Connect with us

RSS

A Note From Israel: When the Media Battlefield and the Home Front Collide

The body of a motorist lies on a road following a mass-infiltration by Hamas gunmen from the Gaza Strip, in Sderot, southern Israel October 7, 2023. REUTERS/Ammar Awad

A significant part of my professional life has been spent at HonestReporting. I’ve worked through far too many crises, including several major IDF military operations, mass-casualty terror attacks, and numerous incidents that made the front pages of every international newspaper around the globe.

In this sphere, you have to come to grips with the constant fight ahead. You may win critical battles, but the war itself — a war beyond the military battlefield — is one you may never fully win.

This is a fight for Israel’s legitimacy and its right to be treated as simply another state among the nations.

The past year has been one of the hardest I’ve ever experienced, not just because of the relentless attacks in the international media on Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas terrorists who carried out the worst atrocity against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. It’s also the overwhelming antisemitism and abuse that floods social media — things I force myself to see and respond to every day.

It’s the inability to separate my work from the harsh reality that Israelis are living through — because I’m one of them.

In a country this small, it’s almost a cliché to say everyone is connected to someone directly affected by the situation. But it’s the truth.

I live in Modi’in, a city of 100,000 people situated exactly halfway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. It’s a place proud of its distinction as having the highest percentage of 18-year-olds answering the mandatory call to serve in the IDF.

Tragically, in the days after October 7, it became clear that several of those young soldiers had been brutally killed inside their bases, including some from my own neighborhood.

I’ve lived in the same house for 14 years, yet had never met the neighbors two doors down — until I attended the shiva for their teenage granddaughter who fell that day. At other times, the streets of our neighborhood would fill with residents standing silently, holding Israeli flags, as convoys carried the families of the fallen to lay their loved ones to rest in the local cemetery — a heartbreaking scene echoed across the country.

In my late 40s, I’m at an age where the soldiers on the frontlines are both my peers and the children of many friends and acquaintances.

In my position, I receive constant updates from various governmental and non-governmental organizations, including the IDF, police, and Magen David Adom emergency responders. Far too often, I’d wake up to an IDF notification about the latest casualties. Sometimes, a name would stand out and I’d pray it wasn’t the child of a friend or colleague. Tragically, sometimes it was.

The husband of a former colleague and the son of a family friend were both killed in Gaza. A cousin from my extended family was stabbed to death while serving as a Border Policewoman in Jerusalem’s Old City. The pain and grief are beyond words.

HonestReporting is a microcosm of the country as a whole. One colleague has been on army reserve duty for over 200 days, leaving his wife and two small children to manage without him, while our organization is left without a key team member. Another colleague’s husband has spent many days in uniform, leaving her to care for their baby alone. Everyone is affected in some way, and we are no different from countless workplaces disrupted by the mandatory call to serve.

I will always consider it a privilege to have a level of insider access that many Israelis don’t. At the end of November, I was invited to a breakfast at a foreign ambassador’s residence, alongside colleagues from other organizations and some family members of the hostages.

We sat and listened as the families shared the stories of their loved ones, still held captive in Gaza.

At one point, an attendee broke down in tears. She quickly apologized, wondering aloud how she could be the one crying when others in the room had brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, and children being held by Hamas — yet somehow, they managed to keep their composure while fighting for their release.

There was no shame in her tears. It’s hard for those outside to fully grasp the deep bonds that connect both Israelis and the broader global Jewish community, or the simple truth that this catastrophe touches nearly every one of us in some way.

In the weeks following October 7, I had the opportunity to visit Sderot and several kibbutzim near the Gaza border. It felt like stepping into a vast crime scene, frozen in time since that horrific day. Many of HonestReporting’s staff have been there, witnessing the devastation firsthand, so we can accurately convey to the world the barbarity of what happened there.

Israel is a country still gripped by trauma, and there’s no sign of it easing. Behind every article, video, and social media post is a member of HonestReporting’s staff, living the reality of a nation at war — where the frontlines are also the home front. Workdays spent behind computers are often interrupted by sirens and frantic runs to safe rooms.

A job focused on handling bad news becomes indistinguishable from the constant barrage of terrible events that flood our senses.

In the immediate aftermath of Hamas’ rampage, I believed Israel might have three or four days before the global narrative turned against us. In truth, I’m not sure we even had that.

Today, we continue fighting against media bias and anti-Israel slander — not just because it’s our job or career, but because it’s our responsibility as proud Israelis. We’ve been given the privilege to serve our country and people in the best way we know how.

