RSS
I know university presidents can respond better to odious speech — because I saw it happen at my school
(JTA) — As a political science professor for two decades and as the director of the Harris Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Nebraska, I’ve been through several rounds of odious speech and debate over how to handle it.
So I’ve been extremely surprised by the whole university presidents congressional hearing debacle.
First, I’m surprised by the number of people who think Rep. Elise Stefanik — who in the not-so-distant past has spoken approvingly of Hitler and promoted the antisemitic Great Replacement conspiracy theory — was somehow acting in good faith or is some sort of friend of Jewish people. She wasn’t and she isn’t.
Second, I’m surprised by the people who think the university presidents were somehow tricked or couldn’t have answered differently. They weren’t and they could have.
It should be possible for very smart people to stake out a position that notes how strongly we want to adhere to a free speech position while also making clear that any code of conduct that allows students to call for genocide at their university should be reexamined.
I know this is possible because I’ve seen it happen, here at my public university in the Midwest that could be a model for this moment.
Years ago we had some Nazis on our campus. I’m not being hyperbolic and calling someone a Nazi because they voted for bad candidates or something. I’m talking about students who posted on a white supremacist forum about wanting to drive their car into Black Lives Matter rallies or who traveled across the country to chant “Jews will not replace us” in Charlottesville and posed doing Nazi salutes with prominent Nazi groups.
When one of these students were “outed” by groups like Unicorn Riot and the Nebraska Antifascists, many students called for removing him from campus for his speech.
University leaders considered the demands and rejected them. Instead, the university threw itself behind more speech, namely rallies against hate and a campaign about the inclusivity we want to promote on campus. A “Hate Will Never Win” rally drew 1,500 people to the school’s basketball stadium, and the school helped distribute T-shirts with that message to anyone who wanted one. The message could be seen all over our campus.
That moment wasn’t easy, let me assure you. A lot of people — including at least one Jewish student — said that having Nazis on campus was dangerous and that they presented a safety concern for members of minority groups who felt directly threatened.
I felt it, too. It’s not comfortable to walk around campus wearing a kippah, as I do, when you know there are people on the same campus who say they hate Jews, “love violence,” and own a bunch of guns. There is an exhaustion that comes from being on high alert and also a real temptation to blend in, to remove the kippah. And what follows is a sadness and even an embarrassment, a desire not to be the sort of person who is concerned about someone looking at you from across the street and certainly not to be the sort of person who decides to hide their identity to avoid being called out, picked on, targeted.
But I left the threat assessments to the professionals. I was pleased to see the campus stand up against bigotry, and I maintain that the University of Nebraska made the right call. A year after the initial conflict, the university was continuing to support students in having constructive conversations about diversity and inclusion — though under a different name because of a copyright issue related to “Hate Will Never Win.”
What happened on my campus wasn’t easy, but it didn’t feel that difficult, either. Yet, in 2023, in response to demonstrations that repeatedly veer into antisemitism or allow for antisemitic comments, a lot of universities don’t seem to be very interested in holding big rallies against bigotry like Nebraska did in 2018.
Instead I see a lot of explaining that “From the river to the sea” could plausibly mean something positive rather than something genocidal. And this means Jews are feeling left alone, without the support that campus leaders offered to targeted minorities in the past.
Jews are being asked to deal with a level of hostility that feels like targeted harassment due to its repetition, intensity and pervasiveness. And, rather than people telling us they’ve got our back, we’re being told, especially on social media and especially from people on the left, that perhaps we’re being overly dramatic about our feelings.
The university presidents should have been able to explain that people can say odious things but that all of the rest of us must respond by calling out those things for being odious.
They should also have been able to explain that calling for genocide almost certainly would amount to harassment and an unsafe environment but that we have to work together to be clear about what is and what isn’t targeted harassment.
Their inability to say these things is not someone else’s fault, and the message it sent to American Jews was received loudly and clearly. I’m grateful I heard a different message on my campus several years ago — and saddened for students today who aren’t on a campus where their classmates are encouraged to say “Hate Will Never Win.”
—
The post I know university presidents can respond better to odious speech — because I saw it happen at my school appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. Really?
JNS.org – If I asked you to name the most famous line in the Bible, what would you answer? While Shema Yisrael (“Hear O’Israel”) might get many votes, I imagine that the winning line would be “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18). Some religions refer to it as the Golden Rule, but all would agree that it is fundamental to any moral lifestyle. And it appears this week in our Torah reading, Kedoshim.
This is quite a tall order. Can we be expected to love other people as much as we love ourselves? Surely, this is an idealistic expectation. And yet, the Creator knows us better than we know ourselves. How can His Torah be so unrealistic?
The biblical commentaries offer a variety of explanations. Some, like Rambam (Maimonides), say that the focus should be on our behavior, rather than our feelings. We are expected to try our best or to treat others “as if” we genuinely love them.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, in his classic text called the Tanya, argues that the actual feelings of love are, in fact, achievable provided that we focus on a person’s spirituality rather than how they present themselves physically. If we can put the soul over the body, we can do it.
