Uncategorized
U. of Vermont agrees to improve antisemitism training, ending federal case and capping a tumultuous year
(JTA) – A year of strained relations between the University of Vermont and its Jewish community has led to the school resolving a federal antisemitism complaint and pledging to do more to protect its Jewish students — including from anti-Zionist rhetoric.
The university and the U.S. Department of Education announced Monday that they had reached a resolution to the complaint, which the department took up last fall after it was filed by students and pro-Israel groups. The complaint alleged that the institution had not properly responded to Jewish students’ allegations of antisemitic discrimination. Investigators determined that the university “received notice, but did not investigate” several claims of antisemitic behavior on campus, and that the steps it ultimately took did not adequately address students’ concerns.
Notably, the department’s office of civil rights determined that one of the ways the university’s Jewish students had been discriminated against was through “national origin harassment on the basis of shared ancestry,” reflecting a controversial argument promoted by pro-Israel groups that anti-Zionist rhetoric is harmful to all Jews because the Jewish people share Israel as an ancestral homeland. The resolution of the complaint also reflects a sharp change in course for the school, which had initially denied wrongdoing and blamed the accusations on an orchestrated external campaign — a response that upset the campus Jewish community.
“This complaint was overwhelmingly dealing with the antisemitism that masks as anti-Zionism, and what the resolution demonstrates is how seriously [the office] is taking that kind of antisemitism,” Alyza Lewin, president of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency after the ruling. A pro-Israel legal group that often involves itself in campus disputes, the Brandeis Center was one of the organizations that filed the initial complaint on behalf of mostly anonymous students.
The Department of Education responded to a JTA request for comment by pointing to its letter of resolution with the university. Its civil rights office has fielded several challenges to anti-Zionist rhetoric since the Donald Trump administration expanded the department’s mandate around antisemitism in 2019 under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The office of civil rights is fast becoming a favorite tool for pro-Israel activists: It also announced this week it would open an investigation into allegations of a professor’s antisemitic behavior at George Washington University, a week after the university’s own investigation cleared the faculty member of charges brought by another pro-Israel group.
In the agreement, the University of Vermont pledged to revise its policies for reporting discrimination and to train its staff on how to specifically respond to discrimination complaints. The Department of Education will also review the university’s records regarding its response to last year’s allegations of antisemitism. One of the areas in which the university said it would train staff is on how to recognize “the Title VI prohibition against harassment based on national origin, including shared ancestry.”
Among the allegations: cases of unofficial student groups denying admission to “Zionist” students (including a support group for sexual-assault survivors); one graduate teaching assistant who had mused on social media about lowering the grades of Zionist students; and a group of students who’d reportedly thrown an object at the campus Hillel building (the complaint claimed it was a rock; Hillel staff told JTA it was a puffball mushroom). More than 20% of the university’s student body is Jewish, according to Hillel International.
Evan Siegel, a Jewish junior at the University of Vermont, poses in his off-campus housing in Burlington, October 13, 2022. Siegel was initially critical of his school for its handling of a federal antisemitism investigation, but praised its eventual resolution. (Andrew Lapin/Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
The agreement marked a sharp change from how the university first responded when the government announced its intent to investigate the complaint last fall. Back then, the university’s president, Suresh Garimella, issued a combative statement in which he said the university “vigorously denies the false allegation of an insufficient response to complaints of threats and discrimination.” He also issued a point-by-point refutation of the allegations in the complaint.
Garimella further charged that the complaint had been orchestrated by “an anonymous third party” that had “painted our community in a patently false light.” In addition to the Brandeis Center, the complaint was filed on behalf of students by the watchdog group Jewish On Campus, whose antisemitism-tracking methodology has been criticized by other groups.
Garimella’s combativeness at the time was an unusual move for the leader of a university accused of violating Title VI law, which prohibits discriminatory behavior at federally-funded programs or institutions, such as public universities. Groups like the Brandeis Center have increasingly leaned on Title VI in federal complaints to argue that pro-Israel students face discrimination. Title VI cases have become a central component of litigating multiple kinds of Israel discourse on campus, ranging from a pro-Israel student body president being targeted at the University of Southern California to a resolution passed by pro-Palestinian law student groups at the University of California, Berkeley.
In Burlington, where the university is located, some liberal Jews were initially dubious of the complaint. Felicia Kornbluh, a history professor on campus who often teaches American Jewish history, told JTA she was concerned about “playing into the narrative” of a conservative, pro-Israel agenda set by the Brandeis Center, whom she described as “allies of the Trump wing of the Republican party.” (The center’s founder, Kenneth Marcus, served as assistant secretary of education for civil rights under Trump.)
