RSS
New York Times Lets Harvard Professor Whitewash University’s Jew-Hate
The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
“Harvard Derangement Syndrome” is the headline that the New York Times put over a 4,000-word article by Steven Pinker that it recently published. Pinker’s point is that “the invective now being aimed at Harvard has become unhinged.”
Yet if anyone has “become unhinged,” it is Pinker and his editors at the Times, who look silly in their eagerness to minimize Harvard’s antisemitism problem. Pinker calls it Harvard’s “alleged antisemitism,” which gives you a flavor of just how detached from reality the overall article is.
Don’t take my word for it. Here is a White House Memo in the Times from Maggie Haberman: “On substance, there are several Republicans and Democrats who share Mr. Trump’s view that Harvard and other major colleges are long overdue in addressing cultural issues. They welcome a focus on the antisemitism that was on display at some of the campus protests against Israel’s response to the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack.” Haberman writes antisemitism, not “alleged antisemitism.”
Here is a staff editorial in the New York Times: “some universities have failed to stand up to antisemitism.” Not “alleged antisemitism.”
Here is an email to the Harvard community from Harvard’s own president, Alan Garber, about a cartoon posted to social media by student and faculty anti-Israel groups: “The Antisemitic Cartoon.” Not “allegedly antisemitic.” Garber called it “flagrantly antisemitic.” The image was of a hand with a star of David and a dollar sign holding nooses around the necks of Gamal Abdel Nasser and Muhammad Ali.
Pinker goes on to write, “though the 300-page antisemitism report reviews every instance it could find in the past century, down to the last graffito and social media post, it cited no expressions of a goal to ‘destroy the Jews,’ let alone signs that it was the ‘dominant view on campus.’”
The antisemitism report was extensive, but it made no pretense of being either exhaustive or comprehensive. And even so, Pinker’s straw-man standard of a publicly expressed goal to destroy the Jews being the dominant view on campus is ridiculous. There were student groups cheering on the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas as a justified act of liberation and resistance. There were mobs chanting “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “intifadah, intifadah, globalize the intifadah.” What does Pinker imagine is going to happen to the Jews in such a scenario? If he thinks Hamas is going to let the Jews live in peace, he’s deluding himself. The reason that members of Congress were asking then-Harvard president Claudine Gay questions about whether it was acceptable to call for the genocide of Jews on the Harvard campus wasn’t that the members of Congress were fantasizing, it was that the Jewish students at Harvard at the time and their allies perceived it as an ongoing problem.
Pinker also writes, “I have experienced no antisemitism in my two decades at Harvard, and nor have other prominent Jewish faculty members.”
Did Pinker not see the cartoon that Garber called “flagrantly antisemitic”? Did he not attend the Commencement last year when the speaker and honorary degree recipient “delivered off-the-cuff comments that appeared to echo traditional conspiracy theories about Jews, money, and power,” according to the report of Harvard’s own task force on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias, which described them as “seemingly antisemitic remarks”? Does he not read the Crimson or watch social media accounts of protests with students changing slogans such as “We don’t want no Zionists here?” If Pinker really hasn’t experienced any antisemitism, he must not get out much.
And anyway, what kind of allyship is this by Pinker to students, faculty, and staff who have been targeted by antisemitism? After a spate of campus rapes, would the Times publish a piece from a professor who feels an appropriate response is asserting, I have taught on this campus for twenty years and have never once been raped?
Writing in National Review, Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center observes, “Pinker is underplaying the problems.” Kurtz sure has that correct.
Pinker teaches psychology, so he’s an expert. But it may not be only Harvard’s critics suffering from what Pinker calls “Harvard Derangement Syndrome.” Professor Pinker seems to have come down with a variant of it himself—a variety that manifests itself by writing New York Times opinion pieces that minimize genuine problems. That doesn’t help improve the situation for those Harvard Jews who have been less lucky than Pinker or who are more perceptive than he is in understanding what is happening around them.
Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. He writes frequently at TheEditors.com. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.
The post New York Times Lets Harvard Professor Whitewash University’s Jew-Hate first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Links $1.9 Billion in State Disaster Funds to Israel Boycott Stance
A resident enters a FEMA’s improvised station to attend claims by local residents affected by floods following the passing of Hurricane Helene, in Marion, North Carolina, US, Oct. 5, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz
US states and cities that boycott Israeli companies will be denied federal aid for natural disaster preparedness, the Trump administration has announced, tying routine federal funding to its political stance.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency stated in grant notices posted on Friday that states must follow its “terms and conditions.” Those conditions require they certify they will not sever “commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies” to qualify for funding.
The requirement applies to at least $1.9 billion that states rely on to cover search-and-rescue equipment, emergency manager salaries, and backup power systems among other expenses, according to 11 agency grant notices reviewed by Reuters.
The requirement is the Trump administration’s latest effort to use federal funding to promote its views on Israel.
The Department of Homeland Security, the agency that oversees FEMA, in April said that boycotting Israel is prohibited for states and cities receiving its grant funds.
FEMA separately said in July that US states will be required to spend part of their federal terrorism prevention funds on helping the government arrest migrants, an administration priority.
