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
An Australian Lesson: Voters Reject Identity Politics and Imported Extremism
Arsonists heavily damaged the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne, Australia, on Dec. 6, 2024. Photo: Screenshot
In the lead-up to Australia’s 2025 federal election on May 21, 2025, the Jewish community harbored cautious optimism. Many hoped that the electorate would deliver a rebuke to the rising tide of antisemitism and the radicalization of political discourse, particularly from the Greens and certain “Teal” independents. There was a genuine desire for a government that would prioritize social cohesion, reject imported hatreds, and reaffirm Australia’s commitment to its Jewish citizens.
However, the election results delivered a sobering reality. The Australian Labor Party secured a decisive majority, surpassing expectations and eliminating the need for alliances with the Greens or Teal independents. For many in the Jewish community, this outcome was unexpected and deeply concerning. There had been a belief that Australians would reject the divisiveness creeping into politics from the far-left fringes. Instead, the Labor Party’s clear majority sent shockwaves through a community already grappling with rising antisemitism and a volatile international climate.
Labor’s victory was also marred by internal controversies that further unsettled the Jewish community. The abrupt removal of Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, a senior Jewish MP, from the cabinet raised serious questions about the party’s direction. While opinions on Dreyfus’ record are mixed within the community, his departure, alongside that of Ed Husic, the only Muslim cabinet minister, was widely viewed as a ruthless factional play — one that sidelined two prominent figures in favor of internal power deals. These developments have heightened concerns that Labor’s commitment to addressing antisemitism and managing Middle Eastern issues with a policy of balance and sensitivity may falter without clear, principled leadership.
Yet, amid these challenges, there was a glimmer of light. The Greens, long criticized for their embrace of radical rhetoric and their tolerance of antisemitic narratives under the guise of anti-Zionism, suffered a significant electoral blow. The loss of several key seats, including that of leader Adam Bandt, was not just a political defeat but a clear rejection of their extreme positions by the Australian public. For a Jewish community increasingly under siege from fringe activism and imported Middle Eastern conflicts, this was a welcome repudiation of divisive identity politics.
Similarly, the Teal independents — once seen as centrist and pragmatic — faced a reality check. While some retained their seats, their influence diminished, and their ambiguous stances on antisemitism and foreign policy left many Jewish voters wary. The failure of certain Teal MPs to unequivocally condemn antisemitic incidents or to articulate clear, principled positions on Israel contributed to a growing disillusionment among voters, who had once viewed them as a moderate alternative.
The 2025 election has thus served as both a wake-up call and a complex lesson for the Jewish community. While the diminished influence of the Greens and Teals offers some reassurance, the Labor majority — and the internal shifts within its leadership — raise new concerns. This outcome has reinforced the need for vigilance and proactive engagement. It is not enough to hope for political parties to “get it right” on their own. Sustained advocacy, education, and a unified voice are essential to ensure that the fight against antisemitism and the defense of democratic values remain central to Australia’s political discourse.
Ultimately, while the election results were not what many in the Jewish community had hoped for, they revealed important fault lines — and opportunities. The electorate’s rejection of extremism signals that Australians are not prepared to embrace the imported hatreds and ideological purity tests that have plagued other Western democracies. There remains a strong foundation of support for pluralism, social cohesion, and common-sense governance.
Australia’s experience is a valuable example for other Western democracies: voters will tolerate diversity of opinion, but not the politics of division and hate. For the Jewish community, and indeed for all Australians, the path forward is clear — stay engaged, stay vigilant, and never assume that the moral clarity of the majority will prevail without effort.
Michael Gencher is the Executive Director of StandWithUs Australia, an international education organisation that supports Israel and fights antisemitism.
The post An Australian Lesson: Voters Reject Identity Politics and Imported Extremism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Here Is the Documentary on Campus Antisemitism That Harvard Doesn’t Want You to See
An “Apartheid Wall” erected by Harvard University’s Palestine Solidarity Committee. Photo: X/Twitter
There is nothing like a 999-page court subpoena to make you realize just how important your work truly is.
In the aftermath of October 7, 2023, a disturbing reality has emerged on American university campuses: that of antisemitism running rampant, and Jewish students fearing for their safety and their lives. US colleges and universities allowing students and professors alike to not only side with terrorists — but also to allow for the harassment of Jewish students and the violation of their civil rights — demanded to be documented, shared, and addressed.
As a producer who has worked at HBO and CNN, I’ve always believed in the power of storytelling to illuminate truth and inspire action. Frontline Warriors, my second documentary with AISH, represents exactly this kind of vital storytelling. But because we made it, we are now being subpoenaed by Harvard in the ongoing lawsuit against them, executed by Shabbos Kestenbaum, who was featured in the film. We have retained a lawyer regarding the subpoena, which, due to its length and character, seems far more like a scare tactic, rather than a genuine request for information.
This subpoena also came just two weeks before Harvard itself published the findings of a task force that concluded Jewish students had “faced bias, suspicion, intimidation, alienation, shunning, contempt, and sometimes effective exclusion from various curricular and co-curricular parts of the University and its community — clear examples of antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias.”
