RSS
A ‘Long War’ Is Not the Answer to Israel’s Security Problem — and Could Lead to Destruction (PART ONE)
An Israeli military convoy moves inside the Gaza Strip, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, as seen from Israel, June 17, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
The October 7 disaster shattered many beliefs and concepts in Israeli society, and the war Israel has been waging since that day differs from the wars of its past.
David Ben-Gurion and Ze’ev Jabotinsky believed that rounds of war in which the enemy is smashed against an “Iron Wall” would eventually cause the countries of the region to come to terms with Israel’s existence; this would in turn cause them to change their strategy and choose the path of peace, as did Egypt’s Anwar Sadat and Jordan’s King Hussein. Ben-Gurion’s understanding that an end to the conflict cannot be forced, and that Israel cannot develop and advance in a state of continuous war, led him to the security concept that was in effect until October 7, 2023.
Israel’s security concept has to address a fundamental problem: that the country 1) exists within a hostile region that does not accept its existence, and 2) cannot maintain a large army on a daily basis while advancing economically and socially. The solution — until October 2023 — was to maintain a small regular army to address ongoing security challenges; try and postpone wars by deterring enemies from exercising resistance; and maintain a large and agile reserve army that is mobilized on the basis of intelligence alerts. Because the mobilization of the reserves stalls Israel’s economy, this security concept required that wars be short.
The first commandment of Israel’s security concept was that Israel would never be able to force an end to the conflict on its antagonists because it is simply too small relative to the collective Arab and Muslim world. This approach created the dynamic of cycles of short wars.
Israel was destined to mobilize for a significant clash once every few years, to beat the enemy in a short and powerful war, and thereby gain a few years of relative calm. Israel used these periods of calm, together with the assets it gained during the wars (time, territory, deterrence, strategic stability) to transform from a tiny young country into a regional military and economic power.
But the periods between the rounds of war — that is, the “routine” phase of the security concept — were never calm from a security point of view. In fact, since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, not a month has passed without a security incident in one of the conflict areas. Israel’s routine security situation is in fact a routine of limited conflict.
Throughout its short history, Israel has never been able to completely eliminate any of its enemies. Ten days after the end of the Six-Day War — Israel’s greatest victory, in which it achieved the total disintegration of the Egyptian army — Egypt renewed fire.
Israel’s strategic success in expelling the PLO from Lebanon following the Lebanon War did not eliminate Palestinian hostility from Lebanon, and it certainly did not prevent Hezbollah’s development and indeed acceleration of strength. Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, and the transition from Yasser Arafat to Abu Mazen, who changed his predecessor’s policy of support for terrorism, did not lead to the elimination of Palestinian terrorism. To this day, the IDF is required to carry out operations almost every night to fight Palestinian terrorism in Judea and Samaria.
Israel made good use of the routine periods and turned itself from a small, weak, resource-poor country into a regional power in every respect. Along with strengthening economically, Israel also strengthened militarily. It hit the enemy repeatedly, sometimes so severely that it caused them to weaken and change. But as expected, Israel has failed to force an end to the conflict on its enemies. As Ben-Gurion said, “We cannot have a final battle.”
It can be argued that if Israel is fated to go to war at intervals over and over again forever, then all the Sisyphean security activity during the routine periods is unnecessary — in other words, it fails to bring results, as war inevitably breaks out again anyway. But Israel’s ongoing defensive and offensive military effort makes it possible to postpone the next war and maintain a tolerable level of violence during the routine periods.
Why does Israel allow the other side to arm itself more than it can be expected to tolerate? Why not act before the other side is dangerously well-armed? The answer is clear. Israel uses the routine periods to build and develop. Overly frequent wars might make it more difficult for Israel’s enemies to strengthen, but they would foil the part of Israel’s strategy that depends on the periods of routine. The “addiction to peace” — as the Israeli desire to extend the routine periods is sometimes called by opponents of the Ben-Gurion security concept — is not a sign of the concept’s weakness, but a by-product of its implementation.
If Israel cannot force an end to the conflict on its enemies, and its enemies include those who wish to act against it with violence, what prevents those enemies from acting all the time and arming themselves without limit?
