The headquarters of The New York Times. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

On and after Oct. 7, 2023, Israel’s prime minister and then-foreign minister made clear their plans for Hamas, the group responsible for the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.

On the day of the massacre, as Hamas attackers swarmed Israeli towns, Netanyahu spoke of the country’s straightforward goals: to repel the attack, defeat Hamas in Gaza, and deter other fronts. Per Haaretz:

Speaking at the beginning of the security cabinet meeting later on Saturday, Netanyahu said that “Our first goal is to purge the area of enemy forces that have infiltrated and restore security and peace to the towns that were attacked.”

The second goal according to Netanyahu, is to “exact a huge price from the enemy, also in the Gaza Strip. The third goal is to fortify other arenas so that no one makes the mistake of joining this war. [emphasis added]

In a separate statement that same day, Netanyahu said:

The IDF will immediately use all its strength to destroy Hamas’s capabilities. We will destroy them and we will forcefully avenge this dark day that they have forced on the State of Israel and its citizens. As Bialik wrote: ‘Revenge for the blood of a little child has yet been devised by Satan’.

All of the places which Hamas is deployed, hiding and operating in, that wicked city, we will turn them into rubble.

I say to the residents of Gaza: Leave now because we will operate forcefully everywhere.

At this hour, the IDF is clearing the terrorists out of the last communities. They are going community by community, house by house, and are restoring our control.

I embrace and send heartfelt condolences to the bereaved families whose loved ones were murdered today in cold blood and endless brutality. [emphasis added]

Two days after the attack, defense minister Yoav Gallant said of Hamas, “We are fighting human animals.” It was a phrase he also used elsewhere to refer to the terror group that he dubbed the ISIS of Gaza.

Three weeks later, as Israel began its ground offensive in Gaza, Netanyahu explained that Israel’s army “does everything to avoid harming non-combatants” and stated that the goals of the war are clear: “Destroying Hamas’s military and governing capabilities, and bringing the captives back home.”

In that speech, he also recited a verse from Deuteronomy. “Remember what Amalek did to you,” he said several sentences after speaking about protecting non-combatants in Gaza. It is a passage that Jewish tradition and Holocaust memorials have long used as a call to remember the oppressors of the Jewish people, including the Nazis, which some consider the spiritual heirs of Amalek.

None of these quotes are particularly surprising or, given the context, notable. Hamas slaughtered Israeli civilians in one of the worst terror attacks in modern memory. Israel said that in response it would destroy the group, and its leaders had harsh words for the group behind the massacre.

And yet so many anti-Israel commentators have absurdly cited those very statements as purported evidence of “genocide.”

A New York Times Guest Essay this week by Omer Bartov is just the latest example. Bartov points to the passages cited above as his leading examples to purport “genocidal intent” by Israel’s leaders.

This is because intent — not simply death resulting from war — is key to the legal definition of “genocide,” as Bartov must acknowledge in his piece:

The crime of genocide was defined in 1948 by the United Nations as the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” In determining what constitutes genocide, therefore, we must both establish intent and show that it is being carried out.

He then claims — as if he hadn’t just cited unremarkable martial language by Israel’s decision makers — that “In Israel’s case, that intent has been publicly expressed by numerous officials and leaders.”

Some lower-ranking Israeli politicians have gone farther. After misconstruing Netanyahu and Gallant’s words, the author points to vitriolic statements by Israel’s finance minister and deputy speaker of Parliament. Both are hardliners far to the right of those with practical authority over the direction of the war — the prime minister and defense minister. But clearly Bartov recognizes that the words by lower-ranking officials, however over-the-top, weren’t enough to make his case. So he invents genocidal rhetoric to manufacture genocidal intent.

Bartov recruits others in support of his allegation. These include Francesca Albanese, the extremist rapporteur and rape denier who herself has relied on misquoted and misrepresented statements by Israeli officials to justify her allegation, and Amnesty International, whose charge of genocide hinges on an assembly line of distorted quotes.