The author is the Editorial Director of HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

The post A Note From Israel: When the Media Battlefield and the Home Front Collide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Obituary: Lloyd Newman, 90, a passionate supporter of Nova Scotia’s cultural groups and Jewish community

Lloyd Newman, who built a family clothing business into a 20-store chain, served on the board of nearly arts institution and Jewish organization in his adopted province of Nova Scotia. […]

The post Obituary: Lloyd Newman, 90, a passionate supporter of Nova Scotia’s cultural groups and Jewish community appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.

Continue Reading

RSS

The Biggest Victim in Today’s Election Is Jewish Unity

Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump points towards Democratic presidential nominee and US Vice President Kamala Harris, during a presidential debate hosted by ABC in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US, Sept. 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder

No matter who wins today’s election, the biggest casualty for the Jewish community will be unity. We allowed ourselves to be pulled into a partisan game, where non-Jewish voices — opportunists on both sides — defined which party is “more antisemitic,” leading us to turn on each other. The only people who win from Jewish disunity are antisemites.

We must remember that we are a people apart. We might be Democrats or Republicans — but only as long as these parties allow us to remain. Both parties contain elements that don’t see Jews as “real” members of their ranks. At any moment, the fringes of each side could pull the mainstream in their direction, and we will find ourselves either shown the door or quietly made to feel unwelcome.

To be clear, the Democratic Party is not “The Squad,” and the Republican Party does not believe in Marjorie Taylor Greene’s “Jewish Space Lasers.” The parties are more than their loudest extremes. But we have to face the fact that these factions hold influence, and they can pull the broader party platform in directions that aren’t always comfortable — or safe — for us. We can argue over the extent to which these views are tolerated in each party, and we can vote accordingly.

By “unity,” I don’t mean that we should all vote the same way or ignore real issues on either side. I mean that we need to recognize that neither party will always represent what is good for the Jews. Both will court us, both will insist that the other side is a threat, and both will try to lock us into alliances where their interests come first. All our alliances are marriages of convenience.

Take our alliance with Evangelical Christians, for instance. Many of us are fully aware that their pro-Israel stance aligns with our interests today, but this alliance is not without strings. Evangelicals often support Israel because they see it as central to their eschatology, not always because of a genuine affinity with the Jewish people. We are allies — until the day our priorities no longer align. Going “all in” on their agenda is a risk we cannot afford.

This election cycle has exposed just how fractured we are and how much our alliances need rethinking. The old alliances — built on broad social causes, unions, and civil rights movements — are in tatters. We are finding ourselves increasingly pushed to the sidelines of causes we once led. We are not Democrats or Republicans, conservative or liberal. In the end, we are Jews, a people apart, and we must do what it takes to survive.

A few years ago, I spoke with an author who argued that the Jewish community needs to abandon “Tikkun Olam” — the notion that we should dedicate ourselves to repairing the world. His stance was that we should be concerned, first and foremost, with helping other Jews. At the time, I dismissed his viewpoint. As American Jews, we have always taken pride in our sense of justice and duty to broader society. Our pursuit of Tikkun Olam has often been the driver behind our roles in social justice, union organizing, and countless other efforts that uplifted not just ourselves, but all Americans.

Yet here we are, finding ourselves ousted from some of the very movements we helped to shape. The calls for justice are still loud, but our voices are increasingly unwelcome. Now, I am beginning to see the wisdom in that author’s argument.

In this climate, we need a different rallying point. We are not Tikkun Olam and we are not MAGA. We should be wary of both sides’ accusations of antisemitism, for neither side truly has our best interests at heart.

This isn’t to say we need to be centrists. Rather, we need to look both ways, as my mother used to tell me, before crossing the street. We need to hold onto the knowledge that we are a people with a long history, one that has outlasted empires and nations. We need each other to continue that history, no matter the political divisions that try to rip us apart.

Somehow, we allowed these divisions to harden. We forgot that we are one people. Instead, we have looked at our fellow Jews as enemies. We’ve resorted to name-calling, hurling words like “kapo” and “fascist” at each other. Friendships have been broken, families split, and fingers pointed in anger.

Yes, we’re Jews. We argue. Debate is in our DNA. But this has gone beyond debate. Our community’s infighting has provided a gift to our enemies, who look at us — splintered and vulnerable — and smile.

So, when exactly have Jews ever been united? I can think of once within my lifetime. When I was around 12 years old in 1976, my family hosted a violinist named Boris Brant. We lived in Battle Creek, Michigan, at the time, and he was a recent immigrant from the Soviet Union. Brant was one of the Soviet refusniks — Jews who had been denied the right to leave the USSR. He’d been a prominent violin professor in Odessa, but applying to emigrate had cost him his career. He left behind everything he knew to come here and start over as a free man.

