RSS
U of Minnesota, Temple, Brown among latest federal campus antisemitism investigations
(JTA) – Complaints about anti-Israel protests at Temple and Brown filed by a Jewish right-wing activist who attends neither university are among the latest round of antisemitism investigations opened by the U.S. Department of Education.
The department’s civil rights office is also looking into a series of University of Minnesota faculty statements condemning Israel, following a complaint by a prominent Republican on the law school faculty.
In addition, as of this week the civil rights office has opened investigations at the two largest Bay Area public school districts, where some families have cited antisemitism concerns in applying to transfer out. And it is scrutinizing a private college where a Jewish anti-Zionist professor has publicly supported Hamas.
The investigations are among a new batch announced Wednesday as the department hastens to use its leverage to get universities and school districts to tackle antisemitism on their campuses.
With this latest round, the department’s Office of Civil Rights has now opened more than 50 Title VI “shared ancestry” investigations in the months since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel triggered a wave of campus anti-Israel activism. The department does not comment on its ongoing investigations, which range from the most prestigious Ivy League schools to tiny rural K-12 districts, but says that opening a probe does not mean the case necessarily has merit.
“I think it’s about time,” Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who filed the antisemitism complaint that triggered the school’s Title VI investigation, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “Universities all over America are dealing with this.”
Painter, a former George W. Bush administration official, filed his complaint in December alongside Michael Hsu, a former regent; the department opened its investigation Tuesday. The complaint alleges that the university should have done more to rebut three different liberal-arts faculty groups that published statements condemning Israel after the Oct. 7 attacks.
In a statement, the university said, “The University stands firmly in support of speech and actions that provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from any form of prejudice and intolerance, as our Board of Regents policies state.”
Previously, upon news of Painter and Hsu’s initial Title VI filing, the school had told local media, “The letter’s broad characterizations of the University are inaccurate and are fundamentally contrary to our mission and values.”
One such faculty statement, by members of the department of Gender, Women & Sexuality Studies, reads in part, “We assert that Israel’s response is not self-defense but the continuation of a genocidal war against Gaza and against Palestinian freedom, self-determination, and life.”
This statement was especially galling, Painter felt, because a department with a focus on women, gender and sexuality didn’t mention the sexual assaults committed by Hamas during its attacks. His efforts to have the college’s dean intervene have been unsuccessful, he said. (The other statements he objected to came from professors in the American Indian studies and Cultural Studies & Comparative Literature departments.)
“Henry Ford was putting this kind of crap in newspapers back in the ’30s,” Painter said, referring to the auto mogul’s antisemitic newspaper The Dearborn Independent.
Neither Painter nor Hsu are Jewish, and Hsu, while he was a regent in 2019, opposed university efforts to rename campus buildings named after antisemites. (Painter’s wife Karen, who is not Jewish, is an academic who studies the antisemitism of Nazi-era music.) But Painter said he still sees the fight against campus antisemitism as one he can lead.
“This is a critical issue not just for the Jewish community, but for our democracy,” he said. And he believes his efforts at the university have already borne fruit: After a candidate to lead the school’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion office recently hedged in an interview on whether Hamas had assaulted Israeli women during its attack, he and other like-minded critics mobilized against the potential hire. Following the resulting bad press, the person is no longer a candidate for the job.
“We did win,” Painter said about the DEI fight. “That went all over.”
Two other new antisemitism investigations, at Temple University and Brown University, both stem from one complainant: Zachary Marschall, a professor at the University of Kentucky and editor-in-chief of the right-wing college advocacy site Campus Reform.
Marschall is Jewish but has no connection to either school. He told JTA he independently filed those complaints, and 18 others, after interviewing “Jewish and pro-Israel students across the country who are too afraid to speak out.”
On Campus Reform, he published partial copies of letters from the Department of Education confirming that it had opened the investigations based on his complaints; a statement from a Brown representative also noted that the investigation stemmed “from beyond Brown’s campus” and named Marschall’s publication as its source.
Marschall said his Temple complaint was related to recent reports of pro-Palestinian protesters in Philadelphia targeting an Israeli-owned falafel shop, as well as “From the river to the sea” chants at rallies by the school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. The department opened its Temple investigation on Tuesday.
In a statement about the investigation, a Temple spokesperson said, “Temple University unequivocally condemns hate and discrimination against any person and will always strive to ensure that all of our students, faculty, and staff feel welcomed and safe in our community and throughout our campus.”
