RSS
Despite Congressional Testimony, Rutgers’ Reality Doesn’t Meet Its Aspirations
Rutgers University President Jonathan Holloway was recently called before the Congressional Committee on Education & the Workforce, due to suggestions that the Rutgers administration had fostered an intimidating campus environment in the wake of pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
The Rutgers administration was also accused of needlessly capitulating to protestors’ demands in order to shut down a campus tent encampment. Rather than ensuring smooth studies for all students by promptly dispatching police to disperse the demonstration (in the wake of some demonstrators’ urging of disruption of final exams), the Rutgers administration negotiated and reached a deal under which students would disperse in return for discussion of Rutgers’ divestment from Israeli contacts, and for additional promotion of Arab/Muslim studies at the university.
President Holloway’s testimony dispelled any notion of bias in favor of a pro-Palestinian position, and forcefully endorsed higher education’s traditional dedication to free inquiry and debate in the pursuit of truth.
As to demonstrators’ demands for university divestment from Israeli contacts, Holloway rejected notions of divestment from Israeli businesses or cessation of cooperation with Israeli academia. While he agreed to listen to the demonstrators’ arguments as to divestment, he said that he refused to dissolve Rutgers’ recent commitment to collaboration with Tel Aviv University in interdisciplinary research, including Israeli scholars’ presence at a new health studies facility.
As to intimidation of pro-Israeli campus entities, Holloway noted that Rutgers housed an educational enterprise for Jewish studies (the Bildner Center for Jewish Life) as well as Hillel and Chabad chapters, and that the university’s police force worked in coordination with those entities to ensure their security. He strongly endorsed the notion that a university must be a marketplace of ideas expressed with civility and without harassment, or the disruption of presentation of divergent views. He promised that the university would produce and enforce a new code of conduct safeguarding those interests.
President Holloway’s willingness to increase Rutgers’ scholarly and academic involvement in Arab/Muslim studies sounds like a commendable response to the presence and interests of 7,000 Arab or Muslim students on Rutgers’ campuses. The problem is that such a notion of expanded academic and scholarly analysis does not conform with the on-campus reality of the last several years.
Rutgers University houses the Center for Security, Race, and Rights (CSRR), created in 2019 with a stated mission to examine the impact of America’s post- 9/11 security measures on Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities. Beyond a variety of projects involving the welfare of American Muslims, CSRR has directed a significant portion of its activity (lectures and workshops) to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
That would be a salutary endeavor if conducted with careful academic analysis and debate. Instead, CSRR has regularly presented a one-sided polemic utilizing facile calumnies demonizing and deligitimizing the very existence of the Jewish State of Israel.
CSRR’s anti-Israel preoccupation started well before Hamas’ cross-border invasion and barbaric atrocities of October 7, 2023.
In May 2021, CSRR sponsored a “teach-in” promoting the thesis that 20th century reestablishment of a Jewish presence in Judaism’s ancient homeland constituted an illegitimate “colonialist enterprise.”
The lecturer’s underlying book, The 100 Years’ War on Palestine, had been labeled by Benny Morris, a meticulous Israeli historian (known for not glossing over Israeli misdeeds) as “simply bad history” in distorting the Zionist national movement, minimizing Palestinian political violence, and misrepresenting the role played by Western powers. Nonetheless, CSRR offered no critical analysis or dissenting view.
Likewise, in September 2022, CSSR presented a dual lecture on “U.S. Foreign Policy on Palestine-Israel.” I listened to both speakers as they engaged in rabid sloganeering rather than careful analysis. Because they deemed Israel an “apartheid” state oppressing its own Arab citizen population, both speakers urged halt of all military support for Israel (without any speaker’s reference to existential threats posed by Iran, Hezbollah, or Hamas). And the speakers condemned supposed US “indifference” to Palestinian interests (without any mention of consistent US efforts to promote a Palestinian state in the West Bank).
CSRR promotion of a distorted anti-Israel narrative continued after Hamas’ atrocities of October 7, 2023.
The CSRR director, in promoting CSSR activities and in circulating information sources to Rutgers faculty and staff, adopted a vocabulary of “Israeli genocidal practices” and “intentionally starv[ing] 2.3 million Palestinian civilians.” CSSR has also never disassociated itself from Hamas’ stated dedication to destruction of Israel and extirpation of its Jewish residents by any means necessary.
I (as an emeritus professor of law at Rutgers) and a few senior colleagues have sought to engage CSRR by circulating arguments countering its one-sided anti-Israel polemic.
