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
What Does Implementing BDS Mean for American College Students?
The Activities and Recreation Center at UC Davis. Photo: Wikipedia Commons.
The Associated Students of the University of California Davis (ASUCD) have a lot of responsibility. They manage a $20 million budget, hire upwards of 1,600 students, and provide essential services for the entire community. This is why it’s so alarming that such a body would be used to further an unpopular and deeply antisemitic political movement rather than take its responsibilities seriously.
After the atrocities of October 7, 2023, student leaders chose to redirect their priorities toward promoting an agenda whose sole purpose was to target both Jewish and Israeli students through the guise of “solidarity with the Palestinian cause” and the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
Official ASUCD Instagram accounts platform an explicitly pro-Palestinian agenda with their profile pictures. Additionally, current ASUCD senators have tried to pass resolutions to steer all departments into political positions with the threat of intervention — essentially an attempt to force members to endorse anti-Israel positions or lose funding.
ASUCD originally passed a BDS resolution in 2015, but in 2019, that resolution was deemed unconstitutional. Despite this, in February 2024, ASUCD took further action by creating a new committee tasked with implementing the resolution. The committee now faces the sweeping challenge of divesting over $20 million from any company with even a tangential connection to Israel. For some reason, current ASUCD members don’t seem to care about their own constitution or the authority of the school’s judicial council.
Why was it struck down in 2019? Three reasons: it is impossible to implement, it is antisemitic, and it is illegal under state law.
BDS at UC Davis calls for total divestment from Israel and all companies that have supposedly committed human rights abuses. This goal is simply not possible. Israel is deeply connected within the global trade network, and many large companies like Google, Microsoft, and others have realized the opportunities presented within the “Start-Up Nation.” If somehow BDS is fully implemented to its extreme positions, basic services would no longer be available. ASUCD could not use Google, computers that use Intel, or even Amazon to order basic items for student events.
BDS is also antisemitic in both theory and practice. A co-founder of BDS, Omar Barghouti, explicitly denies the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and the legitimacy of the Jewish state. The membership of the National Committee of BDS includes members and people affiliated with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — all of which are designated as terrorist organizations by the United States and other nations.
Furthermore, research has shown that the existence of BDS activity on college campuses is both a predictor of — and strongly correlated with — increased antisemitic incidents and the specific targeting of Jewish students on campuses. BDS also directly prohibits peaceful dialogues or interactions between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian people unless Israelis are all labeled as oppressors and colonizers.
California made BDS illegal in 2016 under AB 2844, which states that entities under contract with the government worth $100,000 or more must be compliant with the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Furthermore, the act seeks to ensure that any policy that has been adopted against any sovereign nation or peoples recognized by the United States, including Israel, is not used to discriminate. BDS discriminates explicitly on the basis of national origin.
ASUCD relies on Federal funding in order to run the Unitrans unit, which provides bus rides across the city of Davis to all students. Unitrans received $2,922,243 in 2023-2024 from both the Federal CARES Act (2020) and the Urbanized Area Formula Grants or FTA 5307. In order to implement BDS within ASUCD, it would seem like our elected student representatives would have to shut down 32% of Unitrans’ budget, potentially crippling its critical service to the student community at UC Davis and the rest of the city.
In early February 2025, legislation was introduced in student government to force all units within ASUCD to adopt a singular political position. While the bill was withdrawn, it speaks to the priorities of certain members within the ASUCD legislative branch. In the proposed bill, ASUCD would be able to take positions on political issues and force departments without those positions to “make changes necessary to bring them in compliance with the official position.”
In layman’s terms, this means that the student government could punish student workers for not adhering to a specific political ideology. Not only is this authoritarian and contrary to the democratic nature of our country and student government, but it is plain wrong. Anti-Israel ideologues are literally trying to force their opinions onto the rest of the student body.
If BDS was ever implemented, Jewish students would face increased antisemitic incidents and targeting on campus, all students would face dramatic cuts to the vital bus network, and ASUCD would likely face legal repercussions for passing illegal policies that discriminate based on national origin.
We want our student fees to go toward improving our campus, not tearing it down in the name of supporting Palestinians (though this act does not support Palestinians, but rather only discriminates against Israelis and Jews). ASUCD should spend their vast budget and manpower dedicating themselves to their given mandate: the needs of all students.