If Israel cannot keep its entire army mobilized and active and must be content with a small regular army, what prevents its enemies from attacking it every day that the army is not mobilized? Why hasn’t every day of Israel’s existence been an October 7?
This is where deterrence and early warning come into play.
Israel’s enemies are usually deterred from starting a high-intensity war against it because Israel has proven that it is stronger than they are, and that a high-intensity war would hurt them more than they are willing to suffer. Deterrence keeps wars from starting and helps Israel maintain a tolerable level of violence during the routine periods. But deterrence is not supposed to, and should not be expected to, prevent war from ever breaking out. Nor is it meant to completely prevent any violence from ever occurring during the routine periods.
Israel tries to strengthen its deterrence capacity not to prevent war but to keep war away for as long as possible, on the understanding that war will eventually break out. At the same time, Israel invests a continuous effort in defense to make it difficult for the other side to cause it harm during the routine periods. Defense cannot, and clearly does not, prevent all violence.
Israel invests a great deal of effort in intelligence, the first purpose of which is to warn of the enemy’s intention to go to war. Because early warning might fail, Israel built a routine defense system designed to stop an attack in the event of such a failure.
Defense needs to respond to both threats from the borders and terrorism that occurs during the routine periods. This dual role — protection against low-intensity violence and an “insurance policy” in the event of a failure of early warning — can create confusion about the defense mission and even the scenario for which the defense is being prepared.
This seems to be what happened on October 7. The IDF failed to recognize the potential for a major Hamas raid on the Israeli villages and towns near Gaza. The IDF is prepared to prevent infiltration, not invasion. Whether the failure was in the IDF’s understanding of the intelligence or in the degree of protection afforded by the new barrier it built around Gaza, the IDF’s preparations did not take into account the possibility of a breach of the barrier or the potentially broad dimensions of such a raid. The IDF did not prepare for this scenario and did not prepare orders or routines for such a case. The Intelligence Division did not build a warning model to protect against such a move, and therefore did not provide warning. Weak preparation, and the failure to prepare a response in case of surprise, allowed Hamas to penetrate the border and carry out the October 7 attack, with all its catastrophic consequences.
But were there elements in the Hamas attack that Israel had no ability to defend against? Had Hamas discovered operative tools against which Israel could not prepare a defensive response? Did Hamas prepare in a way that Israeli intelligence could not discover?
The tragedy is that the answer to all these questions is no.
Has anyone in Israel ever believed that Hamas is interested in peace? Was anyone surprised to learn that Hamas still opposes Israel’s very existence and believes it should be violently resisted until it is destroyed? Did anyone in Israel think the IDF could deter Hamas to the point of forcing it to end the conflict — a principle that is contrary to the first commandment of the security concept?
The horrific harm inflicted on Israeli civilians on October 7, the taking of hundreds of captives, and the appearance of the loss of Israeli power caused Israel to go to war. The object of that war is to make clear that Hamas made a grievous mistake and to renew Israel’s strategic positioning in the arena. But did the magnitude of the blow inflicted on Israel suddenly make it more capable than it ever believed itself to be before the war? Did the catastrophic failure of Israel’s defense and early warning system paradoxically make Israel so strong that it can now force its enemies to end the conflict?
Did the atrocities committed by Hamas in its attack somehow make the IDF strong enough to eliminate the threat of Hamas from Gaza, bearing in mind that Israel has never been able to eliminate any of the threats that surround it? Did the terrible damage suffered by the surrounding communities make Israel’s economy and society so strong that Israel can suddenly conduct a long and intense war?
The shock and sense of rupture caused by October 7 led many to think that the Hamas attack had irreparably broken Israel’s security concept. Israel’s deterrence and early warning both failed, and Hamas was not deterred. Hence: it is no longer true that Israel cannot have a final battle. It is possible to go to war to eliminate Hamas once and for all — to wage a final war and achieve a complete victory.
We will try to formulate this alternative “October 8” concept of security. According to this view, Israel cannot ignore threats against it. It should act decisively and continuously towards the complete elimination of its enemies and their replacement with political elements that accept Israel’s national policies and goals. Thus, the goal of the war in Gaza should be the complete elimination of the military power of Hamas and the dissolution of its civilian rule in the Strip, until it can be ensured that it no longer poses a threat to the surrounding settlements.