On January 19, 2024, I circulated an e-mail challenging CSRR’s ascription of all blame for Gazans’ tragic ordeal to Israel, and pointing out Hamas’ integral role in precipitating that tragic fate. In response, I was accused of propounding “a hateful stereotype that all Muslims are terrorists.” Such a vacuous assertion of racism is utterly inconsistent with President Holloway’s envisioned marketplace of ideas via civil discourse.
President Holloway’s aspiration for a university fostering free inquiry certainly includes protection of vigorous protest expression. He acknowledges, though, that there are limits to free expression even under a regimen that adheres to First Amendment principles.
His testimony asserted, without particularization, that some statements in the context of recent pro-Hamas demonstrations “have no place at a University.” His only specification of a free speech boundary was a passing reference to exclusion of “incitement” or “exhortation” of violence.
That sounds like an appropriate limitation on demonstrators’ conduct, but it is difficult in application.
At the Rutgers Newark campus encampment, a demonstrator carried a placard reading “from the river to the sea, by any means necessary.” Given the context of the demonstration, including Hamas’ articulated agenda and ruthless tactics, that demonstrator was urging the repetition of murderous atrocities and hostage taking. Is that punishable expression?
The scope of “incitement” excluded from Constitutional protection has been judicially defined as the urging of prompt violence from the hearers — an element arguably lacking in the Newark scenario. Likewise, Hamas’ call for the destruction of the Jewish State implicitly — if not explicitly — endorses liquidation of the Jewish Israelis. If such a call for distant, non-immediate violence is sanctionable, that implicates virtually all participants in pro-Hamas demonstrations in punishable incitement to violence.
Keep in mind as well that the real source of intimidation on college campuses is not the placards supporting Hamas. It is the prospect of ostracism and exclusion directed toward anyone on campus who supports the preservation of Israel as a Jewish homeland with a democratic commitment to equal political status for all its residents regardless of religion.
That pervasive anti-Zionist phenomenon is also inconsistent with President Holloway’s aspiration for civil and respectful campus dialogue.
Norman L. Cantor is Professor of Law Emeritus at Rutgers University Law School where he taught for 35 years. He also served as visiting professor at Columbia, Seton Hall, Tel Aviv University, and Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He has published five books, scores of scholarly articles in law journals, and dozens of blog length commentaries in outlets like The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, and The Algemeiner. His personal blog is seekingfairness.wordpress.com. He lives in Tel Aviv and in Hoboken, NJ.
The post Despite Congressional Testimony, Rutgers’ Reality Doesn’t Meet Its Aspirations first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Down and Out in Paris and London
The Oxford Circus station in London’s Underground metro. Photo: Pixabay
JNS.org – In my previous column, I wrote about the rape of a 12-year-old Jewish girl in Paris at the hands of three boys just one year older than her, who showered her with antisemitic abuse as they carried out an act of violation reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Oct. 7 Hamas pogrom in southern Israel. This week, my peg is another act of violence—one less horrifying and less traumatic, but which similarly suggests that the writing may be on the wall for the Jews in much of Europe.
Last week, a group of young Jewish boys who attend London’s well-regarded Hasmonean School was assaulted by a gang of antisemitic thugs. The attack occurred at Belsize Park tube station on the London Underground, in a neighborhood with a similar demographic and sensibility to New York’s Upper West Side, insofar as it is home to a large, long-established Jewish population with shops, cafes and synagogues serving that community. According to the mother of one of the Jewish boys, an 11-year-old, the gang “ran ahead of my son and kicked one of his friends to the ground. They were trying to push another kid onto the tracks. They got him as far the yellow line.” When the woman’s son bravely tried to intervene to protect his friends, he was chased down and elbowed in the face, dislodging a tooth. “Get out of the city, Jew!” the gang told him.
Since the attack, her son has had trouble sleeping. “My son is very shaken. He couldn’t sleep last night. He said ‘It’s not fair. Why do they do this to us?’” she disclosed. “We love this country,” she added, “and we participate and we contribute, but now we’re being singled out in exactly the same way as Jews were singled out in 1936 in Berlin. And for the first time in my life. I am terrified of using the tube. What’s going on?”
The woman and her family may not be in London long enough to find out. According to The Jewish Chronicle, they are thinking of “fleeing” Britain—not a verb we’d hoped to encounter again in a Jewish context after the mass murder we experienced during the previous century. But here we are.