Allow me to share the interpretation of the Ramban (Nachmanides), a 13th-century Torah scholar from Spain. His interpretation of the verses preceding love thy neighbor is classic and powerful, yet simple and straightforward.
“Do not hate your brother in your heart. You shall rebuke him, but do not bear a sin because of him” by embarrassing him in public. “Do not take revenge, and do not bear a grudge against your people. You shall love your fellow as yourself, I am God” (Leviticus 19:17-18).
What is the connection between these verses? Why is revenge and grudge-bearing in the same paragraph as love your fellow as yourself?
A careful reading shows that within these two verses are no less than six biblical commandments. But what is their sequence all about, and what is the connection between them?
The Ramban explains it beautifully, showing how the sequence of verses is deliberate and highlighting the Torah’s profound yet practical advice on how to maintain healthy relationships.
Someone wronged you? Don’t hate him in your heart. Speak to him. Don’t let it fester until it bursts, and makes you bitter and sick.
Instead, talk it out. Confront the person. Of course, do it respectfully. Don’t embarrass anyone in public, so that you don’t bear a sin because of them. But don’t let your hurt eat you up. Communicate!
If you approach the person who wronged you—not with hate in your heart but with respectful reproof—one of two things will happen. Either he or she will apologize and explain their perspective on the matter. Or that it was a misunderstanding and will get sorted out between you. Either way, you will feel happier and healthier.
Then you will not feel the need to take revenge or even to bear a grudge.
Here, says the Ramban, is the connection between these two verses. And if you follow this advice, only then will you be able to observe the commandment to Love Thy Neighbor. If you never tell him why you are upset, another may be completely unaware of his or her wrongdoing, and it will remain as a wound inside you and may never go away.
To sum up: Honest communication is the key to loving people.
Now, tell me the truth. Did you know that not taking revenge is a biblical commandment? In some cultures in Africa, revenge is a mitzvah! I’ve heard radio talk-show hosts invite listeners to share how they took “sweet revenge” on someone, as if it’s some kind of accomplishment.
Furthermore, did you know that bearing a grudge is forbidden by biblical law?
Here in South Africa, people refer to a grudge by its Yiddish name, a faribel. In other countries, people call it a broiges. Whatever the terminology, the Torah states explicitly: “Thou shalt not bear a grudge!” Do not keep a faribel, a broiges or resentment of any kind toward someone you believe wronged you. Talk to that person. Share your feelings honestly. If you do it respectfully and do not demean the other’s dignity, then it can be resolved. Only then will you be able to love your fellow as yourself.
May all our grudges and feelings of resentment toward others be dealt with honestly and respectfully. May all our grudges be resolved as soon as possible. Then we will all be in a much better position to love our neighbors as ourselves.
The post Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. Really? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘Nonsense’: Huckabee Shoots Down Report Trump to Endorse Palestinian Statehood
US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee looks on during the day he visits the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest prayer site, in Jerusalem’s Old City, April 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun
i24 News – US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee on Saturday dismissed as nonsensical the report that President Donald Trump would endorse Palestinian statehood during his tour to the Persian Gulf this week.
“This report is nonsense,” Huckabee harrumphed on his X account, blasting the Jerusalem Post as needing better sourced reporting. “Israel doesn’t have a better friend than the president of the United States.”
Trump is set to visit Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. The leader’s first trip overseas since he took office comes as Trump seeks the Gulf countries’ support in regional conflicts, including the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza and curbing Iran’s advancing nuclear program.
However, reports citing administration insiders claimed that Trump has also set his sights on the ambitious goal of expanding the Abraham Accords. These agreements, initially signed in 2020, normalized relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. The accords are widely held to be among the most important achievements of the first Trump administration.
The post ‘Nonsense’: Huckabee Shoots Down Report Trump to Endorse Palestinian Statehood first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US to Put Military Option Back on Table If No Immediate Progress in Iran Talks
US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy-designate Steve Witkoff gives a speech at the inaugural parade inside Capital One Arena on the inauguration day of Trump’s second presidential term, in Washington, DC, Jan. 20, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Barria
i24 News – Unless significant progress is registered in Sunday’s round of nuclear talks with Iran, the US will consider putting the military option back on the table, sources close to US envoy Steve Witkoff told i24NEWS.
American and Iranian representatives voiced optimism after the previous talks that took place in Oman and Rome, saying there was a friendly atmosphere despite the two countries’ decades of enmity.
However the two sides are not believed to have thrashed out the all-important technical details, and basic questions remain.
The source has also underscored the significance of the administration’s choice of Michael Anton, the State Department’s policy planning director, as the lead representative in the nuclear talks’ technical phases.
Anton is “an Iran expert and someone who knows how to cut a deal with Iran,” the source said, saying that the choice reflected Trump’s desire to secure the deal.
The post US to Put Military Option Back on Table If No Immediate Progress in Iran Talks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login