Let’s ignore for the moment the endless consequences of this concept when applying it to Lebanon and the other arenas. Gaza is a limited geographical space with a topography that supports maneuvering. But even if it were possible to achieve complete victory in Gaza, what would it look like? Full and lasting Israeli control over the territory, à la Judea and Samaria?
After 10 months of war, the IDF has occupied most of the Gaza Strip and destroyed countless buildings and terrorist and tunneling infrastructures. Hamas still exists and functions, though it is unable to launch significant military operations. But it is possible that the manner in which the IDF used its force was wrong.
Even if the IDF had acted differently, it is not clear how Hamas fighters can be eliminated when they withdraw and assimilate into the general population. How can every last Hamas fighter be eliminated when they are the ones who choose whether to fight or blend into the crowd? A similar logic applies to buildings and infrastructure. The IDF has shown no mercy to buildings and tunnels in Gaza. It has used an unprecedented quantity of aerial weapons and explosives on the ground, and the number of homes it has destroyed is enormous. Notwithstanding claims that the Americans withheld armaments from the IDF, they provided Israel with tens of thousands of bombs that it did not possess at the beginning of the war. Could yet more infrastructure have been destroyed?
Will anyone be surprised if, after the complete victory in Gaza is achieved and Hamas is defeated, there continues to be a threat of terrorism from Gaza, including the occasional rocket launch? Can this be prevented? And if not, what is the advantage of continuing the war without end?
The IDF has been at war at varying levels of intensity for 10 months now. The regular soldiers are fighting almost continuously, and the reserve forces are already in their third round of action. Is this not enough? Is there no limit to the hours the engine of the IDF machine can continue to function? And is there a correlation between the prolonging of the war in Gaza and the problematic strategic situation in the north?
Supporters of the alternative view claim that Ben-Gurion’s view no longer provides security. According to them, avoiding a complete victory stems first and foremost from weakness. But their new concept ignores the reality of the difficulty that would be involved in achieving either the means or the international support necessary to prosecute such a long war. When asked what Israel should do about the lack of armaments, their answer is often that Israel will simply have to achieve independence in the field. But how can a war be waged right now with armaments that we do not yet have? And can Israel really afford to ignore its need for American military and political assistance? Can Israel stand alone against all the threats that surround us, which are not only military but also political and economic? Can Israel survive without American support at the UN? Can it survive a global boycott?
Col. (res.) Gur Laish served as head of the campaign planning department in the Israel Air Force and as head of the security concept division at the National Security Council. He has a master’s degree in political science from the University of Haifa. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post A ‘Long War’ Is Not the Answer to Israel’s Security Problem — and Could Lead to Destruction (PART ONE) first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Anti-Zionist Faculty ‘Barometer’ Exposes Worst Schools for Jewish Students
Graduating students rise in support of 13 students not able to graduate because of their participation in anti-Israel protests during the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Antisemitism watchdog AMCHA Initiative has released a new “Anti-Zionist Faculty Barometer” which contains measurements of the severity of professors’ anti-Israel activism at over 700 US college campuses.
Last month, the organization launched a “National Campaign to Combat Faculty Antisemitism,” which aims to bring awareness to the correlation between increases in antisemitic incidents in higher education institutions and the presence of Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP) groups and other anti-Zionist professors who act as “foot-soldiers” for the anti-Israel movement. The “faculty barometer” continues that work, ranking hundreds of colleges on a 0-5 scale, from “negligible” to “extreme,” which indicates a “critical level of anti-Zionist faculty presence/activity.”
America’s most prestigious colleges and universities were categorized in the latter category, including Georgetown University, Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, and Stanford University. Other highly regarded institutions registered in the runner up category — “severe”— such as Duke University, San Francisco State University, Brown University, and Dartmouth College.
As The Algemeiner has previously reported, FJP is a spinoff of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a group with links to Islamist terrorist organizations. FJP chapters have been cropping up at colleges since Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7, and throughout the 2023-2024 academic year, its members, which include faculty employed by the most elite US colleges, fostered campus unrest, circulated antisemitic cartoons, and advocated severing ties with Israeli companies and institutions of higher education.
