matters because it replaces uncertainty with information. A legal product carries a label that states its potency, comes from a tested batch, and meets federal packaging rules. An adult buying it knows exactly what they are getting.
The old unregulated supply never offered that. Potency was a guess, and contaminants were a real risk. The legal route removes both unknowns.
Price is no longer the obstacle it once was. As the legal market has matured, the gap has narrowed, which makes the tested, labelled option the practical one for most adults.
What Should You Understand About Potency?
A few label figures do most of the work.
- THC percentage, the main psychoactive component, matched to your goal.
- CBD percentage, often non-intoxicating and used differently.
- The ratio of the two, which shapes the overall effect.
- Serving size, especially important for edibles and drinks.
- The product format, since each one acts differently.
- The batch and testing, the mark of a legal-market product.
Each figure is printed for a reason. Reading them is the difference between a predictable experience and an unpleasant surprise.
How Do Product Formats Differ?
Formats differ enough that the choice shapes the whole experience. Inhaled flower acts within minutes and fades within a couple of hours, which gives a controllable, short window. Edibles and drinks are the opposite. They can take up to two hours to take effect and last far longer.
That delay causes the most common mistake. Someone feels nothing after twenty minutes, takes more, then feels far too much an hour later. Starting low and waiting is the rule that prevents it.
Provincial health guidance is worth a look first, since each format carries its own risks. Knowing how a product will act, and for how long, is the core of using it responsibly. The slow onset of edibles is the single fact most worth internalising before a first try.
What Should You Check Before Buying?
A short pre-purchase pass keeps the choice sensible.
- Confirm it is legal-market product, with lab testing and a label.
- Check the THC and CBD figures against the effect you want.
- Read the serving and onset information, especially for edibles.
- Buy age-appropriately, since the legal age is 19 in most provinces.
- Use a licensed retailer, online or in store.
- Start with a small amount before buying in volume.
Photo by Sadi Hockmuller on Pexels
Alt text: A person reading a cannabis product label
Buying through legal channels is simple once you know what to look for. The provincial page on how to buy legal cannabis is a quick read, and licensed product is identifiable by its markings. Just as important, never get behind the wheel after using. British Columbia’s page on cannabis and driving is a clear reminder that the two never mix.
Before a First Purchase
A first purchase goes more smoothly after a quick mental check.
- Confirm legal-market sourcing, testing, and a clear label
- Note the THC and CBD percentages against your goal
- Read onset time and serving size, especially for edibles
- Buy only from a licensed retailer
- Respect the legal age, 19 in most provinces
- Start low, wait, and adjust on the next purchase
Why Informed Choices Serve Adults Best
Informed choices serve adults best because the legal market is built around clear, tested labelling. Someone who understands potency and onset avoids the bad first experience that puts people off entirely. The result is a predictable, controlled choice rather than a gamble.
A few baselines are worth remembering. Cannabis has been legal for adults nationwide since 2018. The legal age is 19 in most provinces. And a standard edible package is capped at 10 milligrams of THC, a sensible starting point for newcomers.
Adults today face a legal market their parents never had. As the wider local life carries on and the community marks its own milestones, the lesson stays simple. Read the label, start low, and let the regulated system do its job.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Cannabis Legal for Adults Across Canada?
Yes. Recreational cannabis has been legal for adults nationwide since 2018, though some rules vary by province. The legal age is 18 or 19 depending on the province, and public-use and purchase channels differ regionally. The federal framework itself is national, so the legal status is consistent country-wide.
How Do I Read a Cannabis Product Label?
Look first at the THC and CBD percentages, then the serving size and product format. Higher THC means a stronger psychoactive effect, while CBD is often non-intoxicating. The label also confirms it is a tested, legal-market product. Matching those figures to your goal is the key to a predictable experience.
Why Do Edibles Feel Stronger Than Expected?
Edibles act slowly, sometimes taking up to two hours, and the effect lasts much longer than inhaled cannabis. The common mistake is taking a second dose too soon, before the first has worked. Starting with a low serving and waiting prevents the overwhelming experience that catches first-timers off guard.
