Uncategorized
A Florida bill attacking ‘critical theory’ in higher education has the state’s Jewish academics worried
(JTA) — The University of Florida has more Jewish students than any other public college in the United States — and last week, one of them reached out to a professor, fearing that it would no longer be possible to study Jewish topics there.
Citing a graphic that had been making the rounds on social media, the student asked if it was true that a new bill working its way through the state legislature would remove all “Jewish Studies courses, majors and minors” in the state. The graphic was shared by several people with large online followings, including comedian D.L. Hughley, who has more than 750,000 followers on Twitter.
“I love my major and I can’t imagine switching to anything else,” the student wrote, according to Norman Goda, director of the university’s Center for Jewish Studies.
Goda wasn’t able to console the student. Like other Jewish academics in Florida who spoke to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, he doesn’t know whether H.B. 999 would affect Jewish studies on the state’s college campuses. Though the bill’s author — a Republican state representative — says that won’t be the case, the bill’s language is much less clear.
That’s because the bill’s current wording would forbid the state’s public higher education institutions from teaching or offering any major or minor based in “methodology associated with Critical Theory.” That prohibition, say academics and other critics of the bill, would make teaching courses in Jewish studies impossible — and would also outlaw many other fields in higher education.
Exactly what the bill means by “critical theory” is unclear. To academics, the term refers to a tool for analyzing society and culture, created in the 1930s by German Jewish academics, that encourages people to view the world through power structures, and to consider why they fall short. To political conservatives, it’s a relative of “critical race theory,” a watchword for those who want to inhibit classroom instruction about racism. An earlier version of H.B. 999 mentioned only critical race theory, not the umbrella theory.
“These people don’t know what they’re talking about,” said a Jewish faculty member at a Florida university, who requested anonymity due to fear of retaliation from the state government, regarding the lawmakers behind H.B. 999. “You’re putting people who don’t know what critical theory is, but have heard the words — and now you’re putting them in charge of universities.”
A university that completely purged such ideas from its classrooms, the anonymous faculty member said, “would be non-existent.”
The bill in question is the latest example of conservative-led state efforts to snuff out culture-war modes of thought like critical race theory and gender studies, often referred to euphemistically by lawmakers as “divisive concepts” in education. Such efforts have occasionally ensnared efforts to teach Jewish history and the Holocaust.
Attempts to legislate the classroom are particularly potent in Florida, where Republican governor Ron DeSantis, a likely presidential candidate, has frequently stated his desire to ban “woke” concepts from being taught in the state. (DeSantis has stated he will wait to see H.B. 999’s final form before he decides whether to sign it, but in a discussion with college administrators last week he continued to rail against what he called the “ideological agenda” of campus diversity, equity and inclusion programs.)
The state recently rejected the curriculum for a new Advanced Placement African-American Studies course in high schools, forcing the College Board to rework the class. Florida is also home to several active conservative “parents’ rights” groups that have lobbied to remove objectionable books and clubs from public schools.
While most legislation in this realm to date has targeted what’s taught in K-12 public schools, this bill and other efforts in Florida have gone a step further by seeking to regulate the world of state-funded higher education — creating what critics say are new and dangerous threats to academic freedom, with broad and vague wording that leaves efforts to research and teach a variety of disciplines in doubt.
“This bill would cripple the long-standing freedom universities have to design and teach a curriculum based on the development of academic disciplines,” Cary Nelson, an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois and past president of the American Association of University Professors ,who has taught multiple courses on Jewish issues, told JTA.
In a recent subcommittee hearing on the bill, Republican state Rep. Alex Andrade, who co-authored the legislation, said, “I believe that state universities should be focused on teaching students how to think, not what to think.” He said the bill’s banning of “radical” ideologies referred to “a system meant to direct and promote certain activism to achieve a specific viewpoint.”
Efforts to limit the material taught to children and college students are underway in several states. But Florida has an especially large population of Jewish students. The University of Florida stands atop Hillel International’s ranking of public colleges with the highest proportion of Jewish students, and the University of Central Florida has the third-largest. Florida State University, Florida International University, Florida Atlantic University and the University of South Florida also rank in the top 60.