When I was a schoolboy in London, I had a history teacher who always told us that no two situations are exactly alike. “Comparisons are odious, boys,” he would repeatedly tell the class. That was an insight I took to heart, and I still believe it to be true. There are structural reasons that explain why the 2020s are different from the 1930s in significant ways. For one thing, European societies are more affluent and better equipped to deal with social conflicts and economic strife than they were a century ago. Laws, too, are more explicit in the protections they offer to minorities, and more punishing of hate crimes and hate speech. Perhaps most importantly, there is a Jewish state barely 80 years old which all Jews can make their home if they so desire.
Therein lies the rub, however. Since 1948, Israel has allowed Jews inside and outside the Jewish state to hold their heads high and to feel as though they are a partner in the system of international relations, rather than a vulnerable, subjugated group at the mercy of the states where we lived as an often hated minority. Israel’s existence is the jewel in the crown of Jewish emancipation, sealing what we believed to be our new status, in which we are treated as equals, and where the antisemitism that plagued our grandparents and great-grandparents has become taboo.
If Israel represents the greatest achievement of the Jewish people in at least 100 years, small wonder that it has become the main target of today’s reconstituted antisemites. And if one thing has been clear since the atrocities by Hamas on Oct. 7, it’s that Israel’s existence is not something that Jews—with the exception of that small minority of anti-Zionists who do the bidding of the antisemites and who echo their ignorance and bigotry—are willing to compromise on. What’s changed is that it is increasingly difficult for Jews to remain in the countries where they live and express their Zionist sympathies at the same time. We are being attacked because of these sympathies on social media, at demonstrations and increasingly in the streets by people with no moral compass, who regard our children as legitimate targets. Hence, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that while the 2020s may not be the 1930s, they certainly feel like the 1930s.
And so the age-old question returns: Should Jews, especially those in Europe, where they confront the pincer movement of burgeoning Muslim populations and a resurgent far-left in thrall to the Palestinian cause, stay where they are, or should they up sticks and move to Israel? Should we be thinking, given the surge in antisemitism of the past few months, of giving up on America as well? I used to have a clear view of all this. Aliyah is the noblest of Zionist goals and should be encouraged, but I always resisted the notion that every Jew should live in Israel—firstly, because a strong Israel needs vocal, confident Diaspora communities that can advocate for it in the corridors of power; and secondly, because moving to Israel should ideally be a positive act motivated by love, not a negative act propelled by fear.
My view these days isn’t as clear as it was. I still believe that a strong Israel needs a strong Diaspora, and I think it’s far too early to give up on the United States—a country where Jews have flourished as they never did elsewhere in the Diaspora. Yet the situation in Europe increasingly reminds me of the observation of the Russian Zionist Leo Pinsker in “Autoemancipation,” a doom-laden essay he wrote in 1882, during another dark period of Jewish history: “We should not persuade ourselves that humanity and enlightenment will ever be radical remedies for the malady of our people.” The antisemitism we are dealing with now presents itself as “enlightened,” based on boundless sympathy for an Arab nation allegedly dispossessed by Jewish colonists. When our children are victimized by it, this antisemitism ceases to be a merely intellectual challenge, and becomes a matter of life and death. As Jews and as human beings, we are obliged to choose life—which, in the final analysis, when nuance disappears and terror stalks us, means Israel.
The post Down and Out in Paris and London first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Says No Major Changes to Ceasefire Proposal After ‘Vague Wording’ Amendments by US
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Joe Biden speaks during a campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S., June 28, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz/File Photo
i24 News – A senior official from the terrorist organization Hamas called the changes made by the US to the ceasefire proposal “vague” on Saturday night, speaking to the Arab World Press.
The official said that the US promises to end the war are without a clear Israeli commitment to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and agree to a permanent ceasefire.
US President Joe Biden made “vague wording” changes to the proposal on the table, although it amounted to an insufficient change in stance, he said.
“The slight amendments revolve around the very nature of the Israeli constellation, and offer nothing new to bridge the chasm between what is proposed and what is acceptable to us,” he said.
“We will not deviate from our three national conditions, the most important of which is the end of the war and the complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip,” he added.
Another Hamas official said that the amendments were minor and applied to only two clauses.
US President Joe Biden made the amendments to bridge gaps amid an impasse between Israel and Hamas over a hostage deal mediated by Qatar and Egypt.
Hamas’s demands for a permanent ceasefire have been met with Israeli leaders vowing that the war would not end until the 120 hostages still held in Gaza are released and the replacement of Hamas in control of the Palestinian enclave.