What Makes the Legal Market Safer?
Legal-market products are tested, labelled, and regulated, so the buyer knows the potency and that the product is free of contaminants. The unregulated market offers none of that assurance. For an adult who wants a predictable, lower-risk experience, the licensed channel is the clear and sensible choice.
Features
A Practical Guide to Planning a Long-Distance Move
A long-distance move is part logistics, part leap of faith. The packing is the easy part. The hard part is coordinating a truck, a timeline, and a new home that may be a thousand miles away, all without the plan falling apart in transit.
The good news is that a long move rewards preparation more than luck. Brokers like Coastal Moving Services coordinate long-distance residential and commercial moves across the United States, handling the logistics most households would rather not. This guide covers how to plan the move and choose the right help.
Why Do Long-Distance Moves Go Wrong?
Most moves that fail do so for the same handful of reasons. The timeline slips, the budget is guessed rather than quoted, or the moving company turns out to be something other than it claimed. None of these are bad luck. All of them are preventable.
Distance magnifies every mistake. A forgotten box on a local move is a quick trip back. On a cross-country move it is gone. That is why long moves reward planning that a short hop never demands.
The single biggest variable is the company you hire. Get that right and most other problems shrink. Get it wrong and even a simple move turns into a dispute.
How Far Ahead Should You Start Planning?
A clear timeline keeps a long move calm.
- Eight weeks out, research movers and request written estimates.
- Six weeks out, book the company and confirm dates in writing.
- Four weeks out, start decluttering and sorting room by room.
- Two weeks out, confirm logistics and arrange time off.
- One week out, pack an essentials box and label everything clearly.
- Moving day, do a final walkthrough before the truck leaves.
Each step is small on its own. Spread across two months, they turn a daunting move into a manageable checklist.
How Do You Choose a Reputable Mover?
Choosing the right company is where a move is won or lost. Get at least three written estimates, ideally after an in-person or video survey, and treat a quote that arrives without any questions as a warning sign. The FMCSA guidance on choosing a licensed mover is a solid checklist for vetting an interstate company.
Watch the deposit, too. A reputable mover does not demand a large cash payment up front. The FMCSA’s tips for a smooth move run through the red flags and best practices worth knowing before you sign.
A broker can simplify all of this. Rather than vetting carriers yourself, a licensed broker coordinates the move and matches it to a suitable carrier, which is useful for a complex long-distance relocation.
What Should You Confirm Before Moving Day?
A few confirmations before moving day prevent most surprises.
- The written estimate, with the type of quote clearly stated.
- The company’s licensing and insurance for interstate moves.
- The delivery window, and what happens if it slips.
- The payment terms, with no large cash deposit demanded.
- The inventory list, so nothing is lost or disputed.
- Your essentials box, packed and travelling with you.
Photo by Connor Scott McManus on Pexels
Alt text: A loaded moving truck in a driveway on moving day
Getting these in writing protects both the household and the budget. A clear paper trail is the best defence if anything goes wrong.
Moving Day From Start to Finish
The day itself stays calm when a few basics are handled in order.
- Confirm arrival times with the crew the night before
- Keep documents, valuables, and medications with you
- Do a final walkthrough of every room and cupboard
- Check the inventory against the truck before it leaves
- Keep a phone charged and the mover’s number handy
- Note the meter or mileage if the contract depends on it
Settling Into a New Community
The move does not end when the truck pulls away. Unpacking is one thing; building a life in a new place is another, and it takes longer than people expect. Giving yourself a few weeks of grace helps. The first month is for finding your feet, not finishing every box.
The timeline tells the story. Plan a long-distance move roughly 8 weeks ahead. Gather at least 3 written estimates before choosing a mover. And give a new city several months before it starts to feel like home.
A new city means new local institutions to discover, and the small community stories that make a place feel like home. Plan the logistics well, and you free up the energy for the part that actually matters.
Frequently Asked Questions
How Far In Advance Should I Book a Long-Distance Mover?
