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
US Justice Department Charges Hamas Leaders for Oct. 7 Massacre in Israel
US Attorney General Merrick Garland speaking at a hearing of the House Judiciary committee at the US Capitol. Photo: Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced terrorism charges against several top leaders of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas for orchestrating the Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel.
The DOJ revealed in an unsealed complaint on Tuesday that six key Hamas leaders have been issued charges of terrorism, murder conspiracy, and sanctions-evasion for their roles in the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks. Ismail Haniyeh, Yahya Sinwar, Mohammad Al-Masri, Marwan Issa, Khaled Meshaal, and Ali Baraka played central roles in planning and perpetrating the slaughter of 1,200 people and abduction of 251 others as hostages on Oct. 7 when Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists invaded Israel from neighboring Gaza, according to the DOJ.
“The Justice Department has charged Yahya Sinwar and other senior leaders of Hamas for financing, directing, and overseeing a decades-long campaign to murder American citizens and endanger the national security of the United States,” US Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement.
“On Oct. 7, Hamas terrorists, led by these defendants, murdered nearly 1,200 people, including over 40 Americans, and kidnapped hundreds of civilians,” Garland continued. “This weekend, we learned that Hamas murdered an additional six people they had kidnapped and held captive for nearly a year, including Hersh Goldberg-Polin, a 23-year-old Israeli American. We are investigating Hersh’s murder, and each and every one of Hamas’s brutal murders of Americans, as an act of terrorism. The charges unsealed today are just one part of our effort to target every aspect of Hamas’ operations. These actions will not be our last.”
In the unsealed complaint, the DOJ explained how Iran, which US intelligence agencies have repeatedly labeled the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism, has helped empower Hamas to commit acts of violence against Israel. The department outlined how Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), have materially “supported, supplied, and trained” the Hamas terrorist group. The DOJ argued that Hamas has played a critical role in Iran’s “global and regional ambitions of damaging, weakening, and ultimately destroying both the United States and Israel.”
“The IRGC has provided Hamas, among other things, rockets and technical assistance necessary to build rockets and tens of millions of dollars in annual funding for Hamas’ terror wing, including through cryptocurrency payments.”
The complaint alleged that Hamas received support from Hezbollah, another Iran-backed Islamist terror group, which operates out of Lebanon.
“Hamas’s leadership has acknowledged the instrumental role that support from the government of Iran and from Hezbollah” played in its ability to carry out the Oct. 7 massacre, according to the DOJ.
In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 attacks, Hezbollah launched an offensive on Israel’s northern border, firing rockets, missiles, and drones on Israeli communities from southern Lebanon almost daily. The barrages have forced tens of thousands of families to flee to other areas in the country.
Iran’s deployment of Hamas and Hezbollah, the DOJ argued, are part of the Iranian regime’s “years-long strategy to encircle Israel with armed proxy groups, instigate turmoil, and promote acts of terrorism.”
Haniyeh was Hamas’s top leader and the head of its political bureau until he was killed in an explosion in Iran on July 31. While Hamas and Iran have blamed Israel for the assassination, Jerusalem has neither confirmed nor denied being behind the killing.
Sinwar, who had been Hamas’s chief in Gaza, was picked to succeed Haniyeh as the terrorist group’s overall leader. Israel has said that Sinwar is “marked for death” as the architect of the Oct. 7 attack, which was orchestrated along with Al-Masri, the Hamas military wing commander better known Muhammad Deif, who was killed by the Israeli military in July.
According to reports, Sinwar is alive in southern Gaza and, to deter being targeted by Israeli forces, has surrounded himself with hostages kidnapped on Oct. 7.
The DOJ has charged the six Hamas leaders with “conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization resulting in death,” “conspiring to provide material support for acts of terrorism resulting in death,” “conspiring to murder US nationals outside the United States,” “conspiring to bomb a place of public use resulting in death,” and “conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction resulting in death.” Each of these charges carry a maximum penalty of life in prison or death.