These scholar-activists are too often ignored by the press and other watchdogs AMCHA Initiative executive director Tammi Rossman-Benjamin told The Algemeiner during an interview on Wednesday in which she discussed the importance of her organization’s latest project.
“The barometer is a versatile tool that actually looks at anti-Zionist faculty in their different manifestations on campus, which is an under-explored factor contributing to campus antisemitism and the hostile climate in which Jewish students live and study,” Rossman-Benjamin said. “And barometer is the right word for it as a metaphor for what we’re trying to do, which is to use information as a tool for quantifying what is in our estimation a determinative factor of campus antisemitism.”
She continued, “Measuring that factor, just like a barometer measures the barometric pressure and predicts the weather, has predictive value of what a campus climate might look or is likely to look like for a Jewish student, given the prominence, importance, and nature of contribution that anti-Zionist faculty make to campus antisemitism.”
AMCHA’s barometric measurements, Rossman-Benjamin explained, are based on four indicators: a campus’ having professors who publicly support boycotting Israel, academic departments that have issued anti-Zionist statements, an established FJP chapter, and FJP events and statements. This is important, she stressed, because, as The Algemeiner has previously reported, a previous AMCHA study discovered a correlation between a school’s hosting an FJP chapter and anti-Zionist and antisemitic activity. For example, it found that the presence of FJP on a college campus increased by seven times “the likelihood of physical assaults and Jewish students” and increased by three times the chance that a Jewish student would be subject to threats of violence and death.
“It wasn’t surprising to us that the schools with the largest presence of anti-Zionist faculty according to our barometer have also been in the news for high rates of antisemitism,” Rossman-Benjamin continued, linking the “barometer” to the group’s previous work. “What we see here is a confirmation of our studies discovery of faculty’s contribution — a mostly hidden contribution — to campus antisemitism.”
She added, “So much attention has been focused on, for example, Students for Justice in Palestine, the encampments, and all of the unrest. The primary face of that has been students and student groups, and they’ve occupied the attention of administrators, member of Congress, and the public, but if you look more deeply — behind closed classroom doors, at departmental events, and statements, or the activity of groups like [FJP], you find an even more important predictor and determinative factor precipitating antisemitism.”
AMCHA Initiative says that the this new information can help Jewish parents and prospective college students make smarter decisions about higher education. For Jewish students already enrolled in college, it will fully apprise them of what they have signed up for.
“We’re hoping that parents and students will get involved to stop this normalizing of hatred, to demand that universities and donors turn the situation around by reining in these out of control faculty,” Rossman-Benjamin concluded. “And we’re optimistic for knowing that there is growing recognition that the situation on the campus needs to change.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Anti-Zionist Faculty ‘Barometer’ Exposes Worst Schools for Jewish Students first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Dozens of US Democratic House Members Call on Biden Admin to Assess Israeli ‘Compliance’ With US Laws, Policies
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on March 21, 2024. Photo: Craig Hudson/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
A group of 77 Democrats in the US House sent a letter dated Thursday to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin demanding that the Biden administration provide an assessment of Israel’s “compliance with all relevant US policies and laws,” suggesting that the Middle East’s lone democracy and Washington’s closest ally in the region is violating international humanitarian law in Gaza.
“We strongly support Israel’s right to self-defense and condemn the brutal terrorist attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, in which Hamas killed over 1,200 people and took 235 people [sic] hostage,” the lawmakers wrote, using an incorrect figure for the hostages as 251 individuals were kidnapped during the onslaught. “We continue to call on Hamas to release all hostages and support the Biden administration’s efforts to broker a bilateral ceasefire that includes the release of hostages.”
The lawmakers also said they support efforts by the Biden administration to “reach a security agreement between Israel and Lebanon,” which would end fighting between Israel and the Hezbollah terrorist group and allow for civilians from both countries to return to their homes. The letter went on to condemn the “unprecedented Iranian attacks against Israel” in both April and October of this year.
