RSS
Jewish Ambivalence About Fighting Antisemitism
Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, attends a side event during the Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, March 26, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse
JNS.org – Jews have long been champions of freedom of speech in the United States, yet they often have not hesitated to advocate canceling speakers who are antisemitic or virulently anti-Israel. Many Jews feel that those who spread hatred against them or Israel should face consequences, but they are frequently uneasy about the mechanisms used to deliver those consequences. This ambivalence was true before Donald Trump returned to the White House, but has become more prevalent since his administration began taking aggressive steps against antisemites and their institutional enablers.
Free-speech advocates often invoke Louis Brandeis’s famous line, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” (the exact quote was “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants”). With apologies to the great Jewish jurist, when it comes to antisemitism, this is pure rubbish. The idea that exposure will neutralize hatred has been disproven by centuries of Jewish persecution. Hate doesn’t melt away in the light; it mutates and metastasizes. Permitting antisemites to spread their rhetoric on campus doesn’t disinfect; instead, it creates a toxic environment for Jewish students and undermines academic integrity. Professor Scott Galloway put it best: “Free speech is at its freest when it’s hate speech against Jews.”
Even while extolling free speech, Jews are often willing to oppose antisemites speaking on campus. For example, last year, alumni, faculty, community groups and parents of students at Brown University signed a letter urging the administration to disinvite U.N. Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese (who was recently reappointed to her position over Jews’ and US objections) because of her history of antisemitic and anti-Israel remarks.
This tension between the desire not to appear as suppressors of debate and the need to confront hate speech is torturous. Jews often find themselves asking: Is opposing a bigot’s right to speak a betrayal of liberal values or a defense of moral ones?
Though none would admit it, the attitude of campus protesters is: We have the right to be antisemites, and no one has the right to say or do anything about it. So, they are understandably upset when anyone calls them out as bigots or makes them pay for the consequences. This is why so many cowardly hide behind masks, unwilling to take responsibility for their words or actions.
Antisemites complain, for example, when groups like the Canary Mission publicize their public statements. It’s like pulling a hood off a Klansman. Publishing personal information about antisemites is not kosher, but exposing what they say is fair game. Students who support terrorists deserve to be shamed. They enjoy no First Amendment protection from being called out for being immoral or just plain stupid.
If employers decline to hire individuals who support hate, that’s not censorship; it’s discernment. International students can speak their minds, but they may be subject to deportation if they endorse designated terrorist groups like Hamas. Exercising that authority is not persecution; it’s policy.
When the antisemitic tsunami hit campuses after Oct. 7, nothing seemed to stem the tide. Now that the Trump administration has started to deport antisemites and withhold government funds from universities, we are finally seeing universities take the problem seriously. True, the administration is using a sledgehammer tactic that is making some Jews uncomfortable, but the slap-on-the-wrist approach of the Biden administration, on the rare occasions it was applied, was ineffective. Some Jews have said these steps will make antisemitism worse. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of antisemitism, which is that no excuse is needed to hate Jews. It is also difficult to determine whether the objection is to the punishment or that it fulfills Trump’s campaign promise.
The constant refrain that pro-Palestinian (they don’t admit to being pro-terrorist) voices are being stifled is easily disproven by their ubiquity. Some universities are finally suspending Students for Justice in Palestine groups (they should be expelling the members), and yet they find other ways to express their views. The annual anti-Israel hate weeks featuring speakers and films were held on many campuses over the last month without any interference.
Many of those complaining the loudest about freedom of speech support the boycott of Israel; that is, suppressing the speech of academics and students who wish to engage with Israel. Many professors are willing to defend the “academic freedom” of colleagues to use their classrooms to advance anti-Israel agendas. Jewish professors are rarely willing to speak out.
Even though the U.S. government and dozens of countries around the world have adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, faculty, often led by Jewish professors, fight against its use on campus, speciously claiming it stifles free speech. However, the refusal to define antisemitism ensures that no behavior can be deemed a violation. Without boundaries, there can be no enforcement, and impunity has thrived.
One group of Jews came up with the Nexus definition of antisemitism, which professor Cary Nelson described as an effort to “exonerate anti-Zionism by any means necessary.” Now, the Nexus Project is objecting to Trump’s crackdown on students and universities, and presenting an alternative strategy that, predictably, protects the antisemites by opposing the deportation or labeling of antisemites and defending diversity, equity, and inclusion. Their recommendations focus less on defending Jews than on challenging the administration’s authority and pushing unrelated policy goals, such as ending the war in Gaza and promoting a Palestinian state.