His arrival in the US was part of a larger movement. By the 1970s, American Jews of all stripes were rallying around the cause of Soviet Jewry, working to free Jews who wanted to leave. This advocacy led to the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which tied US-Soviet trade deals to the Soviet Union’s willingness to allow Jewish emigration. If they wanted favorable trade, they had to respect basic rights. This was one of the rare times that Jews, across all backgrounds, got behind a single cause.

Jackson-Vanik was groundbreaking. Orthodox, Reform, secular, left, right — everyone joined in. Synagogues held rallies, youth groups raised awareness, and Jewish families like mine opened their homes to tell the stories of Soviet Jews. For once, we felt like one community, and the message was simple: Jewish freedom was non-negotiable.

No matter who wins today, we have a serious antisemitism problem in this country. It is a problem that will take all our talents and efforts to address. So much emotion and time is wasted on blaming our fellow Jews for a problem that is not of our own making. We are a talented, brilliant, driven, creative, clever, stubborn people. Let’s focus all that energy on fighting antisemitism — not one another.

Howard Lovy is a Michigan-based author, book editor, and journalist who specializes in Jewish issues. He is currently working on a book, From Outrage to Action: A Practical Guide to Fighting Antisemitism. His novel, Found and Lost: The Jake and Cait Story, will be released in 2025. You can find him on his website or on X.

The post The Biggest Victim in Today’s Election Is Jewish Unity first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

I Was Shunned at Princeton for Being a Zionist; We Must Actively Ensure Academic Diversity Now

A pro-Hamas group splattered red paint, symbolizing spilled blood, on an administrative building at Princeton University. Photo: Screenshot

Universities were once celebrated as arenas of free thought, where diverse ideas could challenge one another, and truth could emerge from debate. However, a new form of intolerance has gripped campuses worldwide, stifling intellectual diversity and turning academic institutions into echo chambers.

My experience at Princeton University illustrates the extent of this culture of suppression and the dangerous consequences it poses for education.

On March 27, 2023, I was invited to speak about Israel’s legal system dispute at the Center for Jewish Life at Princeton. Although I have never hidden my Jewish identity, this was the first time I was invited to speak publicly about Israel. Until then, I was focused on my work as associate research scholar and lecturer, as part of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions in the Department of Politics at Princeton University.

As the event date approached, several professors from other departments pressured the organizers to cancel my lecture, arguing that my Zionist viewpoints had no place on campus. The irony was glaring: a university that prides itself on diversity was actively working to silence a viewpoint that didn’t fit the accepted narrative.

On the day of the lecture, I was escorted through a back entrance by campus security. A group of student protesters, encouraged by faculty members, had blocked the main entrance. Their signs read “Racist,” “Democracy for Israelis and Palestinians,” “No Democracy under Apartheid,” and “No Blank Check for Apartheid.”

These were not calls for dialogue, but declarations that dissenting voices were unwelcome. The protest wasn’t about what I might say; it was about sending a message: those who defy the prevailing ideology will face resistance.

Some rioters and demonstrators forcefully entered the building, creating a tense atmosphere charged with disapproval from a faculty that once championed open inquiry. Unfortunately, the lecture was repeatedly disrupted — shouts through megaphones, the beating of drums outside the hall, and verbal outbursts interrupting nearly every sentence from people inside. I could not finish a single sentence. After enduring these disruptions for an extended period, I saw no point in continuing the lecture. Ultimately, the police escorted me back to my car.

Today, many academics see their role as enforcing ideological conformity, leaving no room for genuine debate. My lecture was just one skirmish in a broader battle to reshape the university into a space devoid of diverse perspectives. The hostility extended beyond the lecture hall, revealing a deeper and more systemic issue within the academic environment.

Despite the staunch defense of the Madison program and the colleagues who worked with me on a daily basis, the attacks against me did not stop. Professors defamed me, wrote letters against me, tried to cancel my course, and organized a media persecution campaign. The backlash against my presence escalated in campus publications, where I was labeled an extremist — not for my work, but for my conservative and Zionist beliefs. This wasn’t about academic discourse; it was an ideological purge.

What saddened me the most was that my request for a personal meeting with the president or dean of the university was refused.

This episode is emblematic of a larger trend: the suffocation of intellectual diversity and the rise of a new orthodoxy that threatens the foundational values of academic freedom.

At universities everywhere, professors have been pushing for changes to the hiring process that would prioritize ideological alignment over academic excellence. Their goal is clear: to exclude scholars who don’t fit the desired mold, ensuring a uniform intellectual environment.

The future of education depends on our ability to resist this tide of conformity and reclaim the university as a place where all ideas, even those that challenge the status quo, can be heard.

Universities are acting more like the institutions of the Middle Ages that enforced a single, dominant ideology. Back then, academic freedom was severely constrained by religious dogma. Today, the ideological gatekeeping is no less restrictive, though now it is secular in nature.

