RSS
The Quiet Antisemitism: My Experience as a Jewish College Professor
There are plenty of examples of blatant antisemitism and attacks on Jews that have occurred over the past 10 months. It seems that every day, we read about a synagogue being attacked, a Jewish student being spat on or assaulted, or the all too mainstream protester chants calling for Intifada or for Jews to go back to Poland — and the list goes on.
Perhaps less obvious — but more frequent — is the antisemitism that’s happening under the radar: things that are circumstantial and much harder to prove.
I’m not talking about Jewish writers having their lectures cancelled out of concern “for their safety” — it’s clear to everyone (except the organizers) where the motivation comes from.
No, this is the kind of discrimination that Black people and others experienced before the Civil Rights movement — and even after: being rejected as a tenant on a lease to an apartment, passed over for a job or promotion based on the color of their skin , or — as in my case — perhaps not having a contract renewed at a college after speaking out against their policies regarding “free speech.”
Do I have proof that me being Israeli or Jewish had anything to do with my dismissal?
Absolutely not.
But are the circumstances suspicious? Yes.
Two years ago, I accepted a Visiting Assistant Professorship in the English Department of a private Midwestern college in the United States. It was a one-year contract, and following the first year, the Chair of the Department notified me how much he appreciated my work — noting the anonymous student evaluations that gave me high marks, that a large number of students requested to take a second class with me, and that I helped raise the visibility of the college through public performances by my students. He also informed me that there was restructuring going on in the English Department, which would result in some of the classes I was teaching being offered only periodically.
In short, he asked me if I would be interested in remaining affiliated with the school, and return either every other semester, or, for instance, if another English teacher took a sabbatical. That suited me fine, as it allowed me to continue teaching, but also gave me time for my own creative endeavors back in Los Angeles, where I was commuting from every week.
On October 7, I was not teaching on campus. But like so many other colleges, a segment of the student population rose up to protest Israel. And even though I was a thousand miles away, I received an email from a student member of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) notifying all faculty that the group was calling for a one-day strike to protest, accompanied with a list of atrocities Israel had allegedly committed, even listing the bombing of the Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza two weeks earlier, which had already been attributed to a stray missile from Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
How was it possible for one student to access the entire faculty and student body to spew their propaganda?
I contacted the Provost and Dean of the college to inquire. She replied that this was a recent policy change put into place two years earlier to encourage freedom of expression. I asked how this policy might play out if I rebutted the student’s charges through the college-wide email system, only to have another student rebut my defense, and so on and so on?
She replied that if it got out of hand, the school would shut it down.
I replied that the situation had already gotten out of hand, and trusted I wouldn’t be receiving anymore emails from such organizations.
The student newspaper got wind of this, and contacted me for my opinion. Here’s what they wrote in their article:
Safdie, who is of Israeli and Syrian Jewish descent, found sections of the message antisemitic and questioned why he received the email. “I’m all for freedom of expression, but I’m not sure this decision was able to foresee such a situation where students might abuse the privilege and create a hostile work/study environment for other members of the community.”
Fast forward several months, when I returned to campus for the Spring semester. Within a week of arrival, I received an email from the new chair of the English Department (who was also the associate Dean of the Race and Ethnic Studies program). She wanted to set up a Zoom meeting with me — even though our offices were 10 feet apart.
In a carefully worded statement that sounded like it was crafted by an attorney, she got to the point. Although the college was extremely pleased with all the work that I’d done, and that all my students loved my teaching, the college was making budget cuts and were not going to be able to renew my contract.
When I tried to explain to her my prior arrangement with the previous Chair, she simply replied that she’d be happy to write me a letter of recommendation.
Something about the Zoom call and her demeanor felt suspicious.
On a whim, I did an Internet search on my new Chair.
The first thing that came up on her Twitter Feed was a statement on the masthead of a literary magazine she edited, condemning the alleged mass killing and displacement of Palestinians in the wake of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks.
