RSS
The Question That Reveals the Antisemite
Palestinian supporters protesting outside a Scotland vs. Israel match at the a UEFA Women’s European Qualifiers at Hampden Park, Glasgow, Scotland on May 31, 2024. Photo: Alex Todd/Sportpix/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
JNS.org – One of the more irritating questions being asked today, as it has been asked for years, is: When does criticism of Israel become antisemitism?
For many of us, this is a question barely deserving of any answer other than: “If you have to ask, you’ll never know.” If you can look upon the masses of frenzied maniacs in the streets and on campus with their shrieking calls for genocide and not understand that they are crossing some kind of line, then you are more or less beyond saving.
Nonetheless, there are times when the question is asked out of simple ignorance. Non-Jews are often genuinely perplexed by the issues of Israel and antisemitism, and there is at least the vague possibility that they are willing to be educated.
I am probably not the person who should undertake this education, given that my opinion on the matter is something of an outlier. I believe that at a time when Jews are being targeted and literally murdered by people who hate Israel, there is no possible way that criticism of Israel is not subjectively or objectively antisemitic. Whether well-intended or utterly scurrilous, such criticism must feed the beast.
I realize that most people—and most Jews—disagree with me. Nonetheless, I think that, for them, the question of when criticism becomes antisemitism is not as difficult to answer as it might seem.
There is, in fact, a fairly simple litmus test for antisemitism. One need only ask of a critic: Are they OK with killing Jews?
This simple litmus test is, ironically, what set me on the path towards Zionism and Israel. In my youth, I was a conformist who adopted the anti-Israel progressive ideology of my surrounding environment to the point that friends accused me of self-hatred (they were right). It was only when the Second Intifada broke out in 2000 that I realized—to my shock and great confusion—that those I considered allies were perfectly fine with killing Jews, and I knew this because they said so. I left the progressive world and never looked back.
This is not just a question of whether someone openly supports killing Jews, however. After all, if they do, there is no question as to their antisemitism. Hence our rage and dismay when shouts of “death to Israel” on university grounds are dismissed as, at worst, overheated rhetoric.
Still, antisemites are not always so forthright. For example, many people will engage in some preliminary throat-clearing by saying things like: “Yes, Oct. 7 was terrible” or “Of course, Israel has a right to defend itself” before they launch into the rant that follows their inevitable “but … ”
What the rant usually amounts to—behind the crocodile tears over civilian casualties, settler-colonialism and other clichés—is a fairly simple if unspoken assertion: When faced with the murder of its citizens, Israel should do absolutely nothing. Moreover, anything Israel does do is by definition a crime.
Despite the fact that the people who make this argument generally consider themselves to be little less than saints, one can only make such an argument by relying on a singular and singularly monstrous principle: Jewish lives are worthless.
That is, the saints are arguing that Jews and the state they created to protect them should forgo all human instinct, morality, dignity and common sense, and just sit there and let themselves be murdered. No one who sees any value whatsoever in the life of a Jew—or, one suspects, any life at all—could possibly believe such a thing, let alone say it out loud. For those who do believe it, “antisemite” is the only viable description.
Sadly, we see saints everywhere these days. They are not just on the campuses or in the classrooms. They are at the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. They have infiltrated innumerable governments around the world, including that of the United States. They are activists and diplomats and journalists. They are professors and philosophers. And they are, sometimes, our friends and neighbors. They profess to a humanistic worship of all life, especially human life, and yet … they are perfectly OK with killing Jews.
Naturally, many of the saints are only dimly aware of their mortal sin. If confronted, they will never admit to it and, quite often, fly into paroxysms of rage at the prospect. Nonetheless, it is not difficult to discern who they are behind the mask of sanctity.
To uncover their true face, we need only demand something rather obvious but also rather radical: actual revulsion, actual horror at the murder of Jews. We must see them repelled by the very thought that it could happen, all over again, in this generation like all the others.
If someone criticizes Israel but still displays such revulsion and horror, then we can at least tentatively assume they are not antisemitic. At the very least, we can grant them the benefit of the doubt. Where we go from there, of course, is what will ultimately decide who is the saint and who is not.
