RSS
Jewish MIT Students Prevail in Right to Work Settlement, No Longer Required to Pay Dues to Anti-Israel Union
A pro-Hamas encampment at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 6, 2024. Photo: Brian Snyder via Reuters Connect
The settlement of a federal discrimination suit filed by Jewish students of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has severed their obligation to pay dues to the school’s Graduate Student Union (GSU), a major victory precipitated by the union’s endorsement of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
Represented by the National Right to Work Foundation (NRTW), a nonprofit founded in 1968 which aims to abolish mandatory union membership, the students filed their complaint against GSU in March, arguing that its embrace of anti-Zionism discriminated against them as Jews as well as their religious belief that the Jewish people were always destined to return to their homeland.
The students had attempted to resist financially supporting GSU’s anti-Zionism, refusing to pay dues, but union bosses attempted to coerce their compliance, telling them that “no principles, teachings, or tenets of Judaism prohibit membership in or the payment of dues or fees to a labor union.”
With the settlement, they are released from an obligation which they said violated their core beliefs and freedom of association.
“The foundation-backed MIT graduate students who fought these legal battles have earned well deserved victories,” the organization’s president, Mark Mix, said on Wednesday. “Forcing GSU union officials to abandon their blatantly discriminatory dues practices is only the tip of the iceberg: because Massachusetts lacks Right to Work protections, GSU still has the power to force the vast majority of MIT graduate students to subsidize some portion of their activities.”
Mix added that NRTW intends to challenge compulsory union membership in unions pursuing controversial political aims at other universities, including the University of Chicago and John Hopkins University.
“Foundation attorneys are continuing to provide legal aid for all those who challenge the imposition of radical union agendas at the University of Chicago, Dartmouth, and John Hopkins, and they are doing so for adherents of both Judaism and Christianity,” he continued. “But this ordeal at MIT should remind lawmakers that all Americans should have a right to protect their money from going to union bosses they don’t support, whether those objections are based on religion, politics, or any other reason.”
NRTW is currently litigating another similar case brought by six City University of New York (CUNY) professors who sued to dissolve their membership in the Professional Staff Congress (PSC) public sector union after it passed an anti-Israel resolution during the country’s May 2021 war with Hamas. The measure declared solidarity with Palestinians and accused the Jewish state of ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and crimes against humanity.
The professors had resigned from PSC, but because of New York State’s “Taylor Law,” they remained in its “bargaining unit” — which, they maintain, is coercive, denying their right to freedom of speech and association by forcing them to be represented in collective bargaining negotiations by an organization they claim holds antisemitic views. Beyond the plaintiffs, 263 other professors and staff have resigned from the union as well, according to the website of the Resign.PSC campaign, which accuses the body of having “violated its mandate” by weighing in on a contentious political issue.
A New York district judge dismissed the professors’ suit in November 2022, ruling that several previous cases have affirmed the constitutionality of compulsory union representation and rejected the argument now advanced by NRTW. In July, NRTW and the Fairness Center asked the US Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that the dismissal was “misguided.” They are betting on the nation’s highest court, which holds a 6-3 conservative majority, sharing its view of the matter.
“The core issue in this case is straightforward: can the government force Jewish professors to accept the representation of an advocacy group they rightly consider to be antisemitic?” the attorneys argued in their petition. “The answer plainly should be ‘no.’ The First Amendment protects the rights of individuals, and especially religious dissenters, to disaffiliate themselves from associations and speech they abhor.”
Coming ahead of the academic year, the MIT settlement progresses the efforts of Jewish students and advocacy groups to compel colleges and universities to recognize Jews’ civil rights and grant Jewish students the same protections accorded to other minority groups. Having achieved favorable outcomes and rulings in other cases involving New York University, Columbia University, University of California, Los Angeles, and Harvard University, they were notably set back when earlier this month a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against MIT which alleged that it failed to protect its Jewish students from an explosion of antisemitism on campus that followed Hamas’ massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7.
Filed in March by the StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice, the suit sought injunctive relief, which would have required MIT to enforce rules proscribing discrimination based on race and ethnic origin.