However, the members of Congress also issued blistering criticism of Israel, sharing concern over the “level of civilian casualties and humanitarian suffering in Gaza.” They accused Israel of purposefully deteriorating conditions in Gaza by implementing “arbitrary restrictions on humanitarian aid and insufficient delivery,” asserting that Israel’s conduct has resulted in a “dire famine” ravaging the Gaza Strip.
“Therefore we request that your administration provide a full assessment of the status of Israel’s compliance with all relevant US policies and laws,” the lawmakers wrote.
Though critics have raised alarm bells over a potential famine in Gaza since last year, a United Nations committee in June said it was unable to prove the occurrence of famine in Gaza.
Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said in October that Israel had delivered over 1 million tons of aid, including 700,000 tons of food, to Gaza since it launched its military operation a year ago.
Nonetheless, the representatives lambasted Israel for allegedly ignoring a “30-day deadline” by the US government to “reverse the downward humanitarian trajectory” in the war-torn enclave.
In October, the Biden administration issued Israel a letter, demanding that the Jewish state increase the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza or risk cuts in US military aid. In the letter, Blinken and Austin openly called into doubt Israel’s commitment to providing humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians and questioned whether the Jewish state has used weapons in accordance with international law. The letter also called for temporary pauses in IDF military operations to enable aid deliveries.
Experts have hit back at the allegation that Israel has purposefully withheld aid from Gaza civilians, claiming that the Biden administration has provided “no evidence” of its claims. Following threats by the US, the Israeli government also greenlit an increase in Gaza aid. However, the Jewish state insists that Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that runs Gaza, has hijacked aid trucks and prevented distribution of humanitarian goods to the civilian population. In early December, the United Nations announced a pause of aid shipments into Gaza, citing danger posed by violent gangs ransacking trucks.
“We believe further administrative action must be taken to ensure Israel upholds the assurances it provided in March 2024 to facilitate, and not directly or indirectly obstruct, US humanitarian assistance,” the US lawmakers concluded in Thursday’s letter.
Among the letter’s signatories were strident opponents of Israel, such as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Barbara Lee (D-CA).
Democrats in Congress have grown increasingly critical of Israel in the year following Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Although Democrats have repeatedly reiterated that Israel has a right to “defend itself,” many have raised concerns over the Jewish state’s conduct in the war in Gaza, reportedly exerting private pressure on US President Joe Biden to adopt a more adversarial stance against Israel and display more public sympathy for the Palestinians.
The letter, which was signed by roughly 40 percent of Democratic House lawmakers, could represent a growing fracture between American liberals and the Jewish state. In November, 17 Democrats voted to implement an arms embargo on Israel, effectively mainstreaming and destigmatizing a once-fringe policy position.
The post Dozens of US Democratic House Members Call on Biden Admin to Assess Israeli ‘Compliance’ With US Laws, Policies first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Concordia Student Union faces legal action after trying to revoke StartUp Nation’s club status
The Concordia Student Union (CSU) is facing legal scrutiny after attempting to revoke the club status of StartUp Nation, a pro-Israel student organization at the Montreal university, following a Dec. 3 event featuring Yoseph Haddad.
StartUp Nation’s legal representatives have filed a demand letter and a provisional interlocutory injunction contesting the CSU’s actions, which they describe as “irregular, illegal and contrary to proper rules of order and procedure.”
Haddad, an Arab-Israeli journalist, pro-Israel activist and former IDF soldier, was scheduled to appear at a tabling event in the Hall Building Mezzanine on Concordia’s campus on Dec. 3.
On Dec. 1, StartUp Nation posted an Instagram reel announcing his appearance and the event’s location. After anti-Israel organizations denounced the appearance online, the CSU cancelled the reservation two days before the event, citing the club’s failure to disclose Haddad’s participation as an external guest.
Despite the CSU’s cancellation, StartUp Nation proceeded with the event in a public area separate from the reserved space, in the same building. “We did not use their space; we didn’t break any rules,” said Michael Eshayek, co-president of StartUp Nation, who pointed out that the CSU does not have jurisdiction over all of Concordia campus.