H.B. 999 would affect education at those schools in other ways, too. The bill, which recently advanced to committee, would overhaul the state’s post-tenure review process, so that instead of checking on a faculty member’s research productivity every five years, as is currently the case in the state, tenured professors could face reviews “at any time for cause” including “violation of any applicable law or rule.”
The result, one academic in the state said, would be “open season on faculty,” who could be out of a job if their university’s board — which, in public schools, is beholden to the governor — disagrees with their syllabus.
Andrade rejected the idea that H.B. 999 would undercut Jewish studies in Florida.
“Outsiders are wrong. Ethnic studies are not affected by the bill either by the bill’s intent or the bill’s language,” Andrade wrote in an email to JTA, accusing the bill’s critics of “lying and claiming that Florida’s leaders have tried to ban teaching black history in schools.”
The state’s only Jewish Republican legislator, state Rep. Randy Fine, did not return a JTA request for comment on whether he supports the bill. Fine has promoted similar culture-war legislation in the past, including a bill he co-authored in February that would prohibit all K-12 schools in the state from referring to either students or employees by pronouns that do not correspond to the sex they were assigned at birth.
With a Republican-dominated House and Senate, some form of H.B. 999 seems likely to reach DeSantis’ desk. (A parallel bill in the state Senate does not contain wording on critical theory.) But there is strong opposition from the academic community. Groups including the American Historical Association, the American Association of University Professors and Florida’s statewide faculty union have harshly condemned the bill and urged lawmakers to oppose it.
The American Historical Association’s statement on the bill this month calls it a “blatant and frontal attack on principles of academic freedom and shared governance central to higher education in the United States.” More than 70 academic, historical and activist organizations co-signed the statement.
The executive committee of the Association for Jewish Studies signed a different statement authored by the American Council of Learned Societies, decrying the bill as an “effort to undermine academic freedom in Florida.”
“If it passes, it ends academic freedom in the state’s public colleges and universities, with dire consequences for their teaching, research, and financial well-being,” the statement said of the bill. “Academic freedom means freedom of thought, not the state-mandated production of histories edited to suit one party’s agenda in the current culture wars.”
Asked for comment on the bill, Warren Hoffman, the executive director of the Association for Jewish Studies, pointed to the statement.
Rachel Harris, director and endowed chair at Florida Atlantic University’s Jewish Studies program, is in her first semester at the university, having just arrived from the University of Illinois. “I’m now wondering if that was a terrible mistake,” she joked. (Harris is spending this term in Israel, researching on a Fulbright fellowship.)
Still, Harris said she was “confident” that legislators would “continue to support educational commitments in the state,” noting that Florida has a Holocaust education mandate for K-12 public schools. Her Boca Raton university is currently building an expanded center for Jewish and Holocaust studies, funded by private donors. H.B. 999 in its current form would prohibit universities from teaching critical theory concepts even when such programs are privately funded.
Despite what he described as a few students at the Jewish Studies center who are concerned about the new bill, Goda said he did not think the legislation would change the experience of Jewish students on his campus.
“Jewish kids these days are really choosing universities based on whether or not Jewish kids feel comfortable there,” he said. “And I would argue that [the University of Florida] is a very welcoming campus for Jewish kids overall. There are strong Jewish institutions associated with the campus.”
Instead, he feels the bill’s real effects would be felt in the state’s ability to recruit faculty and staff while its legislators jeopardize academic freedom, tenure and other lodestars of the humanities. He said, “The real question to me is how and in what way it’s going to be enforced.”
—
The post A Florida bill attacking ‘critical theory’ in higher education has the state’s Jewish academics worried appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Beyond the Headlines: What Is Actually Happening in Gaza Right Now
A Red Cross vehicle, escorted by a van driven by a Hamas terrorist, moves in an area within the so-called “yellow line” to which Israeli troops withdrew under the ceasefire, as Hamas says it continues to search for the bodies of deceased hostages seized during the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, in Gaza City, Nov. 12, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Dawoud Abu Alk
After Israel recovered the remains of Ran Gvili, the last hostage in Gaza, the Gaza-Egypt border crossing at Rafah has been re-opened.