As I explored further, I discovered other parts of the statement:
The Israeli military—with the support of the U.S. government—has bombarded Palestinian civilians relentlessly, in violation of international law, and deprived Palestinians of food, water, fuel, and electricity.
And:
Because we work to “bring our readers into the living moment, not as tourists, but as engaged participants,” we believe that Palestinians need space to speak directly, whether from siege in Palestine or in diaspora. So too do others who bear witness to the ongoing settler-colonial violence in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Two days after the Zoom meeting, I figured I might as well take the Chair up on her offer to write me a letter-of-recommendation; it was March, and I could still apply to other universities for employment the following year. (Universities can be suspicious if you leave a position after just two years, so a letter would be crucial to securing a position.)
After a week of email silence, the Chair wrote me back, saying that she wasn’t familiar with my teaching and requested to attend one of my classes to observe my skills. I invited her the following week to attend a class, which fit her schedule, but she did not show, and didn’t even write to give an explanation.
I followed up with an email to offer her another opportunity, followed by a second and third, but there was nothing but email silence.
I should also mention that, at the one faculty meeting we had, she stayed as far away from me as possible, and if I approached, she would quickly engage in discussion with another professor. The topic that day was adding a requirement for English Majors to take an anti-Racism class. One of the new offerings for the following year was focused on racism against Palestinians.
By the end of April, I decided to contact the Associate Dean of Humanities who oversaw the English Department, and sure enough, within an hour of my email, I finally received an email back from the Chair of the English Department, offering to attend my class, but letting me know that she was too busy to write me a letter of recommendation until the end of May — well past the end of the semester, and too late to help with a teaching application for the following year.
If there was ever a thought of going to the administration to complain about my treatment, that was quickly extinguished following an SJP demonstration that demanded that the college divest from Oracle. Apparently, Oracle’s website had stated support for Israel, and the Head of Financial Aid for the college felt the need to apologize for the school’s actions.
A response from the school’s administration read thus:“The business strategy or public statements from Oracle do not represent the viewpoints of the College. Due to the College’s contract with the business and the cost it took to make such major system changes, the College does not have any feasible or affordable alternative.
It also went on to assure protesters:
Less than 0.5 percent of the College’s investments are tied to Israeli companies and that none of these investments are directly held by the college.
As the semester ended, on another whim, I searched the Human Resources page of the college, and sure enough, there was a listing for a new English professor. The skills they were looking for were for someone who taught poetry as well as Race and Ethnic studies courses — none of which I was qualified to teach.
Was the college looking to shift away from courses like Screenwriting, Playwriting, and Non-Fiction — three popular courses I had taught that were always in high demand and had long waiting lists?
I guess I’ll never know.
Oren Safdie is a playwright and screenwriter.
The post The Quiet Antisemitism: My Experience as a Jewish College Professor first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Is Justin Trudeau’s Resignation Good News for Israel?
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau holds a press conference on the sidelines of the UNGA in New York, US, Sept. 21, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Mike Segar
Canada, once a symbol of justice and democracy, has lost its moral standing. Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the nation has not only distanced itself from Israel, but also compromised its own integrity. This is more than a mere policy shift — it is a fundamental collapse of democratic values, leaving Canada’s global reputation in question.
Canada’s support for Israel has always been inconsistent. Unlike other Western nations that swiftly recognized Israel in 1948, Canada abstained from the first attempt at Israel’s admission into the United Nations, contributing to its denial. Canada only granted full recognition after Israel successfully joined in 1949. This pattern of uncertainty continued over the decades, with frequent mixed signals and wavering commitments.
During critical moments, such as the First Intifada, Canada remained indecisive. While then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney defended Israel, External Affairs Minister Joe Clark condemned its actions, accusing Israel of using excessive force. This back-and-forth approach became a trademark of Canadian foreign policy: some support, lots of criticism, little consistency.
Some former Canadian leaders, like Stephen Harper, broke the cycle and demonstrated strong support for Israel. These instances, however, were rare. Under Trudeau, the relationship deteriorated further, shifting from lukewarm support to outright antagonism.
