RSS
The Ethics of a ‘Good Jew’ on College Campuses Today

George Washington University blocked off most outdoor campus spaces on May 9, 2024 after clearing out an anti-Israel encampment from the Washington, DC campus the prior day. Photo: Jack Elbaum
How does one become a “Good Jew?” What is the ideal response in the face of hatred? Should one choose silence and appeasement to avoid conflict, or express unapologetic pride and deter one’s enemies? Should we remain in the confines of our Jewish communities, or spread our wings beyond them? These questions, reflecting contrasting philosophies in the Jewish ethical wills of Eleazar of Mayence (1357) and Judah ibn Tibbon (1160-1180), resemble the questions we ask ourselves today.
In the Middle Ages, Jews typically left statements of inheritance to their children; beyond such wills, Jewish ethical wills — known in Hebrew as Tzevaot — conveyed values and guidance for learning and living to their descendants. Penned widely across Ashkenazi and Sephardic worlds, from al-Andalusia and the Levant to Germany and France, ethical wills show us what Jewish priorities and principles of character were valued at the time, and what we can contemplate in the modern age.
Judah ibn Tibbon, a successful physician and scholar, lived under Islamic rule during the Middle Ages. Medieval Islamic society was relatively tolerant toward Jews under the Pact of Umar; yet, there were restrictions under protected status, or dhimmi status, which provided conditional protections and required additional tax payments known as the jizya. In al-Andalusia, Jews including Tibbon, Maimonides, Abraham ibn Ezra, and others, lived enriching lives as public Jewish figures.
In contrast, Christian Europe had no such pact with its Jews. Elazar of Mayence, writing from Germany, lived through the Black Death and experienced pervasive Blood Libels and other chimerical myths that inspired mobs to massacre Jews with no government retribution. From this analysis, it is understandable why Elazar would advise his sons and daughters to reside among Jews and keep a low profile by remaining silent and avoiding any confrontation. At the same time, it makes sense that Tibbon prescribed his son to excel in medicine, philosophy, and science, and to build a good name for himself as a deterrence method.
The insights from these two authors — and noting the very different environments in which they lived — can inspire how Jewish college students would contemplate an ethical will for their descendants (i.e., future generations of Jewish students). I hope that, just as Jewish scripture and helping others were critical for both authors, knowledgeability about Judaism and Israel, and playing a role in the campus community, manifest as priorities for every Jewish student.
In the aftermath of October 7th, Elazar’s prescription of silence and appeasement is one that I believe would imperil the Jewish future. I was incredulous when some of my fellow Jewish peers expressed that we should hide in the Hillel building during the pro-Hamas encampment on my campus, instead of urging the administration to dismantle it immediately.
A similar feeling overcame me when my classmates began to isolate their friend groups exclusively to the Jewish community, and most of all, when they callously cut off friends who disagreed with them, most notably after this past election.
For generations, there has been discourse around the “Good” versus “Bad” Jew: one who exuded power or powerlessness, assimilated or remained visibly Jewish, tried to resolve conflicts through compromise or direct confrontation, or one who supports Israel and one who does not.
Throughout my university experience, I’ve approached the question of being a “Good Jew” in multiple ways, reflecting myriad ideas posited by Elazar and Tibbon.
In my sophomore year, I considered giving up the fight against antisemitism on campus and keeping quiet due to fears for my safety. After conversations with professors and family friends, and because silence felt wrong, I continued writing articles, speaking at a variety of events, getting involved in student government, and meeting with the George Washington University administration; yet, my initial advocacy approach attempted to appease university officials by providing them with constructive solutions, in my efforts to work with them in good faith.
Students like myself have sought to educate rather than expose administrators for their ignorance and negligible indifference. However, after my efforts proved fruitless — and pro-Hamas rallies continued sweeping the nation unabated, with administrators allowing and thus enabling them — this approach was bound to escalate anti-Jewish behavior rather than deter it.
The Jewish people today live in very different circumstances than Elazar, and even Tibbon. While we may not be fully protected by institutions, America stands with us, and Israel ensures our safety like never before. We have the right to defend ourselves, and in this eight-front war against Israel, Jewish courage has risen to the challenge. This courage is vital not only for Israel’s future, but for higher education and Western civilization. Our strength and victories inspire millions, proving that more stand on the right side of history than we may realize.