Gvili’s body was found by Israeli forces buried in a Palestinian cemetery. Though Hamas claims its assistance was critical to finding the body, it in fact did nothing whatsoever to assist. The body’s location was discovered by Israeli intelligence after it was determined that several members of Palestinian Islamic Jihad knew where it was, one of whom was captured in a special operation.
The cemetery was adjacent to the Yellow Line in Gaza, separating Israeli-controlled territory and Hamas-controlled territory. Operating there required the Israelis to cross the Yellow Line, and it took approximately one month to reach an agreement with Hamas to allow this to happen without fighting. Approximately 250 bodies were collected and checked before Israeli troops found the body of Gvili, an Israeli policeman. He was killed on October 7, 2023, while fighting to protect the Israeli community of Alumim near the Gaza border. He lived in a village in the central Negev, heard about the Hamas attack, and on his own initiative rushed to the nearby police station, armed himself, and drove to Alumim, where, despite being wounded shortly after his arrival, he fought the terrorists until he ran out of ammunition. He was captured and died of his wounds some days later in captivity.
Militarily speaking, skirmishes along the Yellow Line have continued daily.
Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad personnel constantly attempt to infiltrate into the Israeli-controlled area to scout, salvage weapons, or attack Israeli positions and patrols. A few Israeli soldiers have been wounded in the last month, and one who was severely wounded during such an incident a few months ago died from his wounds.
A few dozen Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad personnel have been killed or wounded. Most incidents are brief exchanges of stand-off fire across the Yellow Line. In one case, six Hamas personnel dug a shaft from an undiscovered tunnel adjacent to an Israeli position and wounded two Israeli soldiers before being killed by Israeli return of fire. Given the soft soil composition in the area, digging new tunnels or new shafts from existing tunnels is a fairly quick process. In another case, a rocket was launched from Hamas-controlled territory, but it failed and fell inside Gaza. Israeli troops respond to stand-off fire in kind and shoot at infiltrators. After major incidents, Israel retaliates by striking specific Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad commanders in Hamas-controlled territory.
Israeli forces continue to scour the territory in Israeli hands, and almost every day find new caches of weapons hidden in buildings or other sites, as well as new tunnel entrance shafts and tunnels. The weapons are collected, and the buildings and tunnels demolished.
Meanwhile, the flow of trucks carrying supplies into Gaza continues at approximately 800 per day, though a quarter of that is sufficient to meet the needs of the population. A large portion of these supplies continues to flow to Hamas itself. A video report by an anti-Hamas Palestinian showed a store of baby food that has been held back by Hamas rather than supplying it to the population. He claims the film was made during the period when Israel was falsely accused of deliberately starving Gaza’s population.
A report published by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria did not go so far as that, but did state that Hamas controlled both the import and the dissemination of humanitarian assistance and used that control to fund itself at the population’s expense.
The wealth of supplies entering Gaza is enabling Hamas to continue to solidify its control over the population, enlist new troops, and build up its arsenal of weapons. Currently, this arsenal consists primarily of light weapons and explosives salvaged from destroyed storage sites and unexploded aerial bombs dropped by the Israelis during the war.
The number of small explosive devices that can be created from a salvaged bomb depends on its size, ranging from a dozen to several dozen. There are probably a few hundred such unexploded aerial bombs scattered throughout the area controlled by Hamas. In addition, the Israelis have intercepted quadcopters carrying weapons from Egypt into Gaza. How many of these have already managed to get through is not known. In the past, Hamas has also smuggled in weapons by sea, exploiting the natural current directions to float waterproof barrels from Egyptian Sinai to Gaza. Israeli naval patrols have intercepted some but not all of these barrels. Since the beginning of the war and the increased presence of Israeli naval patrols, naval smuggling has been more difficult for Hamas to accomplish, but it might still be happening.