Haddad’s appearance was quickly met with protests from anti-Israel groups. Eshayek said one protester directed inflammatory remarks at a participant, saying, “I hope your mom will die.” Another video shows a protester wearing a keffiyeh pointing at Haddad and making a throat-slitting gesture.
Other videos shared online show Haddad attempting to engage with Concordia’s dean of students, Kate Broad, who declined to speak with him and left the scene. “You don’t have the respect to speak to me?” Haddad said in the video, addressing Broad, who turned her back on him.
The CSU later claimed StartUp Nation had violated policies. “On Dec. 3, a CSU club violated both Student Union and university policy by withholding essential information in their booking application regarding external guests,” the CSU said in a statement.
The CJN emailed the CSU for further comment on the cancellation of the tabling event and their motion to revoke the club status of Startup Nation, but did not receive a reply.
Legal implications
A demand letter dated Dec. 10, issued by Michael Hollander, a lawyer representing StartUp Nation, accuses the CSU of violating its own policies and failing to follow a fair decision-making process. The letter highlights the CSU’s “Policy on Clubs” and Robert’s Rules of Order, which require organizations to provide fair hearings before making substantive decisions. The letter describes the motion to revoke StartUp Nation’s status as “ultra vires”—beyond the CSU’s authority—and therefore invalid.
“The motion passed on Dec. 4, 2024, was irregular, illegal and in direct violation of my client’s rights,” the letter states. It further criticizes the CSU for citing Concordia University’s policy that governs external guest approvals and is enforceable only by the university, not the student union.
In the letter, Hollander demanded the CSU confirm within 24 hours that StartUp Nation’s club status remains intact, warning of further legal action if this is not done.
Watch a few moments from my visit to Concordia University in Montreal, which is occupied by anti-Israel terror supporters! pic.twitter.com/UcHsyafniL
— יוסף חדאד – Yoseph Haddad (@YosephHaddad) December 5, 2024
StartUp Nation also filed a legal application for a provisional interlocutory injunction in Quebec Superior Court on Dec. 11, seeking to annul the CSU’s motion. The court filing claims the CSU’s actions breached basic principles of fairness by failing to provide StartUp Nation with an opportunity to respond to complaints.
“These procedural irregularities rendered the motion not only invalid but also a breach of fundamental fairness and equity,” the filing states. The legal team argues these violations undermine the integrity of the decision and calls for adherence to proper procedural norms.
On Dec. 12, StartUp Nation posted on Instagram announcing the CSU had complied with the court order, blocking their attempt to ban the pro-Israel organization from campus. In a video taken during a CSU meeting, Dana Ballantyne, the external affairs and mobilization coordinator for the CSU, read a statement proposing a motion to strike the revocation of StartUp Nation’s club status until a council meeting on Jan. 22, 2025. Ballantyne cited claims that prior motion procedures had been invalid.
‘A double standard’
Critics have accused the CSU and Concordia University of applying double standards to pro-Israel events. “When pro-Hamas students block classes or chant ‘intifada,’ they’re allowed to stay,” Eshayek said. “But when we peacefully protest or hold an event, we’re told to leave.”
Jewish faculty and students at Concordia, who chose to maintain anonymity, have described the revocation of StartUp Nation’s status as part of a larger pattern of marginalizing pro-Israel voices on campus. Similar incidents occurred at McGill University this month, where anti-Israel activists opposed a conference featuring Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a Hamas leader turned critic, and Elisheva Ysabella Hazan, the founder of a Jewish empowerment movement. Although McGill cancelled the in-person event, it proceeded virtually.
The CSU has a history of controversies involving Jewish and pro-Israel groups. A November 2023 class-action lawsuit against Concordia and the CSU alleges that a hostile environment has been fostered for Jewish students, citing incidents of antisemitism and growing animosity towards pro-Israel students.
The CJN emailed the Concordia administration for comment on CSU’s recent decisions, asking how the administration balances student union autonomy with the university’s commitment to free speech and inclusivity, but did not receive a reply by press time.
Meanwhile, Haddad has criticized the situation in interviews and on social media, describing it as “an example of the growing intolerance toward pro-Israel voices on university campuses.”
The post Concordia Student Union faces legal action after trying to revoke StartUp Nation’s club status appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.