Let’s be honest: When we learn about antisemites coming to campus or elsewhere, there will be no shortage of principled Jewish voices defending their right to speak. But do we want to give them a platform? Shouldn’t neo-Nazis, Islamists, white supremacists, Hamas supporters and other antisemites be canceled, condemned and marginalized without apology?
Germany is a democracy that still has laws against hate speech. Denying the Holocaust, for example, is prohibited. Social media is the most dangerous medium for spreading antisemitism. In this instance, Trump’s defense of an unregulated digital marketplace fails the Jews. Germany, by contrast, holds platforms accountable for the hate they amplify. American Jews are equivocal. Some are free-speech absolutists, while others call for moderated online posts. What did the Jews who met Elon Musk say? Did they tell him—free speech be damned—keep the antisemites off X? Or did they simply grumble that they wish there weren’t so many of them?
Free speech is a core Jewish value, but so is the defense of Jewish life. The era of ambivalence must end. We cannot allow our principles to be used to undermine our safety. History has shown where that leads.
The post Jewish Ambivalence About Fighting Antisemitism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Vance Defends Trump’s Iran Policy Amid Outrage From Republican Isolationists
Then-US Senate candidate JD Vance, now the vice president of the United States, speaks as then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, now the president, smiles at a rally, in Dayton, Ohio, US, Nov. 7, 2022. Photo: REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton
US Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday issued a forceful defense of President Donald Trump’s approach to Iran amid its conflict with Israel, responding to what he called “crazy stuff on social media” and outlining the administration’s red lines on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
In a lengthy post on X/Twitter, Vance sought to clarify the administration’s position as the Iran-Israel war continues and speculation mounts over the possibility of the US using military force against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
“POTUS [president of the US] has been amazingly consistent, over 10 years, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” Vance wrote in his note. “He said repeatedly that this would happen one of two ways — the easy way or the ‘other’ way.””
Early Friday morning, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched Operation Rising Lion, a multifaceted campaign involving airstrikes, covert sabotage by Mossad, and other operations targeting Iran’s missile infrastructure, military officials, and nuclear facilities and scientists. Israel launched the operation with the goal of dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities, which Israeli officials have declared an existential threat. Israel has continued its military campaign since then, striking nuclear and military targets.
Iran has responded each night with barrages of ballistic missiles, largely targeting Israeli civilian centers. Most of the projectiles have been intercepted by Israel’s missile defense system.
According to reports, the US may help Israel’s campaign by striking Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran’s Fordow site specifically is built deeply into the side of a mountain, and some experts believe Israel can’t destroy it completely without the help of massive US bunker-buster bombs.
The prospect of the US potentially entering the conflict has sparked outrage among many of members of the isolationist wing of the Republican party, who argue that Israel is attempting to lure America into a “forever war.” However, Israeli officials said on Tuesday they expect their operation to last only another week or two.
In his statement, Vance said that Trump had “encouraged his foreign policy team to reach a deal” with Iran to prevent further uranium enrichment. He also defended the administration’s current posture as restrained but firm.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, has reported that Iran continues to enrich uranium well beyond levels needed for civilian nuclear energy, raising alarm bells among experts and Western governments who believe Tehran is dangerously close to having weapons-grade nuclear material.
“It’s one thing to want civilian nuclear energy. It’s another thing to demand sophisticated enrichment capacity,” Vance said, accusing Tehran of violating its obligations under international non-proliferation agreements.
The IAEA, which monitors nuclear programs around the world, has warned in recent reports that Iran is enriching large quantities of uranium to 60 percent purity, just short of the roughly 90 percent needed for a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains that its program exists for civilian purposes. However, Tehran’s decision to restrict IAEA inspections and ramp up enrichment has intensified fears in Washington and among US allies that diplomacy may be running out of time.
While Vance insisted the president remains committed to diplomacy, he also appeared to leave the door open to a more aggressive posture, should talks continue to stall.
“He [Trump] may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment,” Vance said, adding that Trump’s focus is “protecting our troops and protecting our citizens.”
Trump has repeatedly expressed skepticism about engaging in another war in the Middle East, arguing that previous US military interventions in the region proved costly, ineffective, and unpopular.
“People are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy,” Vance said.
Still, he argued that Trump deserves trust on the issue, describing the president as “only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people’s goals.”
The post Vance Defends Trump’s Iran Policy Amid Outrage From Republican Isolationists first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Columbia University Settles Antisemitism Lawsuit That Accused Faculty of Bullying Jewish Student
A pro-Palestinian protester holds a sign that reads, “Faculty for justice in Palestine,” during a protest urging Columbia University to cut ties with Israel, Nov. 15, 2023, in New York City. Photo: Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Columbia University has settled a lawsuit brought by a Jewish student at the School of Social Work (CSSW) who accused faculty of unrelenting antisemitic bullying and harassment.