Marschall’s Brown complaint was also tied to that university’s SJP chapter, which released a statement shortly after the Oct. 7 attacks holding “the Israeli regime and its allies unequivocally responsible for all suffering and loss of life, Palestinian or Israeli.” His complaint also quotes from campus vigils held by the chapter in the days after the attacks, at which students reportedly chanted “Glory to our martyrs.” The department opened its Brown investigation Jan. 9; universities elsewhere have banned or suspended their SJP chapters since the war began.
Information on the reasons for the other new Title VI investigations was not immediately available, but several of the schools in question have made headlines recently for antisemitism-related reasons.
Two large Bay Area public school districts, San Francisco Unified School District and Oakland Unified School District, are the sites of two of the remaining investigations. Oakland’s was opened on Tuesday and San Francisco’s was opened on Jan. 12.
Both districts have experienced a rash of controversy over Israel in recent months: Jewish parents in Oakland have begun pulling their students out of public schools after incidents including the local teachers union voting on a measure calling for an end to U.S. aid to Israel, while San Francisco’s district recently reviewed a contract with a local anti-Zionist group that had organized a walkout for Palestinians and another protest.
The San Francisco teachers union also passed a resolution in November calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, which prompted the head of the local Jewish Community Relations Council to label the union “bigoted.”
In response to queries, a representative for Oakland’s district said it does not comment on pending legal matters but added, “OUSD is a sanctuary district, inside Oakland, a sanctuary city, inside California, a sanctuary state, which means we support all students, families and staff, regardless of religion, heritage, ethnicity, where they came from, or how they got here. We protect all students, and harassment of anyone is never acceptable.
“In this time of heightened tensions because of what’s happening in the Middle East, we are regularly communicating to our community, reminding them of our core values of love and support, so it should be clear that everyone is welcome and valued in our schools,” the statement continued.
Representatives for the San Francisco district and both teachers unions did not return requests for comment.
In response to a query about an investigation at Ohio State University opened Tuesday, a spokesperson for the school did not say what the investigation concerned. “Ohio State has never – and will never – tolerate discrimination or harassment of anyone based on their religious beliefs, nationality or identity,” the spokesperson wrote.
OSU had recently been the site of two reported incidents at which Jewish students and buildings were targeted: one in which two Jewish students were punched in the face after a “verbal altercation” outside a bar, and another in which trespassers to the campus Hillel stole Israeli flags and yelled insults at staff. Although the pro-Israel advocacy group StandWithUs, which is active in campus antisemitism matters, had sent a stern letter to university leadership the same day the investigation opened, a representative for the group told JTA it was a “crazy coincidence” and that it wasn’t behind the investigation.
Meanwhile, Jewish alumni at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pennsylvania, told JTA that multiple Title VI antisemitism complaints had been filed against the school in recent weeks. More than 7,700 people have signed an online petition urging administrators to remove a Jewish anti-Zionist anthropology professor who has published opinion pieces supporting Hamas and questioning whether it can be blamed for the violence on Oct. 7. The Department of Education opened an investigation into the college on Tuesday, but the specific trigger for the investigation could not be verified.
In a statement, a Muhlenberg spokesperson said, “We do not tolerate antisemitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia or any other form of harassment, bigotry or abuse nor any incitement to violence or calls for genocide. If/when there are accusations of conduct violations, these are thoroughly investigated with appropriate actions taken based on the findings.”
Finally, the Department of Education announced a new investigation at the University of Illinois Chicago on Jan. 10, which it listed as the second such investigation at the university in the past month. The first concerned a complaint brought by Palestine Legal, a pro-Palestinian legal group that alleged the university had discriminated against Arab and Palestinian students by kicking them out of a 2021 webinar about the Israeli healthcare system.
But it was possible the second investigation might in fact be a correction of the first investigation. A spokesperson for Palestine Legal told JTA that the education department told the organization on the same day that it had revised the discrimination claim in its initial investigation from “shared Muslim ancestry” to “shared Palestinian ancestry,” as one of the complainants is Christian. UIC representatives and the Department of Education did not return requests for comment.
—
The post U of Minnesota, Temple, Brown among latest federal campus antisemitism investigations appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
How the International Law Cases Against Israel Could Truly Cripple the IDF
International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan speaks during an interview with Reuters in The Hague, Netherlands, Feb. 12, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw
Due to the sheer volume of recent news stories concerning Israel, you may have missed two mostly unnoticed but important developments regarding Israel in the world of international law.