Aim to book about six weeks ahead, after researching movers around the eight-week mark. Booking early secures your preferred dates, especially in the busy summer season, and gives time to compare written estimates properly. Leaving it late narrows your options and often raises the price.
What Is the Difference Between a Moving Broker and a Carrier?
A carrier owns the trucks and physically moves your goods. A broker arranges the move and matches it to a suitable carrier. A reputable licensed broker can simplify a complex long-distance move by handling the coordination, while you still confirm that the assigned carrier is properly licensed and insured.
How Do I Avoid a Moving Scam?
Get multiple written estimates, verify licensing and insurance, and never pay a large cash deposit upfront. Be wary of quotes given without any review of your belongings, and read recent reviews. Consumer-protection agencies publish clear checklists for spotting the warning signs before you commit.
How Much Should I Budget for a Long-Distance Move?
It varies with distance, volume, and services like packing or storage, so a written estimate based on your actual inventory is essential. Build in a small buffer for extras and confirm exactly what the quote includes. A precise estimate beats a cheap-sounding figure that balloons on delivery day.
Features
American Graduation Speakers Deliver Antizionist Views
By HENRY SREBRNIK Colleges and universities in the United States have hosted and encouraged a surge of radical and pervasive antisemitism in recent years. Graduation commencement ceremonies (known as convocations in Canada) have been a source of tensions over Israel since Oct. 7, 2023. Multiple schools have disciplined students who made pro-Palestinian comments in their speeches.
But professors have also fanned the flames. Faculty members have played a significant role in legitimizing and amplifying antisemitism on college campuses. They have shown a propensity to whitewash Hamas and vilify Israel rather than examine the conflict dispassionately.
University of Michigan professor Derek Peterson praised campus pro-Palestinian student protesters during his commencement speech in Ann Arbor on May 2. The History and African-American studies academic and outgoing faculty senate chair told the graduates to “Sing for the pro-Palestinian student activists who have, over these past two years, opened our hearts to the injustice and inhumanity of Israel’s war in Gaza.” His remarks received loud applause.
“We regret the pain this has caused on a day devoted to celebration and accomplishment. For this, the university apologizes,” Michigan’s interim president, Domenico Grasso, responded. Michigan’s campus Hillel also condemned Peterson’s speech. “Commencement is a celebration of every graduate. It is not a stage for political statements that alienate the Jewish community,” it asserted. On campus, however, an open letter rebuking Grasso and defending Peterson’s speech had been signed by more than 1,100 faculty members, staff and students in less than 24 hours.
Protesters at the university have also vandalized the home of Jordan Acker, a Jewish member of the university’s board of regents. He will no longer serve on the board, while the attorney who defended the university’s encampment participants from some state-level charges received the Michigan Democratic Party’s nomination for Acker’s seat.
Amir Makled won the backing despite social media posts that praised Hezbollah and included antisemitic memes. Makled posted retweets of far-right antisemitic conspiracy theorist Candace Owens and referred to Hassan Nasrallah as a martyr after he was killed by Israeli strikes in 2024.
Administrators at Rutgers University in New Jersey canceled a commencement speaker on May 15, citing an “inflammatory claim” he tweeted about Israel. Rami Elghandour, a Rutgers alumnus, had his invitation rescinded when his April 20 tweet, which accused Israel of genocide and claimed that Israelis were “running dungeons where they train dogs to sexually assault prisoners,” was uncovered.
“They decided that the feelings of a handful of students who said that my social media posts ‘opposed their beliefs,’ were more important than the experience of the entire graduating class, the reputation of the school, the dignity and belonging of Arab and Muslim students, and the First Amendment,” Elghandour wrote. Rutgers Alumnus Christopher Markus, an Emmy Award-winning screenwriter, delivered the address instead, on May 17.
At Georgetown University, a law professor who disparaged legal efforts to curb pro-Palestinian student activism replaced Morton Schapiro, a pro-Israel Jewish economist and former Northwestern University president, at the commencement, after students launched a petition calling for Schapiro’s removal. The replacement, David Cole, is the former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. In that role, Cole issued a statement soon after the Hamas attack in which he criticized Jewish groups for what he said were calls to “investigate, disband, or penalize pro-Palestinian student groups for exercising their free speech rights.” He compared Congressional investigations on campus antisemitism to McCarthyism.