However, US District Court Judge Richard Gaylore Stearns — who was appointed to the bench in 1993 by former US President Bill Clinton (D) and served as a political operative for and special assistant to Israel critic and former Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern — tossed the suit in a ruling which accused the Jewish plaintiffs of expecting MIT officials to be “clairvoyant” in anticipating a surge of antisemitism. He also rejected their argument that pro-Hamas demonstrators at MIT intentionally violated the civil rights of Jewish students by, as is alleged, calling for a genocide of Jews in Israel and perpetrating numerous other acts of harassment and intimidation.
Jewish students have consistently maintained that MIT’s response to antisemitism was delayed and paled in comparison to any action that it would have taken had the group subject to the discriminatory behavior been anything but Jewish.
In August, MIT student Talia Khan told The Algemeiner that the school’s Jewish community is not discouraged by Stearns’ ruling.
“We, as a community, are not giving up after this dismissal,” she said. “We are pursuing all options to ensure MIT is held accountable for its failure to ensure the safety, security, and civil rights of all students.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Jewish MIT Students Prevail in Right to Work Settlement, No Longer Required to Pay Dues to Anti-Israel Union first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Liri Albag Celebrates 20th Birthday at Hospital With Other Hostages Released From Gaza
Liri Albag, center, standing from a balcony inside Israel’s Rabin Medical Center and watching an orchestra performance for her birthday alongside Agam Berger, Daniella Gilboa, Karina Ariev, and Naama Levy. Photo:
American Friends of Rabin Medical Center
Liri Albag, who was recently released from captivity in Gaza as part of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire, celebrated her 20th birthday on Tuesday with other former hostages at Rabin Medical Center’s Beilinson Hospital in Petach Tikvah, Israel, where she is recovering after returning home 10 days earlier.
An orchestra came to the hospital to perform a small concert for Albag, who celebrated her previous birthday in Hamas captivity. The songs included Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” and “Happy Birthday.” She watched from a balcony on one of the upper floors of the hospital alongside other freed hostages Agam Berger, Daniella Gilboa, Karina Ariev, and Naama Levy. All five women were serving as surveillance soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces when they were kidnapped from an IDF base in Nahal Oz by Hamas-led terrorists during their deadly rampage in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Albag, Gilboa, Ariev, and Levy returned together after 15 months in Hamas captivity as part of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. Five days later, Berger was also released as part of the ceasefire deal.
Albag uploaded a post on Instagram about her birthday and wrote: “Today I get to celebrate my 20th birthday with my loved ones. The only wish I asked for — is for all the hostages to return.”
Her older sister, Roni Albag, shared a photo from the birthday celebrations on Instagram and wrote in the caption: “Our Lirosh, our number 1. I dreamed of this moment countless times and here you are. Today you celebrate your 20th birthday at home!!! Today you celebrate the life that was given to you again. You are our victory, our heart and the light of our home. I love you and am here for you forever and ever.”
Liri posted on social media on Friday for the first time since returning from captivity. In an Instagram post, she thanked the people of Israel for their “support, love, and help.” She said, “Together, we are strength.” She also thanked the IDF and members of Israel’s security forces “who sacrificed their souls and fought for us and our country! There isn’t a morning that I don’t pray for their safety.”
“Finally got to reunite with my family! But our fight isn’t over and I won’t stop fighting until everyone is home!” she added. “I want us to continue to stay united, because together nothing can break us. The unity and hope we have in us scares all our enemies, amazes all our lovers, and comforts the people among us. A sentence that used to accompany me was ‘at the end of every night, darkness disappears.’ And I wish that everyone can see the light.”
Seven surveillance soldiers were abducted from the Nahal Oz base on Oct. 7, 2023, including Noa Marciano, who was killed in Hamas captivity, and Ori Megidish, who was rescued by the IDF in October 2023.
The post Liri Albag Celebrates 20th Birthday at Hospital With Other Hostages Released From Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Lawmakers Mostly Skeptical at Trump Proposal for US to ‘Take Over’ Gaza
US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet at the White House in Washington, DC, US, Feb. 4, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
US lawmakers from both major parties mostly pushed back against President Donald Trump’s bombshell declaration that the US would “take over” the Gaza Strip to build the war-torn Palestinian enclave back up, with some members of Congress accusing Trump of endangering American troops, destabilizing the Middle East, and floating an ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza.