But the complaint also landed in the aftermath of a contentious Burlington city council meeting at which, Kornbluh and others said, pro-Palestinian protesters became hostile to Jews. The meeting featured a council resolution to endorse the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign against Israel, and resulted in a raucous scene where pro-Palestinian groups shouted down Jewish students singing prayers for peace. Kornbluh described the atmosphere there as “really scary,” and “a little like Nuremberg.” Vermonters for Justice in Palestine, a local activist group, held multiple rallies on campus in support of the administration after the antisemitism complaint was publicized.
Against this backdrop, Garimella’s dismissiveness left the university’s Jewish community frustrated and angry. During a Jewish Telegraphic Agency visit to Burlington after the president’s initial statement, Jewish students and faculty said they felt like university administration was not taking their concerns seriously.
“I feel like we’re not being supported here,” Evan Siegel, a Jewish junior who is involved with student government, told JTA while sitting in off-campus housing adorned with Jewish summer camp memorabilia. “And that sucks.”
Employed as a campus tour guide, Siegel wondered, “How am I supposed to give tours and be like, ‘UVM is the best,’ when my president is being an ass?”
Other Jewish students told JTA at the time they had no intention of supporting the university financially or otherwise after they graduated, and wouldn’t advertise the fact that they were alums.
Matt Vogel, executive director of Hillel at the University of Vermont, where one of the alleged antisemitic incidents had taken place, also reluctantly played a role in the drama of the last year, after hoping he would be able to keep his focus on Hillel’s student programming. As the fall semester was starting, he sent an email home to parents reading, “Antisemitism keeps me awake at night.” Throughout the semester, Hillel also became more active in calling out antisemitism on social media.
“Just by default, we’re at the center of it,” Vogel told JTA last fall in the Hillel building, as student volunteers chopped vegetables for that evening’s Shabbat dinner in the next room. “I’ve overheard a student saying, like, a Hillel sticker on their water bottle might turn into a political conversation about Zionism in the first two seconds.”
Matt Vogel, executive director of Hillel at the University of Vermont, prepares for Shabbat in his Burlington office, October 14, 2022. Vogel praised the university for ultimately resolving its federal antisemitism complaint in April 2023 after months of tension. (Andrew Lapin/Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
Soon, Kornbluh decided that the administration’s response to the allegations was unacceptable, and penned a local op-ed opposing it that was later shared by her faculty union in a show of solidarity.
“I was stunned by the tone and content” of Garimella’s letter, Kornbluh wrote in the piece. Accusing the university of “gaslighting,” she added, “I do know that one persistent rhetorical strategy of antisemites in Europe and the United States has been to say that there is no antisemitism.”
Garimella reversed course following weeks of criticism, a strongly worded letter from more than a dozen Jewish groups including the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee and news of several high-profile antisemitic incidents nationally. In October, the university published a website intended to support Jewish students — accompanied by a new statement from Garimella, who now condemned antisemitism unequivocally.
“I have listened to members of our campus community who experience a sense of risk in fully expressing their Jewish identity,” he wrote. ”I want my message to be clear to the entire campus community: antisemitism, in any form, will not be tolerated at UVM.”
This time, Garimella pledged not only to investigate individual reports of antisemitism, but also to work to change the campus community’s approach to the issue. He committed to further anti-bias training and building a streamlined bias reporting system for students, and said the university’s diversity office would work to build and maintain “meaningful actions that ensure our Jewish students and community members feel support and care.”
After Monday’s resolution, Garimella was fully supportive of the findings of the Department of Education’s investigation.
“The resolution reflects an important step in UVM’s engagement with our students, faculty, staff, alumni, and the surrounding community,” he wrote in a message to the campus. “It also reflects numerous conversations we have had with our campus Jewish community and important local and national voices on the consequential and complex issue of antisemitism.”
In response to a JTA request for comment, a university spokesperson sent copies of the letters from the president and provost. (Throughout the year, the president’s office had declined multiple JTA interview requests.)
Jewish groups, including the university Hillel, celebrated the resolution. “The President and senior leadership’s new statements today represent tangible and accountable steps forward,” Vogel told JTA in a statement. “We hope this ensures that no Jewish student or any student at UVM experiences discrimination or harassment because of their identity.”