The post Hamas Says No Major Changes to Ceasefire Proposal After ‘Vague Wording’ Amendments by US first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Sacred Spies?
A Torah scroll. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
JNS.org – How far away is theory from practice? “In theory,” a new system should work. But it doesn’t always, does it? How many job applicants ticked all the boxes “theoretically,” but when it came to the bottom line they didn’t get the job done?
And how many famous people were better theorists than practitioners?
The great Greek philosopher Aristotle taught not only philosophy but virtue and ethics. The story is told that he was once discovered in a rather compromised moral position by his students. When they asked him how he, the great Aristotle, could engage in such an immoral practice, he had a clever answer: “Now I am not Aristotle.”
A similar tale is told of one of the great philosophers of the 20th century, Bertrand Russell. He, too, expounded on ethics and morality. And like Aristotle, he was also discovered in a similarly morally embarrassing situation.
When challenged, his rather brilliant answer was: “So what if I teach ethics? People teach mathematics, and they’re not triangles!”
This idea is relevant to this week’s Torah portion, Shelach, which contains the famous story of Moses sending a dozen spies on a reconnaissance mission to the Land of Israel. The mission goes sour. It was meant to be an intelligence-gathering exercise to see the best way of conquering Canaan. But it resulted in 10 of the 12 spies returning with an utterly negative report of a land teeming with giants and frightening warriors who, they claimed, would eat us alive. “We cannot ascend,” was their hopeless conclusion.
The people wept and had second thoughts about the Promised Land, and God said, indeed, you will not enter the land. In fact, for every day of the spies’ disastrous journey, the Israelites would languish a year in the wilderness. Hence, the 40-year delay in entering Israel. The day of their weeping was Tisha B’Av, which became a day of “weeping for generations” when both our Holy Temples were destroyed on that same day and many other calamities befell our people throughout history.
And the question resounds: How was it possible that these spies, all righteous noblemen, handpicked personally by Moses for the job, should so lose the plot? How did they go so wrong, so off-course from the Divine vision?
Naturally, there are many commentaries with a variety of explanations. To me personally, the most satisfying one I’ve found comes from a more mystical source.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, in his work Likkutei Torah, explains it thus: The error of the spies was less blatant than it seems. Their rationale was, in fact, a “holy” one. They actually meant well. The Israelites had been beneficiaries of the mighty miracles of God during their sojourn in the wilderness thus far. God had been providing for them supernaturally with manna from heaven every day, water that flowed from the “Well of Miriam,” Clouds of Glory that smoothed the roads and even dry cleaned their clothes. In the wilderness, the people were enjoying a taste of heaven itself. All their material needs were taken care of miraculously. With no material distractions, they were able to live a life of spiritual bliss, of refined existence and could devote themselves fully to Torah, prayer and spiritual experiences.
But the spies knew that as soon as the Israelites entered the Promised Land, the manna would cease to fall and they would have to till the land, plow, plant, knead, bake and make a living by the sweat of their brow. No more bread from heaven, but bread from the earth. Furthermore, they would have to battle the Canaanite nations for the land. What chance would they then have to devote themselves to idyllic, spiritual pursuits?
So, the spies preferred to remain in the wilderness rather than enter the land. Why be compelled to resort to natural and material means of surviving and living a wholly physical way of life when they could enjoy spiritual ecstasy and paradise undisturbed? Why get involved in the “rat race”?
But, of course, as “holy” and spiritual as their motivation may have been, the spies were dead wrong.
The journey in the wilderness was meant to be but a stepping stone to the ultimate purpose of the Exodus from Egypt: entering the Promised Land and making it a Holy Land. God has plenty of angels in heaven who exist in a pure, spiritual state. The whole purpose of creation was to have mortal human beings, with all their faults and frailties, to make the physical world a more spiritual place. To bring heaven down to earth.
While their argument was rooted in piety, for the spies to opt out of the very purpose of creation was to miss the whole point. What are we here for? To sit in the lotus position and meditate, or to get out there and change the world? Yes, the spies were “holy,” but theirs was an escapist holiness.
The Torah is not only a book of wisdom; it is also a book of action. Torah means instruction. It teaches us how to live our lives, meaningfully and productively in the pursuit of God’s intended desire to make our world a better, more Godly place. This we do not only by study and prayer, the “theoretical” part of Torah but by acts of goodness and kindness, by mitzvot performed physically in the reality of the material world. Theory alone leaves us looking like Aristotle with his pants down.
Yes, it is a cliché but a well-worn truth: Torah is a “way of life.”
The post Sacred Spies? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.