The Canada-Israel relationship arguably hit its lowest point following the horrific Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023.
Instead of offering unwavering support for Israel, Trudeau’s government condemned Hamas’ attacks but also urged Israel to exercise restraint. While recognizing Israel’s right to self-defense, his administration expressed concern over civilian casualties and questioned aspects of its military response.
To make matters worse, Canada supported a United Nations resolution calling for a ceasefire without explicitly condemning Hamas.
For Israelis, this was more than a diplomatic failure — it was a betrayal. Trudeau’s response sent a clear message: Israel, as well as Jewish lives, were secondary to political expediency and the benefit of others.
Trudeau’s approach was not accidental; it reflected a strategic effort to balance competing political pressures in Canada and abroad.
Internationally, he sought to position Canada as a mediator in the Middle East, even at the risk of straining its relationship with Israel. Domestically, his stance aimed to increase Canadian support, particularly of those Canadians critical of Israel’s actions.
This approach has consequences. Canada-Israel trade, while still significant, has shown little growth in recent years. Security and defense cooperation have not advanced as they once did, while Israel has increasingly prioritized strategic partnerships with nations like India.
In Canada, antisemitism has surged, and Trudeau’s government has done little to counter it. Since October 7th, hate crimes against Jews have skyrocketed by 670%. Synagogues, schools, and community centers have been targeted. Though Jews make up just 1.4% of Canada’s population, they are the targets of 70% of religious hate crimes.
The ultimate insult came when Canada signaled support for the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) move to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The ICC selectively prosecutes Israel — but disregards human rights abuses in totalitarian regions like Iran and North Korea. The ICC’s actions reveal a blatant double standard, and by aligning with this hypocrisy, Trudeau positioned Canada on the wrong side of history.
Trudeau’s abandonment of Israel is part of a broader global shift, prioritizing political convenience over long-term alliances, a trend seen by leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron. This dangerous trend weakens the West at a time when authoritarian powers like China and Russia are expanding their influence in the Middle East.
Rebuilding trust will not be easy. Canada requires more than a policy adjustment; it needs a fundamental shift in leadership. The next prime minister must prioritize genuine partnerships based on shared values rather than political gain. Until then, the damage to Canada’s reputation remains.
With Trudeau stepping down, Canada has a rare opportunity to reset its foreign policy. The question now is whether the next leader will seize this chance, or allow the damage to deepen. Time will tell, but the stakes could not be higher.
The writer is a high school student from Great Neck, New York, passionate about advocacy and government. Through his writing and activism, he engages others in meaningful conversations about US politics, international relations, and Israel’s significance as both a homeland for the Jewish people and a key ally of the United States.
The post Is Justin Trudeau’s Resignation Good News for Israel? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The Future of Syria Is Uncertain; Here’s What Israel Should Be Doing (PART ONE)
Saudi Arabia’s Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman meets Syria’s newly appointed Foreign Minister Asaad Hassan al-Shibani, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Jan. 2, 2025. Photo: Saudi Press Agency/Handout via REUTERS
The main lesson of the surprise attack on the Assad regime by the rebels in Syria begins with an overall view of the strategic logic that drives the Middle East region. The lesson that many in the West refuse to accept is that the region is a perpetually unstable ecosystem.
An ecosystem is sensitive to any small change. The conceptual opposite of an ecosystem is a sophisticated railway system. In the railways, operational stability is planned and managed according to a linear engineering design. In an ecosystem, conversely, stability is the result of systemic equilibrium and is always both temporary and sensitive to changes.
Western culture, which aspires to establish a reality of sustainable stability in the region, finds it difficult to accept that the Middle East — which contains clans, tribes, and radical terrorist organizations — is a system that operates according to the dynamics of an ecological system.
The achievements of the Israeli war against Hezbollah in Lebanon and against Hamas in the Gaza Strip created new conditions that marked an opportunity for the Sunni rebels in Syria. They took their chance and attacked the Assad army and the Iranian Shiite militias, toppling the Assad regime in less than two weeks.