In Phase 2 of the Ceasefire, Hamas is supposed to disarm, a technocratic government is to be established in Gaza, and an international force is meant to take over “peacekeeping,” enabling Israel to withdraw its forces closer to the border. Hamas continues to declare it will not disarm, and some of the mediators (Egypt, Qatar, and, according to a recent unverified report, the British government) are attempting to change this requirement. In theory, the technocratic government has been set up and is ready to begin work, but as long as Hamas remains armed, this government will be only a façade behind which Hamas will continue to control Gaza. This is especially true in view of the fact that most of the administrative personnel in this government previously worked for Hamas. This includes a 10,000-man armed police force that is meant to enforce the policies of the new government but that is actually manned almost entirely by Hamas personnel.
Furthermore, there is still no international force willing to replace the IDF in compelling Hamas’ disarmament. This could lead to a swift reigniting of the fighting.
Meanwhile, the IDF has completed preparations for at least one site on which to build a new tent/hut city for Gazans who will be transferred to live there, via security checkpoints to filter out Hamas personnel, and receive humanitarian support. More such sites are under discussion. If this works, it will reduce, possibly dramatically, the number of civilians living under Hamas authority. This would give the IDF a freer hand for operations against Hamas and the other organizations.
On the Israeli side of the border with Gaza, the rebuilding and return of the population forced to evacuate because of the October 2023 attack and subsequent war has continued, with most of the Israeli refugees now returned to their homes. In the town of Sderot, seven kilometers from the border, there has been a large-scale operation to build new neighborhoods. In addition to nearly all the original residents having returned, at least 3,000 new residents have moved to Sderot from other parts of Israel.
Dr. Eado Hecht, a senior research fellow at the BESA Center, is a military analyst focusing mainly on the relationship between military theory, military doctrine, and military practice. He teaches courses on military theory and military history at Bar-Ilan University, Haifa University, and Reichman University and in a variety of courses in the Israel Defense Forces. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
Uncategorized
When ‘Bearing Witness’ Collides With Neutrality: Doctors Without Borders in Gaza
Trucks carrying humanitarian aid and fuel line up at the crossing into the Gaza Strip at the Rafah border on the Egypt side, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, in Rafah, Egypt, October 17, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Stringer
Médecins Sans Frontière (MSF) — known in English as Doctors Without Borders — is a large humanitarian organization that provides medical assistance around the world.
While much of its work is with victims of natural disasters, disease outbreaks, and internally displaced people, one fourth of the group’s activity is helping people affected by armed conflict.
In order to do this work, MSF pledges neutrality and impartiality, as only on that basis can it demand that parties to conflicts allow it unimpeded access to help those in need.
But Israel is concerned that humanitarian non-profits are exploiting their Gaza access to shield militants and work against Israel politically.
Therefore, the Israeli government decided last March to require these organizations to provide detailed information about their activities and the identities of their employees, giving them a generous 10 months to comply. This information will enable Israel to make sure these organizations are exclusively humanitarian, and that their employees are not Hamas members or anti-Israel activists seeking to enter Gaza in disguise.
MSF loudly protested, claiming that revealing the identity of its employees to Israel would put them in danger, and that these requirements are really a cynical attempt by Israel to force MSF to abandon its mission.
But MSF has made numerous anti-Israel statements, on social media and on its website, which the Israel government has compiled in a report.
MSF has repeatedly claimed that Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and systematic extermination. It has called for an arms embargo against Israel, while praising and supporting the BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement. MSF also says that Israel is guilty of colonization, systemic oppression, and apartheid.
To be clear, the issue is not whether one agrees with these views (which are greatly disputed). The question is whether an organization that publicly accuses Israel of genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing — and campaigns for boycotts and arms embargoes against it — can still claim to be neutral in any ordinary sense of the term.
MSF claims that this is the case. It says “Bearing Witness” is also one of its core values. It states that, “The principles of impartiality and neutrality are not synonymous with silence … we are duty-bound to raise our voices and speak out on behalf of our patients.”
In their view, as long as they provide medical care without discrimination and keep actual military combatants off their payroll, no amount of political action compromises their neutrality and the privileges it entails.
Of course, there is a vast chasm between the statements MSF and its employees are making and what “bearing witness” requires. MSF and its staff could describe the problems they face in fulfilling their medical mission, such as lack of supplies, equipment, and the like, without assigning blame or taking sides. Whether the tragic Gaza situation is the fault of Israel, Hamas, or others is a matter of opinion, which a neutral party should not voice.