In addition, the DOJ has handed the terrorists with charges of “conspiring to finance terrorism” and “conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.” Each of these carries maximum penalties of up to 20 years in prison.
“From the moment Hamas launched its horrific attack on Oct. 7, the FBI has been dedicated to identifying and charging those responsible for these heinous crimes,” FBI Director Christopher Wray said in a statement. “The FBI has and will continue to relentlessly investigate these attacks on civilians, including Americans. Hamas is a foreign terrorist organization with a long history of violence, and the group’s actions have resulted in increased terrorism threats in the US and against American interests throughout the world. Countering terrorism remains our number one priority, and our work continues.”
The post US Justice Department Charges Hamas Leaders for Oct. 7 Massacre in Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Anti-Hate Groups Blast Meta Oversight Board for Declaring ‘From the River to the Sea’ Not Hate Speech, Incitement
Anti-Israel protesters hold a banner that says, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” standing in front of the president’s palace in Warsaw, Poland, on Nov. 5, 2023. Photo: IMAGO/Marek Antoni Iwanczuk via Reuters Connect
The oversight board for Facebook’s parent company announced on Wednesday that the anti-Israel slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is not hate speech or a call for violence, leading to outrage from groups dedicated to combating antisemitism and other forms of bigotry.
Meta’s board posted on its official website that the popular rallying cry for anti-Israel activists did not break Meta’s “rules on Hate Speech, Violence and Incitement or Dangerous Organizations and Individuals” and therefore should not lead to content removal.
Specifically, Meta said it considered three separate uses of the phrase in Facebook posts and found they “contain contextual signs of solidarity with Palestinians — but no language calling for violence or exclusion.” The board added that the three cases did not “glorify or even refer to Hamas,” the Palestinian terrorist group that rules Gaza and is designated as “dangerous” by Meta.
“In upholding Meta’s decisions to keep up the content, the majority of the board notes the phrase has multiple meanings and is used by people in various ways and with different intentions,” the announcement stated. “A minority, however, believes that because the phrase appears in the 2017 Hamas charter and given the October 7 attacks, its use in a post should be presumed to constitute glorification of a designated entity, unless there are clear signals to the contrary.”
Despite Meta’s conclusion, many observers have argued that the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” has been widely interpreted as a call for the destruction of the Jewish state, which is located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Some Jewish and anti-hate groups lambasted Meta for its decision, arguing that the rallying cry is a form of incitement and presents an implied call for violence against Jews and Israelis.
The Anti-Defamation League, for example, rejected the company’s “short-sighted decision,” arguing the phrase “calls to dismantle Israel, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland.”
“‘From the river to the sea’” is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish people’s right to self-determination,” the ADL posted on X/Twitter. “This rallying cry, enshrined in the charter of Hamas, has long been used by anti-Israel voices, including supporters of terrorist organizations like Hamas and PFLP [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine], which seek Israel’s destruction through violent means.”
The ADL concluded, “Usage of this phrase has the effect of making members of the Jewish and pro-Israel community feel unsafe and ostracized, and we call on Meta to recognize the harm this phrase poses to Jewish communities worldwide. This decision continues the pattern of supreme indifference to online hate and harassment that has long been the hallmark of Meta’s leadership.”
The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) expressed similar sentiments on Wednesday.
“‘From the River to the Sea’ is a slogan created with the sole vision of destroying the national homeland of the Jewish people,” CAM CEO Sacha Roytman said in a statement. “It is genocidal in intent and meaning, and is not a legitimate political or ideological vision, because it targets the one Jewish state and its inhabitants for destruction.”
Roytman went on to argue that the Meta board “appears to have special rules for Jews and the Jewish state because they seem to always come down on the side of antisemites and give them a benefit of the doubt that they would dare not give any other racist or hate group. They have given a green light for incitement to genocide.”