The Israel requirement takes aim at BDS, the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement designed to isolate the world’s lone Jewish state on the international stage as a step toward its eventual elimination.
“DHS will enforce all antidiscrimination laws and policies, including as it relates to the BDS movement, which is expressly grounded in antisemitism,” a spokesperson for Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said in a statement.
The requirement is largely symbolic. At least 34 states already have anti-BDS laws or policies, according to a University of Pennsylvania law journal. The BDS movement did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The American Jewish Committee supports the Trump administration’s policy, said Holly Huffnagle, the group’s director of antisemitism policy. The AJC is an advocacy group that supports Israel.
Under one of the grant notices posted on Friday, FEMA will require major cities to agree to the Israel policy to receive a cut of $553.5 million set aside to prevent terrorism in dense areas.
New York is due to receive $92.2 million from the program, the most of all the recipients. Allocations are based on the agency’s analysis of “relative risk of terrorism,” according to the notice.
RSS
Iran Sets Up New Defense Council in Wake of War With Israel
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian speaks during a meeting in Ilam, Iran, June 12, 2025. Photo: Iran’s Presidential website/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
Iran‘s top security body approved the establishment of a National Defenxe Council on Sunday, according to state media, following a short air war with Israel in June that was Iran‘s most acute military challenge since the 1980s war with Iraq.
“The new defense body will review defense plans and enhance the capabilities of Iran‘s armed forces in a centralized manner,” the Supreme National Security Council‘s Secretariat was quoted as saying by state media.
The defense council will be chaired by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and consists of the heads of the three government branches, senior armed forces commanders, and relevant ministries.
On Sunday, the commander-in-chief of Iran‘s military, Amir Hatami, warned that threats from Israel persist and should not be underestimated.
RSS
Israel to Decide Next Steps in Gaza After Ceasefire Talks Collapse
Smoke rises from Gaza as the sun sets, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Gaza border. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will convene his security cabinet this week to decide on Israel‘s next steps in Gaza following the collapse of indirect ceasefire talks with Hamas, with one senior Israeli source suggesting more force could be an option.
Last Saturday, during a visit to the country, US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff had said he was working with the Israeli government on a plan that would effectively end the war in Gaza.
But Israeli officials have also floated ideas including expanding the military offensive in Gaza and annexing parts of the shattered enclave.
The failed ceasefire talks in Doha had aimed to clinch agreements on a US-backed proposal for a 60-day truce, during which aid would be flown into Gaza and half of the hostages Hamas is holding would be freed in exchange for Palestinian prisoners jailed in Israel.
After Netanyahu met Witkoff last Thursday, a senior Israeli official said that “an understanding was emerging between Washington and Israel,” of a need to shift from a truce to a comprehensive deal that would “release all the hostages, disarm Hamas, and demilitarize the Gaza Strip,” – Israel‘s key conditions for ending the war.
A source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Sunday that the envoy’s visit was seen in Israel as “very significant.”
But later on Sunday, the Israeli official signaled that pursuit of a deal would be pointless, threatening more force: “An understanding is emerging that Hamas is not interested in a deal and therefore the prime minister is pushing to release the hostages while pressing for military defeat.”
“STRATEGIC CLARITY”
What a “military defeat” might mean, however, is up for debate within the Israeli leadership. Some Israeli officials have suggested that Israel might declare it was annexing parts of Gaza as a means to pressure the Palestinian terrorist group, which has ruled the enclave for nearly two decades.
Others, like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir want to see Israel impose military rule in Gaza before annexing it and re-establishing the Jewish settlements Israel evicted 20 years ago.
The Israeli military, which has pushed back at such ideas throughout the war, was expected on Tuesday to present alternatives that include extending into areas of Gaza where it has not yet operated, according to two defense officials.
While some in the political leadership are pushing for expanding the offensive, the military is concerned that doing so will endanger the 20 hostages who are still alive, the officials said.
Israeli Army Radio reported on Monday that military chief Eyal Zamir has become increasingly frustrated with what he describes as a lack of strategic clarity by the political leadership, concerned about being dragged into a war of attrition with Hamas terrorists.
A spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) declined to comment on the report but said that the military has plans in store.
“We have different ways to fight the terror organization, and that’s what the army does,” Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani said.
On Tuesday, Qatar and Egypt endorsed a declaration by France and Saudi Arabia outlining steps toward a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which included a call on Hamas to hand over its arms to the Western-backed Palestinian Authority.
Hamas has repeatedly said it won’t lay down arms. But it has told mediators it was willing to quit governance in Gaza for a non-partisan ruling body, according to three Hamas officials.
It insists that the post-war Gaza arrangement must be agreed upon among the Palestinians themselves and not dictated by foreign powers.
Israel‘s Foreign Minister Gideon Saar suggested on Monday that the gaps were still too wide to bridge.
“We would like to have all our hostages back. We would like to see the end of this war. We always prefer to get there by diplomatic means, if possible. But of course, the big question is, what will be the conditions for the end of the war?” he told journalists in Jerusalem.