Connect with us

RSS

I thought the law school where I teach had my back. Then came the Hamas attacks on Israel.

CHICAGO (JTA) — I have been a law professor at DePaul University College of Law for several decades. DePaul is an urban, Vincentian, Catholic university that has long been a school of choice for First-Gen students, including law students. As a First-Gen college and law school graduate, I identify with the mission of the school and have always taken great pride in my professional affiliation.

In recent years, people often ask me about the climate at DePaul, specifically in the context of antisemitism facing Jewish students. Personally, I have not encountered any negativity or hostility from any of my students or colleagues, despite being openly Jewish and observant. In fact, several of my Muslim students have talked to me about Judaism and my faith. We have compared notes and shared perspectives. One of my most recent research assistants, a Palestinian man with extended family living in Israel, came across my book “Remix Judaism,” and we had a great conversation about whether and how its concepts could apply to his religion. We also talked about Israel and what life is like for his family living there. This is the model of what education should be: open conversation and communication that broadens one’s horizons and viewpoints.

Still, like almost all universities, DePaul has hopped onto the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion train and that ride often is tone-deaf to antisemitism. At my law school, despite a multitude of DEI trainings over the past several years, not one faculty program dealt with antisemitism or the challenges facing Jewish individuals in our current reality (despite my suggesting we make this a focus of one program). This past summer, another research assistant who was helping me edit a law review article about the Holocaust and “ghetto art” told me that of all the programs required for students focusing on tolerance and inclusivity, not one even touched upon Jews or antisemitism. 

Thankfully, however, my law school has been spared the type of ugly incidents that have plagued other law schools such as Berkeley, where student groups pledged to block speakers who held pro-Israel views, and CUNY, where a law student used her graduation speech to denounce Israel and it supporters. 

But at DePaul’s undergraduate campus several miles north, things are different. Last December, an article in the Wall Street Journal reported that students at DePaul University “ejected Jewish students who support Israel from clubs and study groups,” citing affected students. When the president of our university communicated to us about this article, he emphasized his desire to fight antisemitism in our community and asked for our input. I wrote to him emphasizing that if schools are funding clubs that exclude students simply because they are pro-Israel, that is a cause for concern unaddressed by his community letter. To my surprise, he never responded to me, even when I sent the letter again a month later. I took note but still wanted to give the benefit of the doubt.

But the university’s communication to us on the Monday after Israel was attacked by Hamas was a wake-up call. Our president and three other high-level administrators opened their message to the DePaul community with the following words: “Our hearts ache to see the horrific violence and tragic loss of life taking place right now in Israel and Gaza. We pray for peace.” Later on, it called for “an immediate de-escalation of the current situation.”

I sat with this grossly inadequate and maddening communication overnight, and the following day I once again reached out to our president to express my deep disappointment with the letter’s failure to call out, and explicitly condemn, the barbaric terrorism perpetrated upon Israel. I pointed out that, by comparison, the university spared no effort in the past in calling out other bad actors in connection with racial and other injustices. In contrast, the university’s pleas for de-escalation in this context not only diminished the suffering of those who were so brutally attacked, but also compounded the pain for Jewish students, staff and faculty, all of whom were already feeling isolated and fragile.

Again, no response. And to the best of my knowledge, none of the other faculty I know who wrote to the president received a response. It is almost as though the entire DePaul Jewish community had become invisible in the academic home I had cherished for so long.

In recent years, higher education in the United States has become the target of well-deserved criticism regarding not only an absence of educational rigor but also a troubling lack of viewpoint diversity in most universities. Too many vitally important conversations on matters involving hotly contested political and cultural issues can only be held behind closed doors rather than in classrooms or at faculty meetings. 

But when terrorists kill over 1,400 Jews, the choice to refrain from explicitly condemning those who perpetrated these unimaginable atrocities cannot be justified. I have no clue as to why DePaul, and so many other universities, failed to condemn explicitly the terrorism. Some might attribute it to the academy’s love-affair with the concept of “intersectionality,” which almost always results in a negative stance toward Israel, even if not Jews as a whole. Or could it be just plain old antisemitism dressed up in a more “intellectually respectable” exterior? 

Whatever the reason, by making this choice in the wake of Oct. 7, DePaul University has sent a clear message to its Jewish students, faculty, staff and alumni. I can no longer give the benefit of the doubt.


The post I thought the law school where I teach had my back. Then came the Hamas attacks on Israel. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

RSS

Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. Really?

 

JNS.orgIf 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.

Continue Reading

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 NewsUS 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.

Continue Reading

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 NewsUnless 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.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News