The constant search by many Middle East actors for new fighting opportunities lies in their fundamental perception of all situations of calm, even prolonged periods of apparent peace, as temporary.
The Turks dream of returning to the expanses of the Ottoman Empire. Aleppo once played a central economic and symbolic role in connection with the cities of the Harran Valley in Turkey, including the city of Shelly-Orfa. After Napoleon’s retreat from Egypt and the Land of Israel, Muhammad Ali, the ruler of Egypt, sought to extend his control from Israel to Aleppo. In the years 1839-1841, the Second Egyptian-Ottoman War took place in the region. With the help of a British expeditionary force, the Ottomans defeated the Egyptian army and pushed it from the Aleppo region to the outskirts of Sinai. Greater Syria, which extended to the Land of Israel, returned to Ottoman control. Turkey aspires to restore this regional order. From their perspective, the struggle began in Aleppo with the pursuit of Damascus, which contains important Sunni mosques.
There is much more involved here than a longing for the past. The past in this region drives religious and national struggles. I learned this during a visit to the Iranian pavilion at the Shanghai Expo. Opposite the visitors’ entrance, a map of the Persian Empire from the time of Darius was displayed across the entire wall. This was a kind of declaration that Iran aspires to return to that glorious past.
This kind of thinking is the driving force in the region — even for borders that have gained international validity, such as the Sykes-Picot borders. In the Middle East, nothing outweighs religious and national dreams. Those dreams never fade; they rather await the right opportunity.
For Americans who continue to seek a stable and sustainable regional order, it is worth suggesting that they treat the Middle East as if it were prone to hurricanes that erupt from the oceans and strike the region from a system of forces beyond human control.
This is not to say that no capabilities exist with which to restrain and delay conflicts in the regional chaos that characterizes the Middle East. But even arrangements that seem to promise a degree of stability and calm must be sensitive to the possibility of unexpected factors arising within the system.
Tactical note
The rebel offensive in Syria also teaches an important tactical lesson about the characteristics of the new war. As on October 7, we saw the outbreak of rapid battle movement involving civilian vehicles, including motorcycles, SUVs and vans, in mobile and agile groups.
No one who promises a demilitarized Palestinian state will be able to stop the Palestinians from purchasing motorcycles and SUVs. Israelis should give thought to the image of a raiding party on motorcycles and jeeps breaking into Israel by surprise from Tulkarem-Qalqilya to cut through the coastal strip. They must understand that the IDF, with all its strength, cannot guarantee overwhelming superiority in any possible context.
The IDF’s operations in Syria
Even the best intelligence experts had difficulty predicting the tsunami of the rebel assault that so swiftly toppled the Syrian government and its army.
There is a great lesson here in recognizing the limitations of human knowledge. We cannot pretend to know or be able to control events that occur suddenly and unpredictably. Precisely for this reason, the speedy organization by the Israeli leadership and the IDF of a proper response to the Syrian rebel surprise deserves special appreciation.
The IDF’s rapid operational response to developments in Syria was guided by three objectives:
- To strengthen the defense effort on the Golan Heights. It is worth noting that preparations for strengthening and expanding Israel’s defense systems in the Golan — through proactive operations east of the border fence — began in the Golan Division, with the support of the Northern Command, several months ago. These preparations enabled a rapid response to expand Israel’s defensive hold on vital areas in the buffer zone defined in the 1974 Separation of Forces Agreement between Israel and Syria. The IDF also took control of the peaks of the Hermon Range in a location that allows for influence deep inside Syria and southern Lebanon.
- To destroy the numerous weapons left behind by the Syrian army in Syria. In an unprecedented attack by the Israeli Air Force and Navy, weapons systems were destroyed that, had they remained operational, could have been used against the State of Israel. This effort was carried out with rapid momentum and precise management.