Represented by Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Mackenzie “Macky” Forrest sued the institution in February 2024, noting that Columbia was a hub for anti-Zionists on the far-left long before the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel revealed the extent of their presence on campus. In her own case, Forrest claimed that hatred forced her involuntary exit from the specialized program to which she had been accepted.
According to court documents, Forrest was abused by the faculty, one of whom callously denied her accommodations for sabbath observance and then held out the possibility of her attending class virtually during pro-Hamas protests which made the campus unsafe for Jewish students. Her Jewishness and requests for arrangements which would allow her to complete her assignments created what the Lawfare Project described as a “pretext” for targeting Forrest and conspiring to expel her from the program, a plan that involved fabricating stories with the aim of smearing her as insubordinate.
Meanwhile, school officials allegedly allowed pro-Hamas students and groups, most notably Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), to essentially commandeer the campus by making it a canvas for their extremist views, which they colored with antisemitic manifestos, graffiti, and blistering blood libels which rehashed antisemitic tropes that have been trafficked by antisemitic political movements since antiquity. As The Algemeiner reported at the time, students were also gang assaulted and lacerated, shocking acts of violence to which the university responded in part by blocking Jewish students from teaching one another methods of self-defense.
Soon, Forrest was accused of lacking commitment and seriousness for wanting to avoid the hostile campus environment which, critics say, Columbia fostered by waiting months to address antisemitism. Later, the contours of the conspiracy to force her out of school revealed itself in two phases, described in court documents as a threat to give her a failing mark for a “field placement” internship and repeatedly insinuating that her asking to attend class virtually represented a subconscious wish to drop out of school, which Forrester had never considered as an option.
“Macky had been receiving straight As, and in her weekly meetings with her supervisor, she was never told that she was not meeting expectations,” the lawsuit said. “Receiving a failing grade in her field placement would mean Macky would not be only unable to continue in the [program], but it would become part of her record and likely adversely affect her career going forward. This newly created issue about Macky’s performance in her field placement was all a pretext to create an excuse to kick Macky out of the [program].”
Spurious accusations were allegedly made by one professor, Andre Ivanoff, who was the first to tell Forrest that her sabbath observance was a “problem.” Ivanoff implied that she had failed to meet standards of “behavioral performance” while administrators spread rumors that she had declined to take on key assignments, according to court documents. This snowballed into a threat: Forrest was allegedly told that she could either take an “F” in the field placement or drop out, the only action that would prevent sullying her transcript with her failing grade.
Forrest left but has now settled the lawsuit she filed to get justice in terms that Columbia University has buried under a confidentiality agreement.
“We brought this lawsuit to hold Columbia accountable for what we alleged was a deeply troubling failure to protect a Jewish student from antisemitic discrimination and retaliation,” Lawfare Project litigation director Ziporah Reich said in a statement on Tuesday. “This case sends a clear message to universities across the country that when Jewish students report harassment and seek accommodations, their concerns must be taken seriously. The civil rights of Jewish students are simply not negotiable.”
Brooke Goldstein, Lawfare Project executive director and founder, added, “These outcomes reflect the power of legal action to bring about meaningful change. We are proud to stand behind a courageous student who chose to stand up for her rights. Our goal was never just justice for one student — it was to make clear that antisemitism has no place in higher education and that Jewish students have the same right to safety and dignity as anyone else.”
Columbia was one of the most hostile campuses for Jews employed by or enrolled in an institution of higher education. After Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the university produced several indelible examples of campus antisemitism, including a student who proclaimed that Zionist Jews deserve to be murdered and are lucky he is not doing so himself and administrative officials who, outraged at the notion that Jews organized to resist anti-Zionism, participated in a group chat in which each member took turns sharing antisemitic tropes that described Jews as privileged and grafting.
Amid these incidents, the university struggled to contain the anti-Zionist group Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), which in late January committed an act of infrastructural sabotage by flooding the toilets of the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) with concrete. Numerous reports indicate the attack may have been the premeditated result of planning sessions which took place many months ago at an event held by Alpha Delta Phi (ADP) — a literary society, according to the Washington Free Beacon. During the event, the Free Beacon reported, ADP distributed literature dedicated to “aspiring revolutionaries” who wish to commit seditious acts. Additionally, a presentation was given in which complete instructions for the exact kind of attack which struck Columbia were shared with students.
The university is reportedly restructuring itself to comply with conditions for restoring $400 million in federal funding canceled by US Education Secretary Linda McMahon in March to punish the school’s alleged failure to quell “antisemitic violence and harassment.”