Raphael Myers is an undergraduate student at UC Davis and is a fellow for CAMERA on Campus.
The post What Does Implementing BDS Mean for American College Students? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Should Be Wary of the Mirage in Doha
US President Donald Trump meets with the Emir of Qatar during their bilateral meeting on May 21, 2017, at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Photo: Official White House Photo/Shealah Craighead.
As President Donald Trump prepares for his upcoming visit to Doha — the first by a sitting US president in more than two decades — he enters a carefully staged production. For Qatar, this is not just diplomacy; it’s branding.
Trump’s presence lends prestige, legitimacy, and a headline-grabbing affirmation of Qatar’s role on the global stage. But behind the polished welcome and rehearsed talking points, lies a regime whose actions often contradict its polished image.
Qatar has spent years cultivating influence not only in the Middle East, but across American institutions. Its strategy is subtle but pervasive. Billions have flowed from Doha into elite US universities, think tanks, lobbying firms, and real estate. Qatar is not merely investing in buildings or research — it’s investing in narrative control. From Ivy League campuses to policy roundtables in Washington, Qatari money shapes conversations, funds sympathetic analysis, and quietly steers public discourse in ways that protect its interests. This is soft power with sharp consequences.
In foreign policy, Qatar plays all sides. It hosts the largest US air base in the region, while maintaining open relationships with the Taliban, Hamas, and Iranian proxies. It markets itself as a mediator, yet many of the conflicts it “mediates” are ones in which it has a direct stake.
Its state-funded media outlet, Al Jazeera, speaks the language of press freedom while pushing deeply polarizing content across the region. These contradictions are not accidents — they are part of a broader strategy to appear indispensable to every player while being accountable to none. Trump, who built his political rise on challenging the foreign policy establishment and calling out global hypocrisy, should approach this visit with clear eyes.
He understands the cost of being used by regimes that speak the language of partnership while pursuing their own agendas behind closed doors. The president’s base expects candor, not ceremony. If this trip is to reflect the “America First” principles that Trump championed, it must not devolve into a PR victory for a country that has long evaded scrutiny.
Qatar’s defenders often point to its utility: its role in negotiating hostage releases, its open channels to groups no one else will speak to, its deep financial ties to the West. But utility is not the same as alignment. Hosting US troops does not entitle a regime to impunity. Providing access does not absolve complicity. Qatar’s ongoing ties to Hamas, framed as pragmatic diplomacy, have done little to disrupt the cycle of violence in Gaza. Its outreach to Iran has served its own hedging strategy, not American stability. These are not alliances — they are wagers.
This visit offers Trump the chance to reset expectations. He does not need to provoke or insult his hosts, but he must be direct. What has Qatar done to earn the deepening of strategic ties? Has it reined in the ideological extremism enabled by its networks? Has it improved transparency in its financial systems? Has it addressed legitimate concerns about its influence over American educational and policymaking institutions?
These are not hostile questions — they are the basic inquiries any serious leader should ask before elevating a partner.
Moreover, Trump must recognize how this visit will be used by Doha — not just regionally, but in Western capitals and media. Qatar excels at turning symbolism into leverage. A handshake becomes a headline, a summit becomes a signal. Trump’s image is powerful, and the Qataris know that projecting friendship with him bolsters their credibility far beyond the Gulf. But friendship requires mutual honesty, not staged harmony. If the visit glosses over core contradictions, it sends the wrong message — not just to Qatar, but to other authoritarian states watching closely.
While this trip is not focused on Israel, the implications are inescapable. Qatar’s longstanding support for Hamas — and its ambiguous stance toward normalization — reflect a broader refusal to take a definitive stand on peace. Its aid to Gaza, while framed as humanitarian, often functions as leverage over a population held hostage by its rulers. Trump does not need to lecture his hosts on Israel policy, but he must not ignore the regional impact of Qatar’s actions either. Any meaningful US-Qatar partnership must include a commitment to ending double-dealing with violent actors.
Qatar is not just a small Gulf state with money — it is a global operator with a sophisticated PR engine and an appetite for influence. From campus lecture halls to Capitol Hill, its footprint in American life is larger than most citizens realize. That influence deserves scrutiny, not celebration. Trump’s visit should be used to clarify boundaries, not blur them.