The Hillel building at the University of Vermont in Burlington, October 14, 2022. Hillel found itself at the center of a federal antisemitism complaint against the university. (Andrew Lapin/Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
Also celebrating the ruling was Jewish on Campus, a subsidiary of the World Jewish Congress and one of the groups that brought the initial complaint. “Today’s announcement is a victory for the safety and security of Jewish students,” Julia Jassey, the group’s CEO and a University of Chicago undergraduate, said in a statement.
Avi Zatz, the only University of Vermont student on the initial complaint who has made their identity public, is himself an employee of Jewish on Campus. Citing antisemitism in Vermont, Zatz recently transferred to the University of Florida — in a state that may soon pass legislation that, critics say, could harm Jewish studies on all its public campuses.
“I can’t have hoped for a better resolution,” Zatz, a junior, told JTA from his new school in Gainesville, Florida. While he said he was still glad to have left Vermont, he added, “I finally feel a sense of closure.”
Kornbluh, for her part, said the resolution was “a start,” but criticized the university for not voicing a stronger commitment to Jewish studies or meeting with Jewish faculty.
Reached by phone from Madrid, where he is studying abroad this semester, Siegel said he was “proud, determined, ready for more” following the university’s agreement.
“This resolution was really, in a respectful way, a slap in the face to the university to do better,” he said. “I, for one, am ready to get back on campus and continue my work as hard as I can.”
—
The post U. of Vermont agrees to improve antisemitism training, ending federal case and capping a tumultuous year appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Iran Hands Over New Proposal for Talks With US to End War
An Iranian flag lies amidst the rubble of a building of the Sharif University of Technology, which was damaged in a strike, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, April 7, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Tehran has submitted its latest proposal for negotiations with the United States, Iranian state media and a Pakistani official said on Friday, a move that could break a deadlock in efforts to end the Iran war.
The official, involved in Pakistani mediation over the war, said Pakistan had received the proposal late on Thursday and had forwarded it to the US.
Neither the official nor Iranian state news agency IRNA gave details, and the White House declined to comment, while saying negotiations continued. Global oil prices, which remain well above $100 a barrel, eased following news of the proposal.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has caused unprecedented disruption to energy markets, choking off 20% of the world’s oil and gas supplies and causing a record rally in oil prices.
The blockade of the vital sea channel has also increased concerns that there will be an economic downturn. The US Navy is blocking exports of Iranian crude oil, and on Friday the US Treasury warned shippers that they risked sanctions if they paid tolls to Iran to pass through the strait.
A ceasefire has been in place since April 8 but reports that US President Donald Trump was to be briefed on plans for new military strikes to compel Iran to negotiate had pushed global oil prices up to a four-year high at one point on Thursday.
Iran has activated air defenses and plans a wide response if attacked, having assessed that there will be a short, intensive US strike, possibly followed by an Israeli attack, two senior Iranian sources told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
‘TREACHEROUS AGGRESSION’
Washington has not said what its next steps are. Trump said on Tuesday he was unhappy with the previous proposal from Iran, and Pakistan has not set a date for new talks on ending a war that has killed thousands, mainly in Iran and Lebanon.
After US and Israeli airstrikes on Feb. 28, Iran fired at US bases, infrastructure, and US-linked companies in Gulf states, while the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah launched missiles at Israel, which responded with strikes on Lebanon.
Underlining the concerns of the Gulf states, UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash said the “collective international will and provisions of international law” were the primary guarantors of freedom of navigation through the strait.
“And, of course, no unilateral Iranian arrangements can be trusted or relied upon following its treacherous aggression against all its neighbors,” Gargash wrote.
Trump faces a formal US deadline on Friday to end the war or make the case to Congress for extending it under the 1973 War Powers Resolution.
The date looks set to pass without altering the course of the conflict after a senior administration official said that, for the purposes of the resolution, hostilities had terminated due to the April ceasefire between Tehran and Washington.
Financial and energy markets remained on edge because of concerns about the impasse over negotiations and worries that there could be a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
IRAN SAYS NOT TO EXPECT QUICK RESULTS FROM TALKS
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei cautioned on Thursday against expecting quick results from talks.
A senior official of Iran‘s Revolutionary Guards said any new US attack on Iran, even if limited, would usher in “long and painful strikes” on US regional positions, while Aerospace Force Commander Majid Mousavi was quoted by Iranian media as saying: “We’ve seen what happened to your regional bases; we will see the same thing happen to your warships.”
Trump repeated on Thursday that Iran would not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, and said the price of gasoline – an important concern for his Republican Party before midterm elections in November – would “drop like a rock” as soon as the war ended.
Iran says its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes.