- To project power in the face of the chaos and make clear that the State of Israel has a security-strategic interest in the developing trends in Syria and will not be content to passively look on. Prime Minister Netanyahu wisely emphasized that Israel will try not to interfere in the institutionalization of the new order being organized in Syria. However, Israel has an interest in influencing developments in southern Syria in the Yarmouk Basin, where, until recently, Shiite militias took part in efforts to smuggle weapons to the Palestinian Authority and towards the Kingdom of Jordan. Looking north from the Hermon area, Israel has a primary interest in preserving Hezbollah’s isolation in Lebanon and preventing any possibility of reinforcements or new weapons arriving via Syria.
The first two objectives have been achieved in an astonishing manner. The third is complex and will require dynamic monitoring combined with an international effort emphasizing Israeli interests.
The situation in Syria continues to be unprecedented in its uncertainty.
Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen is a senior research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. He served in the IDF for 42 years. He commanded troops in battles with Egypt and Syria. He was formerly a corps commander and commander of the IDF Military Colleges. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post The Future of Syria Is Uncertain; Here’s What Israel Should Be Doing (PART ONE) first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Palestinian Authority: Munich Massacre of Israeli Athletes was a ‘Quality Operation’
An image of one of the Palestinian terrorists who took part in the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
Forty-six years after the death of Ali Hassan Salameh, who planned the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972, the Palestinian Authority (PA) continues to tout Salameh as a hero.
The official PA news agency, WAFA, praised Salameh, who was the commander of operations of the Black September terror organization, saying his “name was associated with many quality operations” — a reference to the Olympics Massacre:
Headline: “46 years since the death as a Martyr of leader Ali Hassan Salameh”
“On Jan. 22, 1979, the Israeli Mossad (Israeli Secret Intelligence Service) assassinated leader Ali Hassan Salameh ‘The Red Prince’, who was the founder of the PLO leadership security force (later Force 17) [parentheses in source]
… As soon as he moved to Beirut, he was assigned to oversee the special operations against the Israeli occupation worldwide. His name was associated with many quality operations.” [emphasis added]
[WAFA, official PA news agency, Jan. 22, 2025]
A week earlier, the PA and Fatah marked the 34th anniversary of the assassination of two other terror leaders: Salah Khalaf “Abu Iyad,” who was the head of Black September, and “fighter Fakhri Al-Omari ‘Abu Muhammad,’” a co-founder of Black September and “one of the close associates of Abu Iyad in the united [PA] Security Forces.”
The official PA daily praised the terrorists as follows:
With their deaths as Martyrs, the PLO, the Palestinian revolution, and Fatah lost [two] of their most committed and skilled leaders, whose record is filled with sacrifice and struggle against the Israeli occupation…”
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 15, 2025]
Fatah vowed … to continue the struggle and the resistance to the occupation [i.e., Israel] and its aggressive machinery, and to protect our people’s achievements that were painted with the blood of the Martyrs until defeating the occupation and achieving our people’s freedom and independence.” [emphasis added]
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 15, 2025]
Black September was a secret branch of Fatah, and today’s Fatah didn’t miss the opportunity to join in glorifying terrorist mastermind Salameh.
Fatah marked Salameh’s “death as a Martyr” by posting the image above with the following text:
Text: “46 years since the death as a Martyr of commander Ali Hassan Salameh”
[Fatah Commission of Information and Culture, Facebook page, Jan. 22, 2025]
The PA and Fatah’s infatuation with Salameh and fellow terrorist murderers from Black September is not new. For decades, Palestinian Media Watch has exposed the glorification of the Munich Olympics attack and its perpetrators and planners.
In fact, this past summer, the PA chose to name its largest summer camp, which hosted 150 children aged 7-13, after terrorist Salah Khalaf, “Abu Iyad.”
On the 50th anniversary of the massacre, Palestinian Media Watch exposed that what has become a dark stain on the Olympics and has settled in the collective global memory as an illustration of the horrors of terrorism, is actually a symbol of glory and honor for the PA.
The author is a senior analyst at Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article was originally published.
The post Palestinian Authority: Munich Massacre of Israeli Athletes was a ‘Quality Operation’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.