RSS
The Line from Jonathan Glazer to the Columbia and National Encampments
Director Jonathan Glazer, of the United Kingdom, poses with the Oscar for Best International Feature Film for “The Zone of Interest” in the Oscars photo room at the 96th Academy Awards in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, US, March 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Barria
A week after Jonathan Glazer’s now infamous Oscar speech, a letter appeared in the Hollywood trade publication Variety that refuted his statement. That letter was signed by approximately 450 Hollywood professionals at the time of its initial publication. The number of signers would climb to more than 1,330 in the following days. I was among the 1,330 who signed the letter.
It was bad enough that Glazer drew, in the words of the letter, “a moral equivalence between a Nazi regime that sought to exterminate a race of people, and an Israeli nation that seeks to avert its own extermination.” But he also blamed the war on Israel’s occupation — “an occupation which has led to conflict,” as he put it.
An occupation of what, I wondered.
Israel hasn’t occupied Gaza since 2005, so that can’t be the cause of the current conflict. Many, even many Jews and Israelis, find Israel’s settlements on the West Bank problematic, but I’ve yet to see anyone make the case that this West Bank “occupation” was what led Hamas to attack on October 7.
That only leaves “occupation” in the sense that Israel’s enemies use the term — to describe the very existence of the state of Israel. That is precisely the meaning of “From the River to the Sea,” a geographic area that encompasses all of Israel.
So if Glazer is suggesting that Israel’s very existence is the cause of the conflict, what, I wondered, would he suggest as the solution?
Of course, an anti-Israel polemic like Glazer’s speech is hardly unusual or surprising — not before October 7, and even less so since. What upset me more than the speech itself was the applause it received from the audience that night, and the absence of any dissenting voices during the Oscar broadcast.
I can’t speak for everyone who signed the letter, but I thought it was important, essential even, that Glazer’s claims not go unchallenged in the general culture.
My father spent his working life as a professor of cultural anthropology. As such, he had a very specific lens through which he viewed various laws and policies in terms of how they impacted the culture beyond the more narrow realms to which they applied.
For example, he spoke about capital punishment not just in terms of its function in the criminal justice system, but also in terms of the message it sent throughout the larger culture regarding the value (or lack of value) our society places upon human life. And before the liberals who are reading this begin nodding too vigorously in agreement, he made the same point about abortion. Not that he opposed either abortion or capital punishment. But he saw the costs in terms of messages sent through culture and the impact those messages have upon the society at large.
And so, when Glazer stood upon one of the most prominent stages of our culture and sent his message, seeming to suggest that Israel caused the war by its very existence and is comparable to Nazi Germany, it had — and has — an impact.
I am not going to argue that Glazer’s speech directly led to the student encampments at Columbia and NYU and many other colleges. Nor will I argue that his speech resulted in the intensification of the rhetoric of those protestors, who have continued to praise Hamas, support the October 7 massacre, and oppose any Jewish state in the Middle East. I think it’s unlikely, given the demographics of the Oscars’ audience, that many of the student protestors saw the Oscars. But messages permeate culture like a cup of dye diffusing throughout a gallon of water.
The message Glazer sent has been doing just that.
Glazer’s not the only one, of course. In Hollywood, he’s in the company of Susan Sarandon, Cynthia Nixon, and Mark Ruffalo, among many others. Hundreds of Jewish professionals signed a competing letter endorsing Glazer’s views.
When President Biden erroneously states that Israel has been “indiscriminately bombing civilians,” when our UN delegation refuses to veto a resolution calling for a ceasefire without conditioning it on the release of the hostages, when various US officials call on Israel to “be more careful” not to kill civilians (as though they are not already being more careful than any other military force in history, including ours), it all sends a clear message — that Israel is the villain in the current conflict.
I’ve heard from some pro-Israel Democrats who excuse this rhetoric: so what if Biden has to criticize Israel to appease his left flank politically, they say, as long as he keeps sending arms and aid? And yes, the arms and aid are important. But so is the rhetoric. According to a recent Pew Research poll, only 36% of Americans currently favor sending military aid to Israel. Is this shockingly low number due to all the anti-Israel rhetoric? How long before the negative rhetoric drives public opinion to the point where the continuation of aid is politically untenable? The rhetoric moves the culture, and our culture is definitely moving against Israel, and against all Jews.
When Hitler came to power in 1933, he did not immediately begin sending Jews to concentration camps. It would be seven years until Auschwitz would open in 1940. A lot would happen in those seven years to lay the groundwork for Auschwitz, to prepare the culture with policies that demonized and dehumanized. In 1933, Jews were barred from the Civil Service and university positions. In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws denied Jews German citizenship. In 1936, Jewish doctors were barred from practicing medicine. 1938 brought Kristallnacht, the expulsion of all Jewish pupils from German schools, and the forced transfer of all Jewish retail businesses to Aryans. And through all of this, there were mass anti-Jewish protests at German universities that might feel eerily familiar in light of recent news. This is a well known story to those who have studied the history of the period.
I don’t mean to suggest that governmental laws of discrimination and persecution in Nazi Germany are the equivalent of antisemitic chants and harassment on American campuses, but our culture is moving in a very disturbing direction. The rabid vitriol of the “mostly peaceful” campus protests certainly seems like an escalation — as we hear of students calling for “a final solution,” the destruction of Tel Aviv, 10,000 more October 7ths, and so on. This escalation has not come about because the death and destruction in Gaza has recently escalated. Quite the contrary, the fighting has largely paused. I would guess that the warming weather and approaching end of the school year partly explains the students’ timing. But so do the cumulative effects of the messages permeating the culture.
So are we now seven years away from our own Auschwitz? I’m not nearly pessimistic enough to believe that’s where we are headed. But groundwork is being laid and the culture is being changed. The preconditions for the Holocaust included the German national humiliation of World War I and an economic collapse the likes of which none of us have ever known. What would happen in this country if we suffered a humiliating defeat to, say, China, coupled with a Weimar-level economic catastrophe? Would it be possible for a demagogue to rise in need of scapegoats? Would the groundwork that is being laid now in our culture, demonizing the Jews, come into play?
So what do we do? We push back against the negative messages going out in the culture. We refute Jonathan Glazer’s Oscar speech. We let President Biden know, as the Muslims in Michigan have done, that no, he cannot just count on our votes regardless of what he and his underlings say. We let our alma maters know, as Robert Kraft has done, that they no longer have our support or our money if they can’t protect their Jewish students. And we make sure that Israel thrives and remains secure, so that, just in case the worst should happen some day, we have a place to go this time.
The post The Line from Jonathan Glazer to the Columbia and National Encampments first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll
Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.
In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.
Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking school recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).
“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”
Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.
“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”
She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”
The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.
According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.
The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”
The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.
Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.
“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.
Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.
“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.
The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.
“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”
Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.
Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.
While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.
This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.
“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.
“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide
Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.
Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”
WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.
The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.
“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.
“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”
Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.
“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”
In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.
In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.
The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.
“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”
In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”
The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.