The oversight board’s decision came after Meta in July removed its ban on the use of the Arabic word “shaheed,” or “martyr” in English, after a year-long review.
That same month, Meta announced an update to its moderation policy regarding posts that use the word “Zionists” as a proxy to target Jews or Israelis in hate speech. Meta said it would begin removing posts that use “Zionists” to refer to Jews and Israelis in harmful and derogatory ways.
The post Anti-Hate Groups Blast Meta Oversight Board for Declaring ‘From the River to the Sea’ Not Hate Speech, Incitement first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The Wall Street Journal’s Israel Coverage Is Extremely Biased
An aerial view shows the bodies of victims of an attack following a mass infiltration by Hamas gunmen from the Gaza Strip lying on the ground in Kibbutz Kfar Aza, in southern Israel, Oct. 10, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Ilan Rosenberg
Throughout the 10 months of war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, The Wall Street Journal’s opinion page has been one of mainstream media’s most sympathetic to Israel and its fight against terrorism.
With riveting analyses and a wide range of perspectives, the Journal’s opinions page stands out as a light in the darkness.
However, the same cannot be said of the Journal’s news section.
Since Hamas’s invasion of southern Israel on October 7, HonestReporting has called out the Journal numerous times for its subtle (and, sometimes, unsubtle) bias against Israel and the Jewish State’s justified war against Hamas.
This bias takes the form of misleading its readers by leaving out vital context, whitewashing Hamas, and relying on Hamas propaganda as a legitimate news source.
The Wall Street Journal’s Bias Against Israel Since October 7
One of the key ways in which The Wall Street Journal’s reporting is biased against Israel is by the omission of vital information needed for its readers to fully understand Israel’s actions and what is happening in Gaza.
For example, in early November 2023, the Journal wrote that even though the IDF had been encouraging Palestinians to leave northern Gaza for three weeks, “many Gazans have been unable to flee due to ongoing Israeli airstrikes,” implying that Israel was solely responsible for putting local Palestinians in harm’s way.
However, what this article failed to inform Journal readers is that many Palestinians were also being prevented from venturing south due to Hamas attacks on those who were trying to flee northern Gaza.
Similarly, a month later, after the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas broke down, the Journal headlined its article “Israel Resumes Combat Operations in Gaza as Ceasefire Stalls,” focusing on Israeli actions and ignoring Hamas’ resumption of rocket fire against Israel that preceded Israel’s resumption of military operations in the Gaza Strip.
We’ve fixed it for you, @WSJ. There’s one side that broke the ceasefire before it expired. Clue: It wasn’t Israel.https://t.co/ThrdpBtMRX pic.twitter.com/X3ad1VZk33
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) December 1, 2023
And it’s not only reports on the current conflict between Israel and Hamas that are misleading and lacking a proper context. For example, in the last weeks of December 2023, the Journal published two articles that featured misleading claims about Israel in general.
The first, about Israeli immigration policy, made it seem as if Israeli law is somehow discriminatory against non-Jews. However, as HonestReporting noted, the naturalization process for non-Jews to become Israeli citizens is similar to the process found in other democratic countries and is not inherently discriminatory.
The second misleading claim was made a week later, when the Journal reported that the imposition of the Israeli/Egyptian blockade of Gaza in 2007 following Hamas’ violent ascension to power ended decades of Gazan employment within Israel, implying that Israel purposefully made conditions harder for innocent Palestinians living in Gaza.
This is simply not true as, up to October 7, 2023, roughly 18,000 residents of Gaza had permits to work in Israel.
The Journal’s misleading pieces on the conflict continued into 2024, with a January report referencing Israel’s conducting “strikes on hospitals and other key infrastructure in its pursuit of the tunnels” with no mention of Hamas purposefully embedding itself within these “civilian” sites.
A June article referenced the closing of the Rafah crossing since Israel’s invasion of the southern Gazan city, but did not mention the fact that Egypt is the one intent on keeping it closed, not the Jewish State.