And at the same time, Bartov laments that “only a few scholars of the Holocaust” have echoed his allegation, and that “Most Holocaust scholars I know don’t hold, or at least publicly express” the view that the war is a genocide. (Somewhat puzzlingly, Bartov insists that it isn’t even a war because it is — by contrast? — a series of battles against a group that “continues to fight Israeli forces” while “retaining control” over territory not held by Israel.)

If most scholars don’t agree with Bartov and fellow anti-Israel activists who seem to dominate the discussion, perhaps it is because they recognize that Israel’s calls to destroy Hamas and angry descriptions of the terror group are hardly evidence of genocidal intent — even if The New York Times has chosen to join the campaign to misrepresent those statements.

Gilead Ini is a Senior Research Analyst at CAMERA, the foremost media watchdog organization focused on coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The post The New York Times Continues Its Campaign to Accuse Israel of ‘Genocide’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

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 may soon earn a dubious distinction in civil rights history — it may become the first American college so contaminated by antisemitism that it must sign a contract promising to remedy the affliction.

After October 7, 2023, when the Hamas terrorist group launched its latest war on Israel, Columbia University became the epicenter of antisemitism in American higher education.

According to a 2024 Congressional report on college antisemitism, Columbia officials displayed “deliberate indifference” as pro-Palestinian students and faculty attacked Jewish students and faculty with physical assaults, vandalism, classroom disruptions, and harassment in breach of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Columbia’s leadership acknowledged the civil rights breakdown by the end of 2023, and took steps to correct it. Unfortunately, events since then have proven that the remedial efforts fell short.

Last semester, the school logged four more outbursts of antisemitism, including an illegal and antisemitic “occupation” in the school’s Belmont Library. In March, the US Department of Education canceled $400 million of Federal grants to Columbia based on its failure to address the antisemitic abuses. On May 22, a Federal government civil rights agency notified Columbia that it remained in violation of the law. In June, the government reported the legal malfeasance to Columbia’s accreditation agency. Meanwhile, the Anti-Defamation League’s 2025 Campus Antisemitism Report Card rated Columbia “D” for “Deficient.”

Columbia is now negotiating a settlement agreement with the government in which the university must improve its civil rights record in exchange for the restoration of its Federal funding. Observers predict the school will compensate the victims of antisemitic discrimination and make data disclosures designed to ensure that its policies of hiring, admissions, and donations from foreign governments do not cause future discrimination.

But the reasons for Columbia’s continuing noncompliance are obvious.

To begin with, the institution’s Board of Trustees lacks respect for the civil rights of its Jewish students.

In March, when they appointed board member Claire Shipman to serve as Columbia’s acting president, they must have known she had downplayed the college’s antisemitism crisis as a public relations headache. Her emails to colleagues from 2023 to 2024 recommended the creation of an antisemitism task force as “one of very few workable responses” to take the “pressure” off the school and “inoculate” it from government scrutiny, which she called “capital [sic] hill nonsense.”

She believed the widespread student fear of antisemitic aggression was “not necessarily a rational feeling.” Regarding a pro-Israel Jewish board member, she remarked “I don’t think she should be on the board.” She thought that the board should include an “Arab” or someone else from the Middle East. She pushed to “unsuspend” certain campus protest groups. And she wanted a brighter academic spotlight for a hardline pro-Palestinian professor. By elevating Shipman to the role of acting president, the board irresponsibly put a PR-minded inmate in charge of the legally imperiled asylum.

Columbia’s foot-dragging on the civil rights issue is not limited to the trustees. Certain Columbia faculty members attended the school’s antisemitic rallies and propagandized in favor of Hamas. In early March, dozens of the professors lambasted Columbia’s then President Katrina Armstrong for buckling under the pressure of President Trump’s funding cuts to enforce the civil rights of Jewish students. Apparently, they forgot that Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy had federalized National Guard troops to enforce the civil rights of African American students. Days after the internal blowback, Armstrong resigned.