The conflict has aggravated Iran‘s economic plight, which could head toward total collapse. However, the regime looks able to survive a standoff for now, despite the US blockade that has curtailed its energy exports.
Axios news site reported that one plan to be shared with Trump during a briefing by top US military leaders that was scheduled for Thursday involved using ground forces to take over part of the strait to reopen it to commercial shipping. Trump is also considering extending the US blockade or declaring a unilateral victory, officials have said.
Washington did not immediately announce any details of its plans.
In a sign that the US was also envisaging a scenario where hostilities cease, a State Department cable due to be delivered orally to partner nations by May 1 invited them to join a new coalition, called the Maritime Freedom Construct, to enable ships to navigate the strait.
France, Britain, and others have held talks on contributing to such a coalition but said they would help to open the strait only when the conflict ends.
Uncategorized
When Jews Are Attacked, the Media Won’t Say ‘Jew’
Orthodox Jews stand by a police cordon, after a man was arrested following a stabbing incident in the Golders Green area, which is home to a large Jewish population, in London, Britain, April 29, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Hannah McKay
As soon as the words “attack in Golders Green” were uttered, everyone in Britain — Jewish or not — understood what that likely meant: another antisemitic attack.
Golders Green is one of the most recognizably Jewish areas in the UK, with around half its population identifying as Jewish. When violence erupts there, the context is not ambiguous.
Witness accounts quickly confirmed what seemed obvious. Two visibly Jewish men, in a well-known Jewish neighborhood, were stabbed. The suspect — a 45-year-old Somali national — was arrested at the scene.
Video footage showed police tasering the attacker and using force to disarm him as he refused to drop his weapon. Yet as news of the attack spread, something else became clear: major British media outlets were struggling to name who had been targeted.
The BBC reported that “two people” had been stabbed, attributing key details to a “Jewish security group,” as though the identity of the victims was uncertain or subjective. Sky News similarly opted for “two people,” stripping the attack of its clear antisemitic context in the headline. Later, Sky went further, running a headline emphasizing the attacker’s “history of mental health issues” — a framing that deflects from the antisemitic motive. The Independent, while calling it a terror attack in its headline, still avoided explicitly stating that Jews were targeted.
You mean two Jews, @SkyNews. https://t.co/OdU8YWw7CT
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) April 29, 2026
This is not a minor omission. It is a pattern that repeats with disturbing consistency. When Jews are the victims, the language shifts. Attacks are softened, anonymized, universalized. Victims become “people.” Targeted violence becomes generic crime. The specificity disappears.
But antisemitism is not generic. It is not abstract. And it is not universal.
Jews are being targeted as Jews.
The data makes that impossible to ignore. According to the Community Security Trust (CST), 3,700 antisemitic incidents were recorded in the UK in 2025 – the second-highest total on record and a 4 percent increase from 2024. That followed 4,298 incidents in 2023, itself a historic peak. The trajectory is clear: antisemitic violence is escalating.
And it is visible beyond statistics. In recent weeks alone, Hatzola ambulances were firebombed, synagogues in Finchley and Kenton were targeted in arson attacks, and a building that formerly hosted a Jewish charity in Hendon was targeted. Now, Jews have been stabbed in one of Britain’s most prominent Jewish communities.
Yet even as this reality intensifies, large parts of the media still struggle — or refuse — to name it plainly.
Why?
Part of the answer lies in a broader narrative environment. For months, British audiences have been exposed to coverage that portrays the Jewish state as uniquely malevolent, often with little context or balance. Mass protests openly invoking “intifada” have been downplayed or sanitized. Extremism, when directed at Jews, has too often been reframed as legitimate grievance.
Within that climate, the reluctance to say “Jew” is not accidental. It reflects a deeper discomfort with acknowledging Jews as a distinct and targeted group.
But language matters. When the media erases victims’ identities, it erases the nature of the crime. And when the nature of the crime is blurred, so too is the urgency to confront it.
This is how normalization happens – not through a single headline, but through repetition. Through omission. Through the quiet reshaping of reality.
If the trend continues, the consequences will not remain confined to headlines. Britain’s Jewish community is already questioning its future in a country where anti-Jewish violence is rising — and where even that violence is not always named for what it is.
Two men were not simply stabbed in Golders Green. Jews were attacked for being Jews. And the media should be able to say so.
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.