The post The Question That Reveals the Antisemite first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Immigration Judge Rules Palestinian Columbia Student Khalil Can Be Deported
Mahmoud Khalil speaks to members of media about the Revolt for Rafah encampment at Columbia University during the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Gaza, in New York City, US, June 1, 2024. Photo: Jeenah Moon via Reuters Connect
A US immigration judge ruled on Friday that Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil can be deported, allowing President Donald Trump’s administration to proceed with its effort to remove the Columbia University student from the United States a month after his arrest in New York City.
The ruling by Judge Jamee Comans of the LaSalle Immigration Court in Louisiana was not a final determination of Khalil’s fate. But it represented a significant victory for the Republican president in his efforts to deport foreign pro-Palestinian students who are in the United States legally and, like Khalil, have not been charged with any crime.
Citing the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Trump-appointed US Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined last month that Khalil could harm American foreign policy interests and should be deported for his “otherwise lawful” speech and activism.
Comans said that she did not have the authority to overrule a secretary of state. The judge denied a motion by Khalil’s lawyers to subpoena Rubio and question him about the “reasonable grounds” he had for his determination under the 1952 law.
The judge’s decision came after a combative 90-minute hearing held in a court located inside a jail complex for immigrants surrounded by double-fenced razor wire run by private government contractors in rural Louisiana.
Khalil, a prominent figure in the anti-Israel student protest movement that has roiled Columbia’s New York City campus, was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria, holds Algerian citizenship and became a US lawful permanent resident last year. Khalil’s wife is a US citizen.
For now, Khalil remains in the Louisiana jail where federal authorities transferred him after his March 8 arrest at his Columbia University apartment building some 1,200 miles (1,930 km) away. Comans gave Khalil’s lawyers until April 23 to apply for relief before she considers whether to issue a deportation order. An immigration judge can rule that a migrant cannot be deported because of possible persecution in a home country, among other limited grounds.
In a separate case in New Jersey, US District Judge Michael Farbiarz has blocked deportation while he considers Khalil’s claim that his arrest was made in violation of the US Constitution’s First Amendment protections for freedom of speech.
KHALIL ADDRESSES THE JUDGE
As Comans adjourned, Khalil leaned forward, asking to address the court. Comans hesitated, then agreed.
Khalil quoted her remarks at his hearing on Tuesday that nothing was more important to the court than “due process rights and fundamental fairness.”
“Clearly what we witnessed today, neither of these principles were present today or in this whole process,” Khalil said. “This is exactly why the Trump administration has sent me to this court, a thousand miles away from my family.”
The judge said her ruling turned on an undated, two-page letter signed by Rubio and submitted to the court and to Khalil’s counsel.
Khalil’s lawyers, appearing via a video link, complained they were given less than 48 hours to review Rubio’s letter and evidence submitted by the Trump administration to Comans this week. Marc Van Der Hout, Khalil’s lead immigration attorney, repeatedly asked for the hearing to be delayed. Comans reprimanded him for what the judge said was straying from the hearing’s purpose, twice saying he had “an agenda.”
Comans said that the 1952 immigration law gave the secretary of state “unilateral judgment” to make his determination about Khalil.
Khalil should be removed, Rubio wrote, for his role in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States.”
Rubio’s letter did not accuse Khalil of breaking any laws, but said the State Department can revoke the legal status of immigrants who could harm US foreign policy interests even when their beliefs, associations or statements are “otherwise lawful.”
After Comans ended the hearing, several of Khalil’s supporters wept as they left the courtroom. Khalil stood and smiled at them, making a heart shape with his hands.
Khalil has said criticism of the US government’s support of Israel is being wrongly conflated with antisemitism. His lawyers told the court they were submitting into evidence Khalil’s interviews last year with CNN and other news outlets in which he denounces antisemitism and other prejudice.
His lawyers have said the Trump administration was targeting him for protected speech including the right to criticize American foreign policy.