Genocide is a legal determination that hinges on intent and military necessity, neither of which can be inferred from treating the wounded. When a humanitarian organization claims otherwise, it oversteps its bounds.
That is the position of the Red Cross, another humanitarian organization pledged to neutrality. The Red Cross does not make public accusations, specifically in order to maintain trust and keep the working relationships that enable it to fulfill its mission. And even though many in Israel believe the Red Cross should have pressed harder to visit the hostages, the Israeli government has made no effort to stop the Red Cross from operating in Gaza — and in fact, even cooperated with the Red Cross to facilitate hostage exchanges.
The MSF has become so critical of Israel that even former MSF Secretary General Alain Destexhe says the organization is now “biased, partial, and militant,” and accuses it of effectively siding with Hamas.
Israel has every right to tell MSF that the anti-Israel political campaign it tries to pass off as “bearing witness” is in direct conflict with its obligation to neutrality. If MSF wants to campaign against Israel, it has no right to expect Israel’s cooperation and help.
If Israel ultimately forces MSF to leave Gaza, MSF will likely portray this as proof that Israel is attempting to cut off humanitarian aid. But Israel has made clear through its continued cooperation with other neutral organizations that it welcomes bona fide humanitarian assistance. The predicament MSF now faces follows directly from its decision to mix humanitarian work with political campaigning. In doing so, MSF has put both its access to Gaza and its patients’ care at risk.
Shlomo Levin is the author of the Human Rights Haggadah, and he uses short fiction to explore human rights at https://shalzed.com/
Uncategorized
Trying to influence progressives in New Jersey, AIPAC may actually help one get elected
Politics has always been a dirty business – just ask King David, Socrates or Confucius. But AIPAC’s latest reckless move should raise even the most cynical of eyebrows.
It’s happening here in my home district, New Jersey’s 11th, which has had a vacant congressional seat since former congresswoman Mikie Sherrill became governor last month. The primary election is Thursday, and since this is a deep blue district, it’s almost certain that the Democratic nominee will go to Washington in a few months.
Not surprisingly, the field is crowded, but four front-runners have emerged: former congressman Tom Malinowski, who narrowly lost his seat in 2022 after his district was redrawn; Essex county commissioner Brendan Gill; former lieutenant governor Tahesha Way; and progressive Analilia Mejia, who has been endorsed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and seemingly the entire left wing of the party.
In the last month, a group called the United Democracy Project has been attacking Malinowski from the left, alleging that he supports ICE. Factually, this is poppycock: Malinowski has vociferously spoken out against ICE’s excesses. But he did vote for an omnibus, bipartisan DHS funding bill in 2019, which included funding for ICE.
Unfair, perhaps, but also fair enough — this is politics as usual.
What’s unusual is that the “United Democracy Project” is actually a Super PAC affiliated with AIPAC, as reported in this publication a few weeks ago. Even more unusual is that AIPAC has poured over $2.2 million into this primary election, according to FEC data. And even more unusual than that is the fact that AIPAC, which has embraced Republicans and the Trump administration for their support of the Netanyahu government, is suddenly taking a progressive, anti-Trump line by targeting a candidate for supporting ICE.
Except, of course, that is all a shell game.
AIPAC isn’t running ICE ads because they care about immigrants; they’re attacking Malinowski for his temerity to defy AIPAC’s demand that aid to Israel be completely unconditional, which no other foreign aid ever is. A spokesman for “United Democracy Project” told Punchbowl News that the organization turned on Malinowski because “he talks about conditioning aid — that’s not a pro-Israel position, and he knows it.”
AIPAC also knows that, because of a quirk of congressional rules, Malinowski would become a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, because previous stints in Congress count for seniority purposes. And because, before serving in Congress, Malinowski was the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor under President Obama, he is widely respected as a foreign policy expert and would surely become a key member of the committee.