While it may seem that the Jewish community has never been in this much danger since the Holocaust — and many of the signs that we saw in Nazi Germany with the indoctrination and harassment of Jewish students by their professors and classmates seem eerily familiar — we should engage with the outside world in the ways that Tibbon prescribed.
In following the teaching of Pirkei Avot, “he who is wise learns from everyone,” we should all engage in social groups and academic circles where we may be the only Jew or only Zionist voice. Here, we have an opportunity to share the true stories of the Jewish people — along with personal, family stories that our peers can connect to. We should equally listen to the stories of others who may present opposing narratives and viewpoints — and be okay with that. While fabricated, propaganda-filled curricula should never be held as fact, the power of viewpoint diversity should never be compromised.
The “Good Jew” is the one who, like the shamash, serves the community by lighting all its neighbors with glimmers of wisdom and can be surrounded by those who hold different perspectives.
Simultaneously, the “Good Jew” should be able to read a variety of sources no matter how contrary to their beliefs. As the lesson of Hanukkah prescribes, the “Good Jew” is the one who does not assimilate or isolate himself to one source of knowledge or one community. The ideal response to hatred is continuing to shed light on truth by maintaining an unwavering Jewish spirit — asking challenging questions and spreading written and oral knowledge. Dissent, discourse, and debate are critical to prevent the permeation of fabrications about the Jewish people in the civilized, educated world and the West — a world in which we have the freedom to channel our merits and spread our wisdom.
A miracle is often seen as a divine, unexplainable event. But in Jewish tradition, miracles require human effort. The Hanukkah story exemplifies this: Judah the Maccabee fought against assimilation and prevailing norms among his fellow Jews, setting the precedent for modern Jews to never surrender their identity and power. Similarly, Elazar urged his descendants to stay rooted in Judaism, while Tibbon engaged with diverse philosophies and cultures without compromising his faith.
Exposure to other ideas should strengthen, not weaken, our beliefs. The combination of these elements should resemble the portrait of the “Good Jew,” which we have the duty to embody and channel for generations to come.
The author is a senior at George Washington University.
The post The Ethics of a ‘Good Jew’ on College Campuses Today first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran to Deny UN Inspectors Access to Nuclear Sites, Top Lawmaker Says, Amid Rising Pressure for New Deal

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi arrives on the opening day of the agency’s quarterly Board of Governors meeting at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria, Nov. 20, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Lisa Leutner
Iran will not grant access to its nuclear facilities during next week’s visit by a delegation from the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), amid growing international pressure to reach a nuclear deal and avoid new sanctions, according to a top Iranian lawmaker.
On Monday, the head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of Iran’s parliament, Ebrahim Azizi, confirmed that the visiting IAEA team will only be authorized to hold “technical and expert-level talks” with Iranian officials and experts.
“According to the laws passed by parliament, Iran will not let physical access to its nuclear facilities under any circumstances,” Azizi said in a press conference reported by Iranian state-run media.
“No inspector from the IAEA team or any other foreign organization will be allowed to be present at our country’s nuclear sites,” the Iranian lawmaker continued.
In June, the Iranian parliament voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA “until the safety and security of [the country’s] nuclear activities can be guaranteed.”
At the time, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attributed the decision to IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi’s alleged bias against Tehran and a recent resolution accusing Iran of failing to cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog over alleged “undeclared nuclear activities.”
“The IAEA and its Director-General are fully responsible for this sordid state of affairs,” Araghchi said in a post on X.
Grossi “directly facilitated the adoption of a politically-motivated resolution against Iran by the IAEA [Board of Governors] as well as the unlawful Israeli and US bombings of Iranian nuclear sites,” he continued.
During a press conference on Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei explained that next week’s visit by IAEA officials to Iran is intended to discuss the “method of interaction” with the agency.
“We are facing exceptional circumstances, as the facilities of a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] have been illegally attacked by two nuclear-armed regimes,” Baghaei said.
“Unfortunately, the IAEA did not remain impartial, failed to condemn the attacks, and instead issued a report that provided a kind of political ground for making excuses,” the Iranian diplomat continued.
In June, Israel and the US bombed Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to stop the regime from building nuclear weapons. Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
The UN nuclear watchdog’s upcoming visit comes as Iran faces growing international pressure to resume negotiations on its nuclear program.