“Mahmoud was subject to a charade of due process, a flagrant violation of his right to a fair hearing and a weaponization of immigration law to suppress dissent,” Van Der Hout said in a statement after the hearing.
The American immigration court system is run and its judges are appointed by the US Justice Department, separate from the government’s judicial branch.
The post US Immigration Judge Rules Palestinian Columbia Student Khalil Can Be Deported first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Releases Video of Israeli-American Hostage Held in Gaza
FILE PHOTO: Yael, Adi and Mika Alexander, the family of Edan Alexander, the American-Israeli and Israel Defense Forces soldier taken hostage during the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, pose for a photograph during an interview with Reuters at the Alexander’s home in Tenafly, New Jersey, U.S., December 14, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Stephani Spindel/File Photo
Hamas on Saturday released a video purportedly of Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander, who has been held in Gaza since he was captured by Palestinian terrorists on October 7, 2023.
In the undated video, the man who introduces himself as Edan Alexander states he has been held in Gaza for 551 days. The man questions why he is still being held and pleads for his release.
Alexander is a soldier serving in the Israeli military.
The edited video was released as Jews began to mark Passover, a weeklong holiday that celebrates freedom. Alexander’s family released a statement acknowledging the video that said the holiday would not be one of freedom as long as Edan and the 58 other hostages in Gaza remained in captivity.
Hamas has released several videos over the course of the war of hostages begging to be released. Israeli officials have dismissed past videos as propaganda that is designed to put pressure on the government. The war is in its eighteenth month.
Hamas released 38 hostages under a ceasefire that began on January 19. In March, Israel’s military resumed its ground and aerial campaign on Gaza, abandoning the ceasefire after Hamas rejected proposals to extend the truce without ending the war.
Israeli officials say that campaign will continue until the remaining 59 hostages are freed and Gaza is demilitarized. Hamas insists it will free hostages only as part of a deal to end the war and has rejected demands to lay down its arms.
The US, Qatar and Egypt are mediating between Hamas and Israel.
The post Hamas Releases Video of Israeli-American Hostage Held in Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Some Progress in Hostage Talks But Major Issues Remain, Source tells i24NEWS
Demonstrators hold signs and pictures of hostages, as relatives and supporters of Israeli hostages kidnapped during the Oct. 7, 2023 attack by Hamas protest demanding the release of all hostages in Tel Aviv, Israel, Feb. 13, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Itai Ron
i24 News – A source familiar with the ongoing negotiations for a hostage deal confirmed to i24NEWS on Friday that some progress has been made in talks, currently taking place with Egypt, including the exchange of draft proposals. However, it remains unclear whether Hamas will ultimately accept the emerging framework. According to the source, discussions are presently focused on reaching a cohesive outline with Cairo.
A delegation of senior Hamas officials is expected to arrive in Cairo tomorrow. While there is still no finalized draft, even Arab sources acknowledge revisions to Egypt’s original proposal, reportedly including a degree of flexibility in the number of hostages Hamas is willing to release.
The source noted that Hamas’ latest proposal to release five living hostages is unacceptable to Israel, which continues to adhere to the “Witkoff framework.” At the core of this framework is the release of a significant number of hostages, alongside a prolonged ceasefire period—Israel insists on 40 days, while Hamas is demanding more. The plan avoids intermittent pauses or distractions, aiming instead for uninterrupted discussions on post-war arrangements.
As previously reported, Israel is also demanding comprehensive medical and nutritional reports on all living hostages as an early condition of the deal.
“For now,” the source told i24NEWS, “Hamas is still putting up obstacles. We are not at the point of a done deal.” Israeli officials emphasize that sustained military and logistical pressure on Hamas is yielding results, pointing to Hamas’ shift from offering one hostage to five in its most recent agreement.
Negotiators also assert that Israel’s demands are fully backed by the United States. Ultimately, Israeli officials are adamant: no negotiations on the “day after” will take place until the hostage issue is resolved—a message directed not only at Hamas, but also at mediators.
The post Some Progress in Hostage Talks But Major Issues Remain, Source tells i24NEWS first appeared on Algemeiner.com.