A second deficiency in Columbia’s civil rights governance is its lax definition of antisemitism. Columbia declined to update its Rules of University Conduct with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism. The IHRA definition has been adopted by the student governments of major universities nationwide, as well as most US states, the US government, Canada, 26 EU member states, and many other countries.

Columbia crafted a narrower definition of antisemitism that creates loopholes for antisemitic invective while evading institutional responsibility for the resulting harm. For example, the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is considered antisemitic under the IHRA standard because it implicitly denies the Jewish right of self-determination. Columbia’s own former President Minouche Shafik admitted in 2024 that the slogan is antisemitic.

The offensive phrase was chanted by Columbia protestors at an illegal demonstration in 2024 and repeated by the Belmont Library offenders in May. Nevertheless, this hate speech is not antisemitic under Columbia’s limited definition, because that definition ignores denials of Jewish self-determination — and calls for the destruction of Israel (which “From the river to the sea” is).

Columbia doesn’t even use its minimized interpretation of antisemitism in civil rights investigations. The concept is expressly authorized only for training.

Radical Columbia opponents of the IHRA standard of antisemitism defend their Jew-baiting insults as expressions of free speech. But IHRA does not regulate speech. It only helps identify antisemitism, just as the “N” word helps identify racism. Even where speech is deemed antisemitic, it is punishable only to the extent it creates a “hostile educational environment” or serves as a heightening factor in determining the penalty for otherwise criminal activity.

A third failure in Columbia’s civil rights program is the lack of accountability. After the Belmont Library fiasco, Columbia’s Judicial Board imposed interim suspensions on 65 of the guilty students. The large number of sanctions was an encouraging sign. But because the penalty periods vary greatly in length and mostly remain undisclosed, their deterrent effect is weak. In February, after three pro-Palestinian lawbreakers were suspended for one to two years, they showed no remorse. On the contrary, they sued the university, swearing “We will not stop. We will not rest.”

All American schools must protect American civil rights. The job should not require the discipline of a government contract.

Joel M. Margolis is the Legal Commentator, American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, US Affiliate of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. His 2021 book, The Israeli-Palestinian Legal War, analyzed the major legal issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previously he worked as a telecommunications lawyer in both the public and private sectors.

The post Despite Pending Federal Agreement, Columbia University Still Tolerates Antisemitism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Actor Mandy Patinkin arrives for the world premiere of Life Itself at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) in Toronto, Canada, September 8, 2018. Photo: REUTERS/Mark Blinch.

It’s the final scene of The Princess Bride and Inigo Montoya, master fencer and revenge-seeker, is at the window of the castle with Westley and turns to him. “You know, it’s very strange. I have been in the revenge business so long. Now that it’s over, I do not know what to do with the rest of my life,” he says.

Unfortunately, you aren’t hearing these lines within the context of the movie itself, but from the Jewish actor who played Montoya in 1987. Mandy Patinkin is using that line to describe Israel’s war in Gaza during an exclusive feature interview with The New York Times Magazine.

The interview covered a wide variety of topics relating to the Patinkin-Grody family’s lives and careers, including their most recent resurgence to popularity through their TikTok videos. Nevertheless, The New York Times decided to clip the portion about their opinions of Israel and antisemitism for social media, making it all about Gaza and fueling a gross representation of the Jewish community.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by The New York Times Magazine (@nytmag)

The NYT magazine knew this portion about Gaza and antisemitism would go viral. With approximately 111,000 likes and counting and about 40,500 shares, the tokenization of Jews is a guaranteed win. That’s why clips of any other part of the interview are absent.

Would the magazine have featured it if it had featured pro-Israel sentiments?

The print version, appearing much more neutral, masks Patinkin’s visceral emotional response. But not only that. The interview on the magazine’s website was presented not in terms of the Patinkin family’s view of Israel or their Judaism, but their own interpersonal relationship, illustrated by Patinkin and his wife, Kathryn Grody, happily dancing together for the camera.

Patinkin Melts Down Over Netanyahu But Not Hamas?