For over six months, my co-producers Rabbi Steven Burg, Rabbi Elliot Mathias, and I worked tirelessly to bring this urgent project to life. What began as a deep concern over rising antisemitism on college campuses evolved into a compelling documentary that follows three extraordinary Jewish student leaders at Harvard (Kestenbaum), Columbia (Eden Yadegar), and UCLA (Eli Tsives), as they confronted hatred with remarkable courage. Tsives, just this month, was physically assaulted on the UCLA campus and not for the first time — all of it caught on camera.
What makes Frontline Warriors stand apart is our unwavering commitment to truth. Every shocking claim made in the film, and there are many that viewers might find almost unbelievable, is meticulously backed by documentation, clips, or other evidence. This verification process consumed countless hours of our production time, but it was non-negotiable. In an era where truth is increasingly contested, we refused to give critics any grounds to dismiss these students’ experiences.
We accomplished this on what I can only describe as a “shoestring budget” — a true independent documentary effort without major studio backing. The distribution has been equally grassroots, with premiere screenings and events organized across the country. Our team, including the students featured in the film, has traveled extensively to share this story, driven by the conviction that these voices must be heard.
Now, for the first time, the film is available online for everyone to see. This accessibility marks a crucial turning point in our mission to raise awareness about campus antisemitism. But importantly, this isn’t merely a depressing chronicle of hatred. Unlike many documentaries that simply expose problems, we deliberately included solutions and a hopeful future outlook.
One of the most powerful moments in the film comes when it’s noted that what we need isn’t just punishment for antisemitic acts, as necessary as accountability may be. What we truly need is “educated, literate, strong, empowered Jews at the earliest age possible.” The film ultimately makes the case for embracing and educating the next generation as the most effective response to hatred. There is a mission for all Jews that is bigger than simply fighting antisemitism; we must show others that being unabashedly Jewish, inwardly and outwardly, is what will inspire others. By showing those who hate us that they cannot diminish our flame, we will eventually win.
For me personally, stepping back into a producer role for this project has been deeply fulfilling. It’s where my training and expertise lie, and where I’ve consistently found my greatest professional satisfaction throughout my career. The opportunity to apply these skills to such an urgent cause, in my position at AISH, has been especially meaningful.
As we now move into pre-production on our third documentary (with the topic to be announced soon), I reflect on the importance of Frontline Warriors not just as a film, but as a call to action. It stands as testimony to the bravery of Jewish students who refuse to be silenced, and as an urgent message to all who value tolerance and truth on our nation’s campuses.
This is more than a documentary, it’s a movement. And in today’s climate, I can think of few things more important to watch, share, and act upon. After all, with the recent subpoena, this seems to be the documentary that Harvard doesn’t want you to see.
To watch Frontline Warriors, click here.
Jamie Geller is an award-winning producer who launched her career at HBO and CNN. As Chief Communications Officer and Global Spokesperson for Aish, she develops and produces groundbreaking documentaries, including October 7: Voices of Pain, Hope and Heroism and Frontline Warriors: The Fight Against Campus Antisemitism.
The post Here Is the Documentary on Campus Antisemitism That Harvard Doesn’t Want You to See first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
How We Should Respond to Kanye and Other Acts of Antisemitic Hate
Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, dressed in a full black leather KKK outfit during his interview with DJ Akademiks that was shared on YouTube on March 31, 2025. Photo: Screenshot
Kanye West just released a “Heil Hitler” song — another one of the antisemitic incidents we’ve had to face recently.
Anger, hate, and disgust are all words that come to mind when considering the current situation in the US and abroad. We are being pushed to these emotions, and we lack the appropriate response. I have been advocating for this cause every week for two years now, since Oct. 7.
Nazi-level Jew hatred is making a resurgence, and is rising at alarming rates. What can we do about it other than be students of history?
The immediate reaction might be to seek vengeance and fight back. Many individuals have demonstrated this on the UCLA campus and elsewhere. Jews are also arming themselves to protect themselves and our community from violence, while adhering to local laws.
But for the vast majority of us, who cannot fight back at this time, it is imperative that we mobilize. We must actively engage with our Jewish communities and continue to grow them. Power is in numbers. We must illuminate them and bring them into the mainstream. We must find people who are not involved, and spread our light with them, and bring them into our community.
For those unable to physically engage in defense, I urge them to understand that the pen is mightier than the sword, and that a calculated group-wide response can be the adequate response. Although it may sound clichéd, it is not. We must remain united, informed, and continuously support and connect with local and Federal politicians. We must fight and combat antisemitism and antisemites wherever they may lie, and tell the truth about the Jewish people and Israel. That is the only way we can ensure our survival.
We have witnessed the fall of empires in the past, and with this, disgusting, viral, vial, steady, and exponentially increasing Jew hatred. I do not see why our time will be an anomaly. We are seeing Congressmen and women who actively support radical Islamic jihadist groups, either directly or indirectly. It is not entirely out of the question that in our lifetimes, the America we know as a safe place for the Jewish community will cease to exist — when the people who hate us will be more numerous than those who believe in our rights, and take over.
Therefore, it is imperative that we take a stand and actively engage with our local Jewish communities and local politicians. We must harness the power that we possess in numbers to mobilize, strengthen our unity, influence policy, and ultimately safeguard our democracy and preserve our Jewish identity and freedom.
Isidore Karten is a Jewish community leader at Park East Synagogue, and founder of Club 3g.
The post How We Should Respond to Kanye and Other Acts of Antisemitic Hate first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login