The shift toward a singular ideological stance threatens the foundational mission of higher education. Just as medieval institutions imposed theological constraints on academic pursuits, today’s universities enforce ideological boundaries that stifle critical thinking and the pursuit of truth. In this climate, truth is no longer the product of open inquiry but is dictated by those who hold power, leaving little room for constructive debate. The once-vibrant marketplace of ideas has been reduced to a space where only approved viewpoints are allowed to thrive.

This environment fundamentally undermines the pursuit of truth. In spaces where debate is suppressed, critical thinking cannot flourish. Truth has become a function of power, and without the ability to challenge and question, we lose our capacity to scrutinize our own assumptions. Individuals are reduced to caricatures — superficial, unrefined, and lacking depth. Instead of striving to uncover truth, as in propaganda films from authoritarian regimes, the academy employs aggressive tactics to mask its own distance from it.

The impact on students is profound. Many now self-censor, fearing the consequences of expressing views that might place them outside the accepted narrative. They’ve learned that challenging dominant viewpoints can lead to social exclusion or academic penalties. Rather than being trained in critical thinking, students are being conditioned to conform intellectually.

Universities now stand at a crossroads. They can continue down this path, fostering a culture of ideological uniformity and suppressing free exchange. Or, they can return to their foundational principles as places where ideas are tested, debated, and refined. True pluralism goes beyond superficial diversity; it requires an environment where conflicting viewpoints can coexist and engage. The most crucial pluralism to champion is not one of appearances, but one of ideas.

Once, scholars would say, “Here are my arguments. What are yours?” Today, the spirit of intellectual inquiry is under siege. The new mantra is, “Here are my arguments, and if you dare to disagree, we will remove you — and still call ourselves pluralists.”

We are in a state of emergency. Universities must go beyond mere statements of commitment to free speech, such as the Chicago Principles, and take active measures to restore ideological balance. The situation is so dire that it now demands affirmative action, not just to protect academic freedom, but to actively recruit conservative voices that have been systematically excluded.

We typically think of affirmative action in terms of race or gender, with the aim of fostering a diversity of perspectives, particularly those that have been marginalized or excluded. If admission to academic institutions were solely based on academic excellence, conservatives would have no trouble being admitted and advancing. However, in recent years, not only has excellence ceased to be the sole criterion, but conservatives have also become singled out. Paradoxically, despite their academic achievements, they are often excluded because of their views. Thus, to truly ensure a diversity of perspectives within academia, we must cultivate ideological diversity, not just gender or racial diversity. Affirmative action should extend to protecting and representing conservative views, adapting the existing mechanisms to include voices that are currently marginalized and silenced.

Mitchell Langbert and Sean Stevens highlight the severe ideological imbalance among faculty at major universities, particularly within the social sciences. Their study found that the overall ratio of registered Democrats to Republicans among faculty members is 8.5:1. In specific fields, this disparity becomes even more extreme. In sociology, the ratio is 27:1 in favor of Democrats, and in anthropology, it skyrockets to 42.2:1.

This troubling trend is not limited to specific fields; it also extends across some of the most prestigious universities. Brown University has a ratio of 21.3:1, indicating a significant imbalance, while Columbia’s ratio of 24.5:1 shows a slightly higher dominance of liberal perspectives. Yale’s ratio reaches 31.3:1, reflecting an even greater skew toward one political ideology. Princeton University presents a more serious case with a ratio of 40:1, demonstrating a pronounced lack of conservative viewpoints. At the top of the scale is Harvard, where the ratio reaches a staggering 88:1, highlighting an overwhelming and nearly complete absence of ideological balance.

These figures underscore the urgency of adopting corrective measures to foster a more balanced and intellectually diverse academic environment. The marketplace of ideas must remain vibrant and contested. Otherwise, the very essence of learning is lost.

My experience of persecution is not a personal problem. It is a symptom of a much more severe issue. I was persecuted because I am part of a conservative viewpoint, which is one that is systematically excluded from the academic discourse.

The time has come to reclaim the true mission of the university. We must ensure our academic spaces remain open to all voices, not just those that comfortably fit the prevailing narrative. Intellectual freedom is not just an academic ideal — it’s the bedrock of a vibrant society. It must be defended, even when inconvenient, because only then can we keep the pursuit of knowledge alive.

Ronen Shoval taught and conducted research at Princeton University during the 2022-23 academic year. His latest book, “Holiness and Society: A Socio-Political Exploration of the Mosaic Tradition,” was published by Routledge, 2024.

The post I Was Shunned at Princeton for Being a Zionist; We Must Actively Ensure Academic Diversity Now first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News