The full version of the interview on YouTube included content about Israel that wasn’t used on the Instagram reel. It included a bizarre story about Patinkin and his infant son in the early 1980s, sharing the stage at a Soviet Jewry rally with Benjamin Netanyahu during his tenure as Israeli Ambassador to the UN, claiming he didn’t know who he was at the time but felt bad “vibes.”

I didn’t know who he was, but he had a distasteful vibe, and I took my son and I moved him from my left — between the stranger and me — to my right arm so my baby would be between Mario Cuomo and me, not between this man. This man got up to speak, and I remember that he was introduced as the Ambassador from Israel to the United Nations. I’d often hear my parents say this phrase on the South Side of Chicago, in the Jewish community: “That’s good for the Jews” or “That’s bad for the Jews,” and in my mind, I heard, “That’s the definition of what’s bad for the Jews” — and I didn’t know this man. I just knew he was a threat to my child. Later I learned that that man was named Benjamin Netanyahu.

Patinkin and his equally famous wife, Kathryn Grody, placed blame solely on Netanyahu for the war in Gaza and none of the responsibility on Hamas. Grody also ignores very real antisemitism running rampant in the US and around the world.

What a stark situation it’s become, that a future prime minister of a democratic country (regardless of political leaning) gives you “distasteful” vibes, but Hamas, a terror organization that governs a civilian population and embeds itself among them as it commits atrocities and lies about it, doesn’t even register. Why isn’t Patinkin mad at the world for wiping accountability from Hamas for a war that it instigated? Why doesn’t the NYT follow up with a question about it?

Instead, the onus of the responsibility is placed on Israel.

If That’s Not Antisemitism, Then What Is It?

Grody claims that the term “antisemitism” is being used in bad faith.

I hate the way some people are using antisemitism as a claim for anybody that is critical about a certain policy. As far as I am concerned, compassion for every person in Gaza is very Jewish, and the fact that I abhor the policies of the leader of that country does not mean I’m a self-hating Jew or I’m antisemitic.

She is right that there’s nothing wrong with criticizing Israel’s government and certain policies. Innocent Gazans do deserve compassion. Israel’s actions do affect Jews across the globe.

But this is how she gets it wrong: Israel had not even struck back when pro-Palestinian protesters in New York City were chanting for an intifada and saying that any form of resistance is justified. There was no Israeli policy or decision to criticize then. No other question to ask other than how the most horrifying massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust was able to take place.

Grody unforgivably blames the actions of antisemites on Israel. Why must Jews be held responsible for the actions of Israel and its government?

The politics of what he’s [Netanyahu] doing is the worst thing for Jewish people. It’s like lighting a candle for anybody that has any antisemitic feelings. It’s creating a generation of wounded and hurt kids who will understandably be very angry. I feel deeply troubled and horrified by what is happening in my name. So I am very proud of every Jewish person that stands up for the humanity of people in the Middle East.

Antisemitism is the responsibility of antisemites. For anyone who claims otherwise, it’s worth looking at the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism.

War is horrifying, unfair, and certainly devastating. There is no doubt that innocents are suffering in Gaza, along with the Israeli hostages. But it’s important to remember how it started.

However, it’s crucial to note that Patinkin and Grody have flipped the issue. The problem did not start with Israel’s government, but with leaders who decided to weaponize their people against Jews, recruit them, and educate them to hate and to get revenge for lies they perpetrated — with the goal of globalizing the intifada.

It seems as though they have lost the plot. Accountability is on Hamas, on Islamic extremism, on their refusal to peacefully co-exist with Jews in the Middle East, and their lie that created decades of bloodshed between Arabs and Jews. The blame should not be placed solely on Israel’s government. There have been both left and right-wing governments and many in between that have had to fight wars and attempt to negotiate peace.

So this isn’t about Israel’s policies or Benjamin Netanyahu. It never was. It’s about seeing a crack in Israel’s armor and twisting the knife in. It is about antisemitism. And the NYT is capitalizing on token Jews who deny it.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

The post How the NYT Tokenizes Jews — and Mandy Patinkin Helped Them Do It first appeared on Algemeiner.com.