In the International Court of Justice (ICJ), South Africa has been suing Israel for genocide. I’ve been saying for months that South Africa does not have a case, but that the lawsuit is nonetheless dangerous because South Africa’s goal is not to win. Instead, its goal is to achieve an “emergency injunction” that would stop Israel’s campaign against Hamas, effectively handing the terror organization a victory.
Such an injunction would not require actually proving the claims against Israel, and so the emergency injunction has always been South Africa’s (and Hamas’) best chance of effectively defeating the IDF.
South Africa has made two unsuccessful attempts to obtain emergency orders, and is now coming up against an October 28 deadline to, at long last, submit their actual evidence of “genocide.”
Last week, South Africa petitioned the ICJ for an extension of several months, apparently because (unsurprisingly) they have not succeeded in finding such evidence.
While this is a small vindication, it is by no means the end of the story. Ihe ICJ is only nominally a “court,” but in reality, functions as a political body. The ICJ’s current President is Nawaf Salam of Lebanon, which is effectively controlled by the Iranian backed Hezbollah terror organization and is actively at war with Israel. The ICJ judges include representatives from countries that have recently demonstrated strongly anti-Israel agendas, such as China and Brazil, as well as South Africa — the very country that’s suing Israel. Even the US delegate to the court has voted consistently against Israel in recent decisions.
In fact the only judge who has stood both firmly and eloquently in favor of Israel is the court’s Vice President, Julia Sebutinde of Uganda.
So while logic dictates that South Africa should not be able to win a lawsuit without evidence, politics has no such limitations. Israel has been petitioning the United States Congress for support in pressuring the ICJ to drop their case, and so has my organization.
An entirely separate international body is the International Criminal Court (ICC), in which prosecutor Karim Khan has petitioned the court to issue arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as several Hamas leaders (two of whom are now dead).
The court has been deliberating the request since May, and last week, Khan issued a new request that the court issue the arrest warrants “urgently.”
It is not clear why such arrest warrants are now more urgent than before, yet some Israeli sources are concerned that the ICC may be sympathetic to the prosecutor’s request anyway. There is some speculation that this “urgency” may be designed to preempt Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the UN General Assembly later this month.
Much like the emergency orders in the ICJ, these ICC arrest warrants do not actually require proof. Instead, the prosecutor needs to provide only minimal evidence that his claims are reasonably possible, and he gets to do so “ex parte” — which means alone and without Israel having the opportunity to respond.
Like the ICJ, the ICC is also primarily a political body in the guise of a “court,” and therefore, sufficiently dramatic claims against Israel, especially when presented “ex parte” and with the right political pressure, may be adequate to persuade the judges.
Why does all of this matter? Here’s just one example: since the election of the Labor government, the UK has removed its objection to the ICC proceedings, and this month suspended the shipment of certain military items to Israel, in what amounts to essentially a “soft embargo.” The items in question include important parts for military equipment, such as the F-35 fighter jet, which wear out quickly and need constant replacement. Such parts are manufactured in only a few factories in the entire world and cannot be easily replaced.
Why doesn’t Israel make the parts itself? The factories are so specialized that even if Israel started building one today, it would take years and billions of dollars before production could even begin. Even “Israeli” inventions, such as the Merkava tank, make use of these specialized parts from foreign sources. In short, for the foreseeable future Israel depends on foreign resources to keep the IDF working.
If a relevant international body such as the ICJ were to make a ruling against Israel, instead of seeing a “soft embargo” of some military equipment by some countries, we might see official worldwide embargoes encompassing all equipment.
In as little as several months, as equipment begins to fail, the IDF could run out of working jets, helicopters, tanks, and all of the other tools necessary for the IDF to function as an actual army. Israel would become defenseless, not only against even a weakened Hamas, but also against Iran and all of its various proxies.
This reality relates to may other issues. For example, in the recent debate over whether Israel should abandon the Philadelphi corridor as part of a hostage deal, some IDF generals claim that Israel can simply retake it “at any time.” Yet when IDF generals speak about Israel’s capabilities, they usually refer only to military tactics and strategy, and often overlook the geopolitical forces that could strip the IDF of its capacity to function.
If Israel were to enter an internationally binding agreement (for example over Philadelphi) and then violate it, these kind of embargoes are just one possible consequence.
For this reason, we are keeping a close eye on activities at the ICC, the ICJ, the United Nations, the US Congress, and all the various bodies that have significant influence over Israel’s long term safety, and are actively involved in petitioning those bodies as well.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post How the International Law Cases Against Israel Could Truly Cripple the IDF first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The Los Angeles Times and AP Refuse to Correct False Claim About Rachel Corrie
The Associated Press (AP) and Los Angeles Times have both neglected to correct erroneous reports in recent days, which incorrectly claimed that US activist Rachel Corrie was killed 2003 by an Israeli military demolition, while she was protesting a home demolition in the Gaza Strip.