On Tuesday night, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was visiting the White House, held a press conference following their private meeting in the Oval Office. Trump asserted that the US would assume control of Gaza and develop it economically into “the Riviera of the Middle East” after Palestinians are resettled elsewhere.
“The US will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it too,” Trump told reporters. “We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site.”
“We’re going to develop it, create thousands and thousands of jobs, and it’ll be something that the entire Middle East can be very proud of,” Trump added. “I do see a long-term ownership position and I see it bringing great stability to that part of the Middle East.”
He suggested that Palestinians “should not go through a process of rebuilding” be relocated to other countries in the region, at least for the time being.
“That’s insane. I can’t think of a place on earth that would welcome American troops less and where any positive outcome is less likely,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said of the idea.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the most strident allies of Israel in Congress, expressed skepticism about Trump’s proposal, calling it “problematic.”
“We’ll see what the Arab world says, but you know, that’d be problematic at many, many levels,” Graham said.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) repudiated Trump’s comments as “nuts” and suggested that members of both parties would be opposed to an American takeover of Gaza.
“I don’t know where this came from, but I can tell you … that would not get many expressions of support from Democrats or Republicans up here,” Kaine said.
Sen. Rand Paul rebuked the idea of sending American troops to secure Gaza, likening the proposal to an “occupation.”
“I thought we voted for America First. We have no business contemplating yet another occupation to doom our treasure and spill our soldiers’ blood,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Wednesday that Trump has not committed to putting US troops on the ground in Gaza as part of his proposal, saying the US needs to be involved in the rebuilding of Gaza “to ensure stability in the region” but that “does not mean boots on the ground” in the enclave.
Meanwhile, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) dismissed the seriousness of Trump’s proposal, instead accusing the president of using Gaza as a distraction.
“I have news for you — we aren’t taking over Gaza. But the media and the chattering class will focus on it for a few days and Trump will have succeeded in distracting everyone from the real story — the billionaires seizing government to steal from regular people,” Murphy said on X/Twitter.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) also expressed skepticism that the plan would ever come to fruition.
“Obviously it’s not going to happen. I don’t know under what circumstance it would make sense even, even for Israel”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), the only Palestinian American in Congress and an outspoken critic of Israel, was apoplectic at Trump’s proposal, accusing the president of orchestrating an “ethnic cleansing” effort.
“Palestinians aren’t going anywhere. This president can only spew this fanatical bulls—t because of bipartisan support in Congress for funding genocide and ethnic cleansing,” Tlaib wrote on X/Twitter.
However, a handful of lawmakers expressed support for Trump’s proposal to completely overhaul Gaza.
Speaker of the House Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) praised Trump’s press conference as “strong and decisive.”
“We’ve got to stand in an unwavering manner with Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East. The strong and decisive move is an important step in that regard,” Johnson said.
“It just makes sense to make the neighborhood there safer,” he added. “It’s common sense.”
Likewise, Rep. Marsha BlackburnT (R-TN) stated that Trump’s proposal “will eliminate Hamas terrorists and create economic prosperity.”
Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), one of the strongest defenders of Israel in Congress, called Trump’s comments “provocative” but “part of a conversation.”
“The Palestinians have refused, or they’ve been unwilling to deliver, a government that provided security and economic development for themselves,” Fetterman said. “They allowed Oct. 7 to occur, and now Gaza has to be rebuilt. Where are the people going to live? Where are they going to go? So it’s part of a conversation with where they’re at right now.”
While many foreign policy experts opposed Trump’s proposal for reasons similar to those expressed by lawmakers, others saw potential merit, suggesting that relocating civilians from Gaza would bolster Israel’s safety and provide Palestinians with a better quality of life.
“To be clear, the position that human beings must remained trapped in ruins to be used as human shields for a brutal terrorist organization and political pawns in a 77-year war to destroy the State of Israel is the anti-human rights position,” wrote Richard Goldberg, senior adviser for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).
David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel during the first Trump administration, praised Trump’’ plan, saying that “most people in Gaza wanted to leave even before 10/7 [Hamas’s invasion of Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which started the Gaza war], but no one would take them in.”