Last month, Tehran made its first attempt at direct talks with European powers since Israel, with the support of the US, launched an airstrike campaign targeting the country’s nuclear facilities and ballistic-missile capabilities.
The United Kingdom, France, and Germany — collectively known as the E3 — have previously warned they would reinstate UN sanctions on Tehran if no new agreement is reached by the end of August.
The sanctions were originally lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — which imposed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for large-scale sanctions relief.
Although the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018 under President Donald Trump’s first administration, Iran and the three European nations have continued to uphold the deal.
Under the UN Security Council resolution implementing the nuclear accord, international sanctions could be reimposed on Iran through a “snapback” mechanism that would take about 30 days.
As for the United States, Iran has insisted that Washington must compensate Tehran for the losses incurred during the recent 12-day war with Israel to pave the way for renewed negotiations.
However, Araghchi made clear that a deal would remain off the table as long as Trump continued to demand that Iran commit to zero uranium enrichment.
RSS
US Sen. Cory Booker Refuses to Endorse Zohran Mamdani for NYC Mayor

US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). Photo: Reuters / Rebecca Cook.
US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) declined to endorse New York Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani in his bid for New York City mayor, underscoring a simmering divide within the Democratic party over whether to embrace the anti-Israel politician.
Booker, a former presidential candidate known for his progressive rhetoric and background in community activism, has often walked a careful line when it comes to the party’s internal divisions. When asked last week by CNN reporter Manu Raju whether he would support Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist, Booker said, “I have learned a long time ago, to let New York politics be New York politics. We have enough challenges in New Jersey.”
Citing heated gubernatorial and legislative races, Booker said his energy will be devoted to his home state of New Jersey before adding, “New York City, I love you. You’re my neighbor. You’re about 10 miles from where I live. You guys figure out your elections. I’m going to be focused on mine.”
Booker’s response came after he dodged an initial question from Raju asking if the senator would support Mamdani, who won the New York City Democratic mayoral in June.
“So, you and I are going to have this conversation, and I’m going to say to you one day, I told you so,” Booker responded. “This is not a left-right issue. It really isn’t. It is an authoritarian, versus people who want pragmatic government that makes a difference in the lives of the American people. I’m one of these people that says the lines that divide us in America are not nearly as strong as the ties that bind us.”
“Big corporations, people want to keep our eyes on the screen, want to pit us against each other and tell us how much we should hate each other,” he continued. “I’m sorry, the left-right lens is not the right lens to look at this right now. Right now, it is, can we get back to the pragmatic work of governing?”
Booker’s refusal to endorse Mandani broader tensions within the Democratic party over the rising influence of its far-left, progressive wing, particularly among younger lawmakers who have been outspoken critics of US military aid to Israel. Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has drawn national attention for his calls to end what he describes as unconditional support for the Israeli government, a position that has attracted both praise from progressive activists and backlash from pro-Israel groups and establishment Democrats.
Booker, who has long positioned himself as a supporter of Israel while also advocating for Palestinian rights, has grown increasingly cautious in recent years about aligning with candidates whose positions might alienate key constituencies. Despite the growing anti-Israel sentiment within the Democratic base, Booker has remained outspoken about the need to secure the release of the remaining hostages in Gaza. Booker regularly wears a yellow ribbon pin on the lapel of his suit jacket as a sign of his support for the hostages.
Many observers have argued that the New York City mayoral race, though local, is a proxy battle for the future of the Democratic party, with some claiming that Mamdani’s blend of left-wing economic policies and anti-Zionism are reflective of the party’s increasingly progressive base.
Mamdani, the 33‑year‑old state assemblymember and proud democratic socialist, defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other candidates in a lopsided first‑round win in the city’s Democratic primary for mayor, notching approximately 43.5 percent of first‑choice votes compared to Cuomo’s 36.4 percent.
A little-known politician before this year’s primary campaign, Mamdani is an outspoken supporter of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination.
Mamdani has also repeatedly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, falsely suggesting the country does not offer “equal rights” for all its citizens, and promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
Mamdani also defended the phrase “globalize the intifada”— which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand political violence — by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. In response, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum repudiated the mayoral candidate, calling his comments “outrageous and especially offensive to [Holocaust] survivors.”