So, why is AIPAC making a target of a potential ally? Notice how the goalposts have shifted: Malinowski is not an anti-Zionist. He’s not even a critic of Israel, like Rep. Jamaal Bowman, who AIPAC spent $14 million to defeat in 2024. He espouses the same views as a majority of the American Jews: supportive of Israel as a Jewish state with a right to defend itself, but critical of the Netanyahu government’s actions in Gaza, which killed over 70,000 people. (The government recently accepted the Gaza/Hamas Health Ministry’s casualty numbers, after Israel’s right-wing supporters spent two years attacking journalists who cited them. No apologies for said attacks have been issued.)
On this issue, Malinowski is a centrist Democrat, not a progressive firebrand. Yet, Malinowski said at a recent event I attended in Montclair, AIPAC wants to make an example of him. Cross us, and we will come for you – no matter how moderate you are.
Rep. Ilhan Omar was excoriated for an offhand remark she made in 2019 that AIPAC’s power is “all about the Benjamins,” using a common slang term for hundred dollar bills. But AIPAC has dropped more than 22,000 Benjamins on one primary race to warn everyone not to cross them. Though she later apologized (under duress) for invoking antisemitic tropes about Jews and money, in terms of AIPAC’s political power, Omar was right.
Presumably, AIPAC is hoping that its efforts will turn voters away from Malinowski, who currently has a small lead, and toward Way or Gill, who, disappointingly, have declined to condemn the ads.
But if you’re paying attention to the NJ-11 race, you might suspect that their efforts will have an unintended effect: boosting Mejia, who, unlike Malinowski, is a strong critic of Israel in the familiar Sanders/Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/ZohranMamdani mode.
Think about it: Who benefits from AIPAC’s ads? Yes, Gill, like Malinowski, has spoken out against Trump and ICE – I saw him give an inspiring speech at a ‘No Kings’ rally a few months ago. But after a year of mainstream Democrats being perceived as ineffectual in their opposition to Trump, no one’s going to be motivated by an anti-ICE ad to vote for either of the Democratic machine’s candidates.
No, they’re going to vote for the strongest progressive in the race, and that is clearly Mejia, who is running in second place and has Rep. Ro Khanna visiting the district. (Khanna is fighting his own battle with AIPAC, which is spending to defeat him this year.) Along with Khanna, legions of Indivisible activists are doing Get Out The Vote work for Mejia. The wind is at her back, and AIPAC just gave her a squall.
To be sure, Mejia is not running on Israel, Gaza or support for Palestinians. She is following the successful progressive ‘affordability’ playbook, highlighting her support for a $15 minimum wage, free child care, Medicare for All and so on. Israel does not appear on her campaign website at all.
But she’s not hiding her views either. At a candidates forum last week, she affirmed that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza, and pledged not to visit Israel on a trip sponsored by AIPAC. (No other candidate in this race took those positions.) And she has spent many years as a progressive activist expressing similar views.
The irony would be rich: AIPAC defeats a supporter of Israel, and puts another Squad member in the House instead. Talk about instant karma.
And then there’s the bigger picture. As everyone knows, the last two years have seen an unprecedented rise in antisemitism, along with conspiratorial thinking of all kinds – especially because, as we now see from the latest Epstein Files release, some of the conspiracies are real. And it’s at this moment that the leading organization of the “Israel Lobby” covertly tries to bait progressives into voting a certain way? Do they not see that this kind of secretive manipulation is exactly what the antisemites say about us?
Obviously, AIPAC is not responsible for antisemitism, and even if they played fair, bigotry would not go away. And again, politics is a dirty business. But did no one in the room even raise this as a concern? That it might be problematic for the Israel Lobby to hide its identity, lie to progressives (many of whom, of course, would be repulsed to learn that AIPAC is targeting them), and, under false pretenses, persuade them to vote for AIPAC’s agenda? Do they have no concern for how this conspiratorial chicanery might enflame antisemitic sentiments, or, God forbid, actions?
At this point, I can’t tell who I’m rooting for more: Malinowski, to show AIPAC that not every politician can be intimidated, or Mejia, to hand them a massive self-own. Either way, AIPAC would get what it deserves. I just hope no one else pays the price.
The post Trying to influence progressives in New Jersey, AIPAC may actually help one get elected appeared first on The Forward.