In fact, a 2012 Haifa court ruling found that the bulldozer that accidentally killed Corrie was clearing brush used for attacks against Israeli troops, and was not demolishing homes.
In their Sept. 7 AP article, “Israeli soldiers fatally shot an American woman at a West Bank protest, a witness says,” Julia Frankel and Aref Tufana reported:
American Rachel Corrie was crushed to death as she tried to block an Israeli military bulldozer from demolishing a Palestinian home. [Emphasis added.]
Similarly, The Los Angeles Times’ Laura King’s Sept. 9 page A1 article (and also online), “Pattern of impunity alleged after activist’s killing… ” erred:
In 2003, another American activist with the organization, 23-year-old Rachel Corrie, was crushed by an Israeli army bulldozer as she tried to block home demolitions in the Gaza Strip. [Emphasis added.]
The Haifa court that ruled on the Rachel Corrie case found that the bulldozer was clearing brush, not demolishing homes. The court stated:
The mission of the IDF force on the day of the incident was solely to clear the ground. This clearing and leveling included leveling the ground and clearing it of brush in order to expose hiding places used by terrorists, who would sneak out from these areas and place explosive devices with the intent of harming IDF soldiers.
There was an urgency to carrying out this mission so that IDF look-outs could observe the area and locate terrorists thereby preventing explosive devices from being buried.
The mission did not include, in any way, the demolition of homes. The action conducted by the IDF forces was done at real risk to the lives of the soldiers. Less than one hour before the incident that is the focus of this lawsuit, a live hand-grenade was thrown at the IDF forces. [Emphasis added.]
While both AP and The Los Angeles Times failed to correct their reports even after CAMERA supplied them with the court document, The Jerusalem Post last week commendably corrected the identical error.
Tamar Sternthal is the director of CAMERA’s Israel Office. A version of this article previously appeared on the CAMERA website.
The post The Los Angeles Times and AP Refuse to Correct False Claim About Rachel Corrie first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
After Accidental Killing, the PA Admits the Truth in English, Incites Violence in Arabic
Israeli forces gather at the scene of a shooting attack near a Jewish outpost, near Nablus, in the West Bank, December 16, 2021. REUTERS/Ammar Awad
If you read the official Palestinian Authority (PA) news agency WAFA’s reports, the information you receive is highly dependent on what language you read.
The PA openly lies in both Arabic and English, but sometimes it is aware of the need to hide its outrageous lies from the US and the English-speaking world.
Here’s an example:
A week ago, a Turkish-American member of the anti-Israeli International Solidarity Movement (ISM) was shot and killed unintentionally while she participated in violent riots against Israeli forces at Beita Junction near Nablus.
To its readers in Arabic, the PA said Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi was “executed.”
But readers in English were informed that she was “killed”:
WAFA in Arabic
WAFA in English
Headline: “The [PA] Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemns the occupation’s crime of executing an American solidarity activist in the town of Beita”
“The [PA] Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates condemned in the strongest language the despicable crime in which the occupation’s [i.e., Israel’s] forces executed Turkish-American solidarity activist Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi this afternoon, Friday. They opened live fire on her and hit her in the head in the town of Beita, south of Nablus.”
[WAFA, official PA news agency, Sept. 6, 2024]
Headline: “Foreign Ministry condemns killing of US activist by Israeli forces”
“The Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ministry today condemned the killing of a US activist by Israeli occupation forces in the town of Beita, south of the occupied West Bank city of Nablus.
The Ministry condemned in the strongest possible terms the killing of Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi, a 26-year-old US activist of Turkish origin, who was directly shot in the head during a peaceful demonstration in the village of Beita…”
[WAFA, official PA news agency, English edition, Sept. 6, 2024]
A subtle difference that speaks volumes.
In Arabic, the PA wants to provoke Palestinians into a state of rage and readiness to take revenge against Israel.
In English, the PA is aware that the US received the information from Israel that the shooting of Eygi was not intentional but was an accidental result of her participation in the violent riots.
Yet no one calls out the discrepancy, or what the PA is trying to do with its lies and different messages for different audiences.
The author is the Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). A version of this article originally appeared at PMW.
The post After Accidental Killing, the PA Admits the Truth in English, Incites Violence in Arabic first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login