RSS
Harvard President Denies Looming $500 Million Deal With Trump to Restore Federal Funding: Report

Harvard University President Alan Garber speaks during the 374th Commencement exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 29, 2025. Photo: Reuters Connect via Brian Snyder
Harvard University President Alan Garber has told faculty that he will not settle the institution’s dispute with the Trump administration by shelling out $500 million, the Harvard Crimson reported on Monday, contradicting a New York Times article which claimed that the move is impending.
Rather, Harvard has resolve to continue on fighting the federal government in court, the Crimson said, even as it faces a $1 billion shortfall caused by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the confiscation of $3 billion in taxpayer-funded research grants and contracts previously awarded to the university. Amid this cash crunch Harvard has resorted to leveraging its immense wealth to borrow exorbitant sums of money.
In March it issued over $450 million in bonds as “part of an ongoing contingency planning for a range of financial circumstances.” It offered another $750 million in bonds to investors in April, a sale that is being managed by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
According to the Crimson, Garber insists that the Times report is erroneous.
“In a conversation with one faculty member, [he] said that the suggestion that Harvard was open to paying $500 million is ‘false’ and claimed that the figure was apparently leaked to the press by White House officials,” the Crimson said, noting that the Times believes its reporting is on the mark. “In any discussions, Garber reportedly said, the university is treating academic freedom as nonnegotiable.”
Garber’s apparent assurances to faculty that the university will not concede to Trump for financial relief comes as it takes conciliatory steps that seem aimed at reversing an impression that it is doctrinally far left, as well as anti-Zionist. In July, it announced new partnerships with Israeli academic institutions and shuttered its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, transferring their staff to other sections of the university. These moves came after it “paused” a partnership in March with a higher education institution located in the West Bank. Some reports, according to the Crimson, suggest that Harvard may even found a “new conservative research institute” in any deal with the Trump administration.
Other Ivy League schools have made similar steps while resolving their funding disputes with the US federal government.
On Wednesday, Brown University announced that it agreed to pay $50 million and enact a series of reforms put forth by the Trump administration to settle claims involving alleged sex discrimination and antisemitism. The government is rewarding Brown’s propitiating by restoring access to $510 million in federal research grants and contracts it impounded.
Per the agreement, shared by university president Christina Paxson, Brown will provide women athletes locker rooms based on sex, not one’s self-chosen gender identity — a monumental concession by a university that is reputed as one of the most progressive in the country — and adopt the Trump administration’s definition of “male” and “female,” as articulated in a January 2025 executive order issued by Trump. Additionally, Brown has agreed not to “perform gender reassignment surgery or prescribe puberty blockers or hormones to any minor child for the purpose of aligning the child’s appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex.”
Regarding campus antisemitism, the agreement calls for Brown University to reduce anti-Jewish bias on campus by forging ties with local Jewish Day Schools, launching “renewed partnerships with Israeli academics and national Jewish organizations,” and boosting support for its Judaic Studies program. Brown must also conduct a “climate survey” of Jewish students to collect raw data of their campus experiences.
Only days ago, Columbia University agreed to pay over $200 million to settle claims that it exposed Jewish students, faculty, and staff to antisemitic discrimination and harassment — a deal which secures the release of billions of dollars the Trump administration impounded to pressure the institution to address the issue.
US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon commented on the resolution, saying it is a “seismic shift in our nation’s fight to hold institutions that accept American taxpayer dollars accountable for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.”
Claiming a generational achievement for the conservative movement, which has argued for years that progressive bias in higher education is the cause of anti-Zionist antisemitism on college campuses, she added that Columbia has agreed to “discipline student offenders for severe disruptions of campus operations” and “eliminate race preferences from their hiring and mission practicers, and DEI programs that distribute benefits and advantages based on race.”
“Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to retain the confidence of the American public by renting their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate,” McMahon continued. “I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”
As Harvard debates its future, it continues to be a theater of an unrelenting debate on the Israel-Hamas war and the US-Israel relationship. On Saturday, pro-Hamas protesters instigated their arrests by local law enforcement during an unauthorized demonstration at Harvard Square.
“At least three protesters were pushed to the ground and handcuffed by police officers,” the Harvard Crimson reported on Sunday. “Several protesters were seen pouring water on their eyes, which were red and apparently irritated by a chemical agent.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.