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
Treasure Trove remembers how Jewish Canadians reached out to rebuild poor neighbourhoods in Israel
Canadian Jewry should be proud of the support it has given to Israel during this very difficult time in its history. The outpouring of love and support is nothing new: it is something we have been doing since long before Israel was born.
To cite one example, this is a street sign in Jaffa that reads that the street is dedicated to the Canadian charities that donated funds to rehabilitate the neighbourhood.
The neighbourhood is Jaffa Dalet, which was built in the 1950s for new immigrants. By the 1970s it was a down-and-out area, one of the poorest in Israel, which had streets with numbers and no names.
Jaffa Dalet was one of 160 distressed neighbourhoods throughout Israel that prime minister Menachem Begin announced in 1978 would be rehabilitated in a joint project between the government of Israel and world Jewry. Named “Project Renewal”, the Jewish Agency joined as a partner, and undertook to twin Jewish communities around the world with specific neighbourhoods in Israel.
Jaffa Dalet was twinned with Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Regina and Saskatoon, and it is the support from these communities, and donations from other Canadians, that is memorialized in this street sign. Other Canadian Project Renewal twinnings were Montreal with Yerucham, Toronto with Beit Dagan, and unfederated communities in Ontario and the West with Or Yehudah.
Today, Jaffa is a mixed community of Jews and Arabs and includes many Falash Mura who arrived from Ethiopia about 20 years ago. The area is again going through a phase of urban renewal (Pinui Binui in Hebrew, literally “evacuation and construction”) in which old apartment buildings are being demolished and replaced with more modern and larger buildings. The process allows existing residents to enjoy new and more spacious apartments without having to leave their neighbourhood, while the area’s infrastructure is updated and more residential units are built.
Jewish Canadians responded when the call came from Israel in the 1970s to help build the country. There is much rebuilding required now as a result of the wars Israel has fought since Oct. 7, 2023, and no doubt Canadian Jewry will continue to respond to the call. Our actions today will long be remembered, whether in the name of a street or in the knowledge that when help was needed, we were there.
Here’s hoping that 2025 finally brings a quick return of the hostages, safety for Israel’s soldiers, comfort to those who have lost so much, and peace for Israel and the entire region.
The post Treasure Trove remembers how Jewish Canadians reached out to rebuild poor neighbourhoods in Israel appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
Shabbat Mikeytz: The Power of Dreams
A Torah scroll. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
Dreams play a very important part in the Biblical narrative. We have read in recent weeks about Yaakov’s dream of angels going up and down a ladder. Yosef dreamt about his own future — as well as the dreams of the baker and the butcher and those of Pharaoh. The implication is that these dreams were all reliable messages, coming as Yosef says, from God.
The question we have to answer is to what extent dreams should be relied on. To this day, there are people who make a living out of interpreting dreams. Are they charlatans taking advantage of the credulous, or are they onto something?
When it comes to Yosef and Pharaoh, they both had dreams which came true. In the case of Yosef, it’s his turning from a victim in a pit to the ruler of Egypt. In the case of Pharaoh, it’s a premonition of seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine. But later on, when the Torah talks about false prophets, it’s talking about dreamers who should not be relied on (Devarim 13).
It will come as no surprise that the Talmud has pages about how to react to dreams and interpret them. Most take dreams very seriously, but disagree over interpretations and their validity. Others do not. The variety and disagreements that you can find in the Talmud are proof of how controversial dreams were then — and indeed, remain so for many people now.
Rav Chisdah said a dream that’s not interpreted is like a letter that’s not read. So if you ignore it, you’re not going to get any message. He also said that neither a good nor a bad dream is entirely fulfilled. On the cynical side, Rav Yochanan said that there’s no such thing as a dream without idle information — which is about right for most of my dreams.
The Gemara deals with the charlatans who make a living out of interpreting dreams. Rav Akiva said that there were 24 interpreters of dreams in Jerusalem, and each one disagreed as to what the interpretation was. Bar Hadaya, a popular interpreter, would give a good interpretation of a dream to anybody who paid him money and a bad interpretation if they did not. One rabbi who had a bad interpretation because he wouldn’t pay the first time, came back with money and then got a good interpretation. Plenty of those are still around today.