In March, the university issued a memo announcing that it acceded to key demands put forth by the Trump administration as prerequisites for releasing the funds — including a review of undergraduate admissions practices that allegedly discriminate against qualified Jewish applicants, the enforcement of an “anti-mask” policy that protesters have violated to avoid being identified by law enforcement, and enhancements to the university’s security protocols that would facilitate the restoration of order when the campus is disturbed by unauthorized demonstrations.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Columbia University Settles Antisemitism Lawsuit That Accused Faculty of Bullying Jewish Student first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Bernie Sanders Pushes Bill to Block US Military Action Against Iran as New Poll Shows Public Support for Strikes
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks to the media following a meeting with US President Joe Biden at the White House in Washington, US, July 17, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Monday night introduced legislation that would bar the use of federal funds for any US military force against Iran not authorized by Congress, despite new polling showing broad public support for both Israel’s ongoing strikes against the Iranian regime and US military action that is deemed necessary to stop Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.
The bill, titled the No War Against Iran Act, came after Israel last week launched a broad preemptive attack on Iran, targeting military installations and nuclear sites across the country in what officials described as an effort to neutralize an imminent nuclear threat. The Israeli military since then has continued to pummel Iranian targets, killing several nuclear scientists and military commanders while decimating much of the regime’s nuclear and military infrastructure.
Sanders called Israel’s campaign “reckless and illegal,” claiming it had the potential to kickstart a broader war in the Middle East. The legislation would prohibit the use of federal funds for any military force against Iran without explicit authorization from Congress, with a narrow exception for self-defense under the War Powers Act and applicable US law.
“[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s reckless and illegal attacks violate international law and risk igniting a regional war,” Sanders said in a statement. “Congress must make it clear that the United States will not be dragged into Netanyahu’s war of choice.”
Sanders continued, “Another war in the Middle East could cost countless lives, waste trillions more dollars and lead to even more deaths, more conflict, and more displacement. I will do everything that I can as a senator to defend the Constitution and prevent the US from being drawn into another war.”
Sanders was joined by seven Senate Democrats as original cosponsors, including Peter Welch (VT), Elizabeth Warren (MA), Jeff Merkley (OR), Chris Van Hollen (MD), Ed Markey (MA), Tammy Baldwin (WI), and Tina Smith (MN). The senator previously introduced a version of this bill in 2020 alongside then-Sens. Kamala Harris and Chuck Schumer.
Amid the Iran-Israel war, speculation has swirled over whether US President Donald Trump, who has expressed public support for the Israeli operation and authorized the military to help the Jewish state with air defense to combat Iranian missile barrages, will decide to use offensive military power against Iran to eliminate their nuclear facilities. Iran’s Fordow nuclear site specifically is built deeply into the side of a mountain, and some experts believe Israel can’t destroy it completely without the help of massive US bunker-buster bombs.
Trump on Tuesday publicly dismissed the prospect of a negotiated ceasefire before posting a message on social media that read “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” without elaborating. He also threatened to kill Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Despite Sanders’s insistence that the public disapproves of military action against Iran, polling indicates otherwise.
According to a new poll from GrayHouse Strategies, 89 percent of Americans are “very” or “somewhat” concerned about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and 73 percent say Iran cannot be trusted to honor any diplomatic agreement. The poll also found that a strong majority of the American people, 72 percent, support direct US military action “if necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.”
Meanwhile, 83 percent of Americans support Israel’s preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, 79 percent favor the US sending offensive weapons to aid Israeli operations, and 91 percent support providing intelligence assistance to Israel, according to the poll.
Sanders’s proposed legislation came one day after Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) introduced a War Powers Resolution to block any unauthorized US military action against Iran.
“It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States,” Kaine said in a statement. “The American people have no interest in sending servicemembers to fight another forever war in the Middle East.”
Kaine’s resolution states that Congress possesses the sole authority to declare war against a foreign nation. It requires any US hostilities with Iran to be explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Because the resolution is privileged, the Senate must consider and vote on it promptly, ensuring a congressional debate on the issue.
“This resolution will ensure that if we decide to place our nation’s men and women in uniform into harm’s way, we will have a debate and vote on it in Congress,” Kaine said.
On Tuesday, however, US Reps. Claudia Tenney (R-NY) and Brad Sherman (D-CA), along with 14 co-sponsors, introduced a bipartisan resolution praising Israel’s strike on Iranian nuclear and military facilities and condemning Iran’s retaliatory missile attacks on Israeli civilian targets.
The post Bernie Sanders Pushes Bill to Block US Military Action Against Iran as New Poll Shows Public Support for Strikes first appeared on Algemeiner.com.