Cornell University’s Student Assembly on March 12 voted to cut ties with Israel’s Technion University and condemned the university for hosting center-left Israeli politician Tzipi Livni, part of the school’s campus anti-Israel activism. She was accused of being “implicated in war crimes.”
The university’s Jewish president was involved in a recent campus altercation with pro-Palestinian protesters who had surrounded his car following a campus debate on Israel. The Ivy League school’s Board of Trustees issued a statement of support for Michael Kotlikoff following an investigation into the April 30 incident. “President Kotlikoff has shown a steadfast commitment to Cornell’s values and principles, and we are confident he will continue to lead with integrity.”
Following the talk, members of the protest group Students for a Democratic Cornell followed the president to his car and appeared to try to block its path. When he did edge his way out of his parking spot, they said he bumped some of the protesters with his vehicle. Despite all that, President Kotlikoff was himself the speaker at the university’s May 23 commencement.
A flag with swastikas surrounding the Star of David flew briefly atop a New York University building during a graduation event May 13, as hundreds gathered for an outdoor celebration called “Grad Alley” on West Fourth Street. “We are shocked and deeply troubled that this hateful symbol expressing antisemitism was raised on a flagpole overlooking Washington Square Park,” said NYU spokesperson Wiley Norvell.
Student government leaders at the university had objected to the selection of Jonathan Haidt as the graduation speaker at Yankee Stadium May 14, calling it “deeply unsettling.” An NYU social psychologist and author, he has been highly critical of the culture in which many young adults today are raised.
A network of anti-Israel activist groups coordinated “Nakba 78” protests across the United States the weekend of May 15, with organizers using the anniversary of Israel’s founding to challenge the Jewish state’s right to exist. University of California campuses have faced an antisemitism crisis, with dramatic increases in harassment, intimidation, and exclusionary conduct targeting Jewish students and others labeled “Zionist” or “pro-Israel.” Among many events, University of California, Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian spoke at a three-day “Islam, Memory and the Nakba” conference in Burlingame, Oakland and Los Gatos.
Even the UCLA campus Hillel was targeted. The Undergraduate Students Association Council condemned an April 14 Yom HaShoah event organized by Hillel featuring freed Israeli hostage Omer Shem Tov. He was kidnapped from the Nova music festival on Oct. 7, 2023, and held hostage in Gaza until his release in a prisoner exchange in February 2025.
“While we affirm the humanity of all people impacted by violence, we reject the selective platforming of narratives that obscure the broader reality of ongoing state violence,” they stated. “Israel is currently continuing to carry out what has been widely identified by human rights advocates as a genocide in Gaza, while also expanding its illegal military campaign into Lebanon.”
This has become part of an effort to delegitimize Hillel chapters, long seen as the main address for Jewish life on most American campuses. Hillel International asks all its affiliate chapters to maintain an unwavering commitment and support for Israel, discouraging criticism of the Israeli state.
The New School, a university in New York City, on May 2 rejected a student government vote to defund and cut ties with the campus chapter of Hillel. The student senate a day earlier had voted to strip funding and stop collaboration with the campus chapter of the Jewish student organization, claiming violations of “international law” due to volunteer opportunities it has offered with the Israel Defence Forces. They also cited Hillel’s promotion of 10-day Birthright trips and other programs in Israel. Hillel International and other Jewish groups have said that efforts to shut down the Jewish student organization are antisemitic.
But it seems to be working. Swarthmore College in 2015 became the first campus to break with Hillel International. They began to call themselves an “Open Hillel,” then rebranded entirely after the parent organization threatened legal action over a civil rights panel it deemed too critical of Israel. Now, the student leaders of the campus Hillel at Middlebury College have voted to rename its student group, moving to distance it from an international organization they say is too pro-Israel. It was renamed the Jewish Association at Middlebury. Might others follow?
Henry Srebrnik is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.