Then you have what I might call the Freudians. Shmuel bar Nachmani said that a person is shown in his dream only the thoughts of his own heart (i.e., mind). In other words, dreams are a reflection of the subconscious, which sounds as though it was written by Sigmund Freud himself. Of course they didn’t use those terms at that time. Rava said that one is neither shown a golden palm tree nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle in a dream. Dreams only contain images that a person has actually seen.
Nevertheless, these pages are full of all kinds of attempts to interpret what one dreams. I have to say that after a year of almost constant nightmares, I’m at last beginning to have sweet dreams. And so I wish you all a very happy Hanukkah and may all your dreams be sweet and amusing.
The author is a writer and rabbi, currently based in New York.
The post Shabbat Mikeytz: The Power of Dreams first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
How the Media Blamed Israel for Ruining Bethlehem’s Christmas (Again)
Tourists walk in Manger Square outside the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, Dec. 2, 2019. Photo: Reuters / Mussa Qawasma.
Once again, it’s that time of the year. But we won’t repeat the obvious: the media love blaming Israel for ruining Christmas in Bethlehem.
We will, however, point at the strategy they use to achieve this.
Here is the issue: The media need to cover what they see. And in Bethlehem, they see a baby Jesus doll placed in rubble; no foreign tourists; and protests in solidarity with Gaza. It is undoubtedly a somber Christmas in Jesus’ traditional birthplace, and it should be reported.
But the media should and can apply critical thinking in their choice of interviewees and background material. And they are not doing so.
The Only Priest in Bethlehem?
The media star of the season, except for Jesus, was (again) Munther Isaac, a pastor at Bethlehem’s Lutheran Church.
Outlets like Reuters, BBC, ABC News, and NBC News were happy to quote Isaac for a simple reason: His church was responsible for the media stunt showing baby Jesus as a Palestinian child amid Gaza rubble.
Fair enough. But nowhere did these outlets mention that Isaac has also justified the October 7 massacre, and has been described as “the high priest of antisemitic Christianity.”
Respected news outlets should not fall prey to the manipulations of one priest. Professional coverage should have bothered to contrast his view with that of other voices in the local Christian community.
But the problem runs deeper. These media outlets rely on Palestinian producers in Bethlehem who would never undermine — out of fear or bias — this anti-Israeli narrative. And their foreign bosses would not dare question their work, because they need their connections.
Selective Background
More proof of the media’s seasonal bias against Israel can be gleaned from the background information provided in certain stories.
Instead of reminding news consumers about the Palestinian Authority’s responsibility for the dwindling numbers of local Christians, many outlets include lengthy background paragraphs about Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
In Reuters‘ story, for example, a whole section is dedicated to Israel’s settlement activity. One exceptionally irrelevant passage reads:
Israel has built Jewish settlements, deemed illegal by most countries, across the territory. Israel disputes this, citing historical and biblical ties to the land. Several of its ministers live in settlements and favour their expansion.
Similarly, the AP’s “Christmas in Bethlehem” photo collection includes a picture of the security barrier that partially surrounds the city, as a man just happens to walk past graffiti that reads: “Walls are meant for bombing.” Never mind that this wall stood there when Bethlehem enjoyed crowded and celebratory holiday seasons.
And let’s not forget that this bias is not limited to the Christian holidays. Every holiday celebrated by Palestinians in the region — from Ramadan to Easter — gets automatically evaluated based on Israel’s actions.
It never works the other way around, making it seem that Palestinians bear no responsibility whatsoever. For example, the media never outright blamed Hamas for ruining the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, which was deliberately chosen as the date for the October 7 massacre.
For the media, it seems, the “oppressed” Palestinians are granted automatic virtue, while the Israeli “oppressors” are seen as innately evil. The holiday season is just another opportunity to show it.
The author is a contributor to 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 How the Media Blamed Israel for Ruining Bethlehem’s Christmas (Again) first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login