Actually, @WSJ, Israel has said it has conducted strikes on key Hamas infrastructure that the terrorist organization purposely built underneath hospitals, mosques, schools, and homes.
Fixed it for you. https://t.co/N4sp1SJwjS pic.twitter.com/WQnf9SCJGB
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) January 28, 2024
Another aspect of The Wall Street Journal’s biased reporting is its whitewashing of Hamas.
Even on October 7, as Israeli forces were battling Hamas terrorists in southern Israel, the Journal published an explainer piece on the internationally-recognized terror group that included the false claim that Hamas is focused on creating an independent Palestinian state and has been open in recent years to a two-state solution.
The piece ignored the fact that Hamas views this “openness” as a temporary step in achieving its ultimate goal of destroying the Jewish State.
Months later, the Journal once again whitewashed the terror group when it referred to Hamas’s political chief Ismail Haniyeh in a headline as the “leading advocate for a Gaza cease-fire,” ignoring his long history of advancing terrorism against Israelis and his support of the October 7 attack.
Hamas Charter: we will “raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine… Peace initiatives are in contradiction to our principles.”@WSJ: “Hamas has indicated it is willing to accept a two state solution” and suggests Israel escalated the hostility. pic.twitter.com/thtXyaJjXs
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) October 7, 2023
Aside from whitewashing Hamas, the Journal’s reporting bias also extends to its uncritical reliance on Hamas as a source.
For example, in the immediate aftermath of the explosion at Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza in October 2023, the Journal’s headline parroted Hamas’s talking points, writing that “Israeli airstrike on Gaza hospital kills more than 500, Palestinian officials say.”
Hours later, it was determined that the explosion was caused by an errant Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket, and that the casualty numbers were much lower than the 500 that the Journal initially reported.
Months later, the Journal continued to take Hamas propaganda for granted, including buying into the claim in May 2024 that Hamas had agreed to a ceasefire (which it had not negotiated with anyone except itself), and repeating the claim that an August attack by the IDF on a Hamas center had killed “dozens of civilians.”
In fact, the Journal’s reliance on Hamas’s uncorroborated facts led it to wonder what could account for the discrepancy between the IDF’s assertions and Hamas’ claims, ignoring the fact that the former is a sovereign democracy’s military while the latter is an internationally-recognized terror organization.
Do @WSJ just take Hamas’s statements as fact? pic.twitter.com/CI1IXbSI2F
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) October 17, 2023
The Wall Street Journal’s Poisoned Pen
Aside from its implicit bias, another issue with The Wall Street Journal’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict is its reliance on contributors with a history of hostility to Israel, who help contribute to the distorted framing of the newspaper’s narrative.
In the first month of the war, HonestReporting shined a light on Palestinian journalist Fatima AbdulKarim, who had been affiliated with the Journal since before the war.
Based in Ramallah, AbdulKarim has a history of incendiary social media posts that accuse Israel of “Apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing,” rely on anti-Israel sources like Breaking the Silence and Defense for Children International-Palestine (a front for the PFLP terror organization), and distort the news in order to whitewash Palestinian terrorism and smear Israeli actions.
In August 2024, HonestReporting uncovered the hate-filled social media history of Journal contributor Abeer Ayyoub, who celebrated October 7 on X (formerly Twitter), spread fake news about a kidnapped Israeli general, mocked Israel in its darkest hour, and whitewashed Hamas’ terrorism.
To solidify her anti-Israel presence online, Ayyoub commented in Arabic “Eat sh*t” on a message of sympathy with Israel by X owner Elon Musk on October 7.
With contributors like Fatima AbdulKarim and Abeer Ayyoub, is it any wonder that there is a noticeable trend of bias that permeates The Wall Street Journal’s ongoing coverage of Israel’s war against Hamas?
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 The Wall Street Journal’s Israel Coverage Is Extremely Biased first appeared on Algemeiner.com.