This moment gives Trump a choice: lend his brand to a carefully choreographed narrative, or reaffirm the disruptive clarity that has defined his foreign policy. Qatar needs Trump more than Trump needs Qatar. That leverage should be used not to flatter, but to demand more — more transparency, more accountability, and more alignment with the values that the US claims to defend.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx
The post Trump Should Be Wary of the Mirage in Doha first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Exposed: The AP Sells Pictures By Photojournalist Identified as Hamas Terrorist, Kissed by Sinwar
Yahya Sinwar, head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas in Gaza, in Gaza City on April 14, 2023. Photo: Yousef Masoud / SOPA Images/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
The Associated Press sells photos by a Gazan photojournalist whom Israel identified as a Hamas terrorist, an HonestReporting investigation revealed on Tuesday, in what legal experts say may be considered material/financial support of a designated foreign terrorist organization in violation of US law that prohibits such conduct.
Hassan Eslaiah was targeted and wounded in an Israeli strike on southern Gaza in early April, with the IDF publicly identifying him as a member of the Hamas Khan Younis Brigade who has been posing as a journalist.
This should have come as no surprise to the AP, which officially cut ties with the Gazan freelancer after our November 2023 exposé of his infiltration into Israel during the October 7 massacre, which also brought to light a photo of former Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar kissing him on the cheek.
However, the agency still offers for sale on its global platform more than 40 photos taken by Eslaiah inside Gaza during October-November 2023. Their prices range between 35 and 495 U.S. dollars.
HonestReporting has reached out to the AP for comment.
Hassan Eslaiah (r) with former Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar (l)
Whether Eslaiah still gets royalties when his remaining photos are purchased is unclear, but the credit he gets on a respected news outlet is certainly a reputation booster. And either way, AP can still make money off of his propaganda for Hamas:
Legal Questions
Disturbingly, AP staff seem to have known about Eslaiah’s Hamas links years before October 7, 2023. According to documents released in a US lawsuit in early April, they were worried about his reliability since 2018, but still used his work.
The AP is also the only Western agency that still platforms Eslaiah’s tainted work. Reuters and Getty Images have removed his content due to HonestReporting’s public campaigns, which proved effective even before his confirmation as a Hamas member.
But now, the AP must explain and follow suit. This is no longer just an ethical violation, but possibly also a legal one, particularly if US authorities come to determine that Eslaiah is sufficiently connected to Hamas and/or acts of terrorism.
Legal experts told HonestReporting that in purchasing Eslaiah’s content, the AP may well be in direct violation of anti-terrorism laws or financial sanctions enforced by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). These laws prohibit transactions with entities or individuals that are on terrorism-related lists, and these regulations extend to payments for content or goods. Violation of OFAC sanctions has the potential to result in both civil and criminal penalties, including hefty fines and possible imprisonment. Purchasing the material and continuing to publish Eslaiah’s work, with direct attribution, may also be a violation of Section 2339B of Title 18 of the United States Code, which makes it a federal crime to knowingly provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization.
In December 2023, following HonestReporting’s exposure of photojournalists who infiltrated Israel on October 7, 14 state attorneys general wrote a letter to The New York Times, AP, CNN, and Reuters calling them out for using hires with ties to Hamas and reminding them that providing material support to terrorists and terror organizations is a crime.
The letter specifically mentions the case of Hassan Eslaiah and ends by calling on the media outlets to “ensure that you are taking all necessary steps to prevent your organizations from contracting with members of terror organizations. We urge you in the strongest terms to take care that your hiring practices conform to the laws forbidding material support for terror organizations.”
Subsequently, it may be time for US Attorney General Pam Bondi to take an interest.
The AP is based in New York. Will the Attorney General consider the possibility that, despite this warning, the AP may have been providing material support for a terrorist organization, even by continuing to feature the “work” of an alleged Hamas member who may have used it as a cover?
We think the answer is clear, if not legally, then morally. The AP should do the right thing, apologize, and remove all of Eslaiah’s content, unless they want to continue being associated with a terror-linked “journalist.”
HonestReporting is a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Exposed: The AP Sells Pictures By Photojournalist Identified as Hamas Terrorist, Kissed by Sinwar first appeared on Algemeiner.com.