“Assuming civilians agree to leave but Hamas sympathizers and terrorists do not, Hamas will be deprived of its most strategic weapon — human shields — and its eradication will be accelerated,” Friedman continued.
Steve Witkoff, the current US special envoy to the Middle East, hinted at support for Trump’s plan, arguing that Palestinians in Gaza deserve a “better life” and “better opportunities.”
“A better life is not necessarily tied to the physical space that you’re in today,” Witkoff said to Fox News host Sean Hannity. “That doesn’t occur because you get to pitch a tent in the Gaza Strip.”
Trump’s press conference echoed comments he made to reporters earlier on Tuesday, in which he also called for the relocation of Gaza’s civilians to Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states, referring to the enclave as a “demolition site” and saying residents have “no alternative” but to leave.
“[The Palestinians] have no alternative right now” but to leave Gaza, Trump told reporters before Netanyahu arrived. “I mean, they’re there because they have no alternative. What do they have? It is a big pile of rubble right now.”
Despite Trump’s insistence, Arab leaders have adamantly rejected the president’s proposal, claiming that they would not absorb civilians from the war-torn Gaza Strip. Trump has not offered any specifics about how a resettlement process could be implemented.
The post US Lawmakers Mostly Skeptical at Trump Proposal for US to ‘Take Over’ Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israelis Prefer Saudi Normalization Along With Creation of Palestinian State Over West Bank Annexation: Poll
Israeli national flags flutter near office towers at a business park also housing high tech companies, at Ofer Park in Petah Tikva, Israel, Aug. 27, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun
Israelis prefer normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia along with the creation of a Palestinian state over the annexation of the West Bank, new polling shows.
The poll, released by the aChord Research Institute at Hebrew University, found that given the choice to “promote a regional political-security arrangement that includes normalization with Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, and agreeing to establish a Palestinian state” or to “promote full annexation of the West Bank,” 60 percent of Israelis prefer the former while 31 percent prefer the latter.
Another 9 percent said they were unsure.
The newly released poll was conducted last month, as US President Donald Trump returned to the White House.
During his first term as president, Trump’s administration brokered the Abraham Accords, agreements between Israel and numerous Arab states to normalize relations. However, Saudi Arabia was not one of them, and both Washington and Jerusalem have seen Israeli-Saudi normalization as a key goal to foster greater peace, stability, and prosperity in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia’s foreign ministry said in a statement on Wednesday that Riyadh would not establish ties with Israel without the creation of a Palestinian state. The statement came one day after Trump said the United States would take over Gaza after Palestinians are resettled elsewhere and develop it economically. No Arab country has expressed willingness to take in Palestinians from Gaza.
Some observers have speculated that Trump’s comments are designed to act as leverage in negotiations concerning either the next phase of the Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal or Saudi Arabia establishing diplomatic relations with Israel.
As for the West Bank, a reporter asked Trump on Monday whether he supports Israel potentially annexing parts of the territory. Though Trump refused to answer the question directly, he seemed to indicate dissatisfaction with the size of Israel’s territorial boundaries, noting that the Jewish state is a “very small piece of land” and praising Israelis for their “amazing” accomplishments despite their country’s size.
Mike Huckabee, who Trump nominated to serve as the next US ambassador to Israel, has defended Israel’s right to build settlements in the West Bank, acknowledging the Jewish people’s ties to the land dating back to the ancient world.
Israelis who support annexing parts of the West Bank similarly note the Jewish people’s deep connection, both religiously and historically, to the land, as well as the fact that areas with well established settlements would likely be part of Israel under a two-state solution.
The two goals of Israeli-Saudi normalization and West Bank annexation are widely seen as mutually exclusive, as annexation would likely preclude many Arab states, most importantly Saudi Arabia, from considering normalization.
The Hebrew University poll also found that the majority of the Israeli public (55 percent) supports completing the hostage deal through all its phases and thus ending the war in Gaza. However, 59 percent also believe the deal damages Israel’s security situation, as thousands of terrorists will be released from Israeli prisons under the agreement.
There is also optimism about Trump entering office again. Sixty percent of Israelis say they believe he will act in Israel’s interests, according to the poll.
The post Israelis Prefer Saudi Normalization Along With Creation of Palestinian State Over West Bank Annexation: Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.