Uncategorized
Say ‘Palestine Was Stolen’ and Win Cash From the Palestinian Authority
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas holds a leadership meeting in Ramallah, in the West Bank, April 23, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mohammed Torokman
In a separate episode of official Palestinian Authority TV’s quiz program for the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, participants received cash prizes from PA Chairman Abbas for denying Israel’s existence. Lebanese “refugees from Palestine” were also given money for lengthier answers to questions such as “how significant is Palestine for you?” and “why do we not consider any other homeland outside of Palestine as our homeland?”
This episode and the cash rewards were also sponsored by PA Chairman Abbas, the PLO Department of Refugee Affairs, and official PA TV. The following are excerpts of the questions put to residents of the Al-Badawi and Nahr Al-Bared refugee camps in Lebanon and their answers that all presented Israel as “Palestine.” The envelopes with the cash given to the participants bore the PA’s logo:
Woman 1: “[I’m] from Al-Tira [near] Haifa, in Palestine (sic., Israel).”
Official PA TV host: “How significant is Palestine for you?”
Woman 1: “Palestine is in our hearts, and we educate our children and future generations that we have the right of return to Palestine.”
Host: “Why do our people in the diaspora keep the names of their villages and cities?
Woman 2: “We have not forgotten Palestine nor any of its regions… Allah willing we will return soon, each to his area. The right of return is legitimate…”
Host: “Why is it important that we pass on this message, the names of the cities, the names of the villages, and the story that happened in 1948… to the younger generation?” …
Woman 2: “We educate our children on the principle that we have a land that was stolen and is occupied by the Zionist enemy.” …
Host: “Your answer was correct. You receive from us a [cash] prize, a presidential grant given to you on behalf of President Abbas…”
Host: “Why do we not consider any other homeland outside of Palestine as our homeland?” …
Woman 3: “No! This is our land. Palestine is our land and our homeland! Allah willing, Palestine will be liberated, and we will return to our lands. We are sitting here [in Lebanon] as guests… Generation after generation, we teach [our children] that we have a land and a homeland, which must be liberated.”
Host: “Your answer fills the heart with pride and joy, because as a Palestinian people, we have the right to return to our homeland. You have won a presidential grant…”
Host: “How important is the right of return for our people?”
Man 1: “Important. We hope to return already today! The right of return is a right! And there is no substitute for our homeland!” …
Host: “You have won a presidential grant…”
Host: “How important is it that we teach our children about the holy sites of Islam and Christianity that belong to us, about our Palestinian villages and cities from which our people were expelled?”
Man 2: “It is very important… We must teach the younger generation so that the memory will be preserved in their hearts, and of course so that we will return to Palestine, Allah willing!” …
Host: “You have won a presidential grant…”
Host: “Why have our Palestinian people insisted on keeping the names of their villages and towns from which they were expelled?”
Woman 4: “To preserve our homeland, Palestine… Because Palestine is our land, our homeland, our soil, and our right!” …
Host: “Allah willing, we will return to the homeland’s soil!”
Host: “You have won a presidential grant…”
Man 3: “[I’m from] the subdistrict of Safed in Palestine (sic., Israel).”
Host: “Why do our people not consider any country they live in as their homeland, instead of Palestine?”
Man 3: “We cannot leave our land, our cause, our soil, and our land! … We are the children of Palestine, and we do not want any other land to be a substitute for Palestine! … In Lebanon we are guests…”
Host: “You have won a presidential grant…”
Man 4: “[I’m from] the subdistrict of Safed in Palestine (sic., Israel).”
Host: “Why do our Palestinian people insist on keeping the names of their villages from which they were expelled in 1948?”
Man 4: “We want to return because everyone [wants to return] to his village, to his area, and to his land – Palestine… We cannot give up Palestine, it has no substitute.”
“How important is it that you pass on the name of the village… to your children… so that they too know… that they have a right?”
Man 4: “We always continue to tell [our children] there is nothing like our land and borders! … Allah willing, all the refugee camps in Lebanon will return to the land of Palestine, to their land…”
Host: “You have won a presidential grant…”
Host: “What does Palestine mean to you?”
Woman 5: “This is my land.”
Host: “You receive from us a prize, which is a presidential [cash] grant given on behalf of the honorable President Abbas, the Department of Refugee Affairs [in the PLO], and Palestinian Television. Here you go!”
[Official PA TV, Discourse of Memory, March 17, 2026]
Palestinian Media Watch has exposed how the PA along the same lines instruct Palestinian “refugees” that the countries they live in are only “waiting stations.”
This is yet another example of how the PA does everything it can to cement the ideology among Palestinians that there is no Israel and that “Palestine” will be liberated.
The author is the Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article first appeared.