Uncategorized
Amid criticism, Columbia University announces a new research center in Tel Aviv
(JTA) — Columbia University has announced that it will launch a “Global Center” in Tel Aviv amid dueling letters from faculty supporting and opposing the decision.
The university’s Global Centers act as hubs for local scholars and researchers to work with the New York City school’s faculty, students and alumni to study and address a range of local and global issues. The center in Tel Aviv will join 10 others across the globe.
The Tel Aviv Global Center will enable the university “to connect with individuals and institutions, as well as with the alumni community in Israel, drawing them closer to the ongoing life of the University,” Columbia President Lee C. Bollinger said in a statement Monday. He added that the center will focus on climate change, technology, entrepreneurship, arts, the humanities, biology, health and medicine.
Columbia already has ties to Tel Aviv through Tel Aviv University, with which it began a dual degree program in 2019, despite also facing faculty and student objections.
For decades, Columbia has been the site of heated debate among both faculty and students over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and in the months leading up to the announcement, a group of Columbia faculty urged the school to halt plans for a center in Tel Aviv. In February, law professor Katherine Franke began circulating an open letter against the center, which as of Tuesday morning had received 95 faculty signatures, according to the Columbia Daily Spectator, a student publication.
The letter references accusations of Israeli human rights violations, as well as the policies of Israel’s governing coalition, which includes far-right parties and which has put forward a proposal for a judicial overhaul that has led to massive street protests and upheaval in the country.
“We are particularly concerned that Columbia University would take the bold step of opening a Global Center in Tel Aviv at this particular moment, with the newly seated government that is widely, if not almost universally, regarded as the most conservative, reactionary, right wing government in Israel’s history,” the letter reads. “For Columbia to preemptively invest in a new Global Center in Israel at the very moment when the domestic and international community is pulling away as part of a concerted and vehement objection to the new government’s policies would render Columbia not only an outlier, but a collaborator in those very policies.”
While the letter notes broadly that Global Centers have served as a “liberal academic footprint” in other countries with restrictive regimes, it does not reference the individual human rights records of any of the other countries where the centers are located. The 10 existing centers are in Amman, Jordan; Athens, Greece; Beijing; Istanbul; Mumbai, India; Nairobi, Kenya; Paris; Rio de Janeiro; Santiago, Chile and Tunis, Tunisia.
The letter also argues that Israel would ban Columbia alumni and affiliates based on their citizenship, identity and politics.
Franke herself was barred from Israel in 2018, along with attorney Vincent Warren of the Center for Constitutional Rights, based on accusations that they supported the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, against Israel. Both denied the accusations at the time, according to Haaretz. Around that same time, according to an opinion column by Roger Cohen in The New York Times, Bollinger was in Israel to discuss plans for the Global Center.
The letter also notes “substantial concern about the power of donor money to direct major decisions, such as the establishment of this Global Center in Tel Aviv, in lieu of consultation with the faculty.” The letter does not name any specific donors or detail how the alleged donor pressure was deployed.
In response to the opposition letter, faculty supporters of the Tel Aviv Global Center composed their own statement. They argue that the centers are independent of their governments’ host countries and do not signal approval or disapproval of each country’s government.
“The decision to locate a center in all of these countries was never determined by political considerations, but rather to enhance Columbia as a global research university,” the statement reads. “For a country its size, Israel has an unusually rich infrastructure of universities and other scholarly, cultural, religious, scientific, technological, legal, and artistic resources that have intellectual connections to every school at Columbia University.”
The statement of support, signed by more than 170 full-time faculty, was written by political science professor Ester R. Fuchs; Nicholas Lemann, dean emeritus of the Columbia Journalism School; David M. Schizer, dean emeritus and professor at the Columbia Law School and law professor Matthew C. Waxman.
The supportive letter says that Israel has a better human rights record than other countries that host the university’s centers — such as China or Jordan — and adds that many signatories do not approve of Israel’s current government.
“One does not have to support the policies of the current government of Israel — and many of us do not — to recognize that singling out Israel in this way is unjustified,” the letter says. “To apply a separate standard to Israel — and Israel alone — would understandably be perceived by many as a form of discrimination.”
—
The post Amid criticism, Columbia University announces a new research center in Tel Aviv appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Human Rights Watch’s top Israel-Palestine staffer quits over shelved report criticizing Israel
(JTA) — The former executive director of Human Rights Watch is defending the group after two staffers quit over allegations that a report accusing Israel of a “crime against humanity” was blocked from publication.
Omar Shakir, the director of Human Rights Watch’s Israel-Palestine team, and assistant researcher Milena Ansari tendered their resignations after they said the organization refused to publish a report concluding that Israel’s denial of the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees amounted to a “crime against humanity.”
“I’ve resigned from @hrw after 10+ yrs—most as Israel/Palestine Director—after HRW’s new ED pulled a finalized report on the right of return for Palestinian refugees on eve of its release & blocked for weeks its publication in a principled way,” Shakir tweeted earlier in the week.
He linked to an article about the resignations in Jewish Currents. Shakir, who formerly worked as a legal fellow for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has long engaged in pro-Palestinian legal advocacy, is on Jewish Currents’ advisory board.
In a resignation letter obtained by Jewish Currents, Shakir wrote, “I have lost my faith in the integrity of how we do our work and our commitment to principled reporting on the facts and application of the law.”
Multiple former Human Rights Watch staffers panned Shakir and his critique, including Ken Roth, the group’s former executive director and himself a vociferous critic of Israel. Roth’s replacement, Philippe Bolopion, was named in November.
“The new @HRW director was right to suspend a report using a novel & unsupported legal theory to contend that denying the right to return to a locale is a crime against humanity,” tweeted Roth, whose father was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany. “It had been rushed through the review process during a leadership transition.”
Danielle Haas, who served as the senior editor at Human Rights Watch from 2009 to 2023, criticized Shakir sharply in a post on X.
“‘Nourish a wolf,’ Aesop said, ‘and it will eat you.’ For years, @hrw tolerated, placated, excused, and incubated @OmarSShakir as BDSer-turned-Israel/Palestine director. Now it’s their turn to get the ideological mob treatment,” wrote Haas. “His old tricks used v. others, now turned v. them: petitions, division, politics. Appeasement always bites you in the end.”
Shakir served as the lead researcher and author of a 2021 Human Rights Watch report that argued that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians had crossed the threshold into apartheid. The report was widely criticized by Jewish groups at the time. In 2019, he was deported from Israel in accordance with a law that banned entry to foreigners who publicly call for boycotting the Jewish state or its settlements.
NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based pro-Israel advocacy group, wrote in a post on X that the internal dispute at Human Rights Watch served as “a reminder of what happens when an NGO promotes the most extreme activists to positions of influence.”
The episode is casting light on the issue of Palestinian refugees, who many pro-Palestinian advocates believe should be able to return to the homes and communities their families left in 1948. Such a right is widely seen as both out of step with international precedent and a tactic to undo a Jewish majority in Israel.
While Human Rights Watch has long supported a right of return for Palestinian refugees, Shakir told Jewish Currents that the group is more hesitant when applying that principle in practice.
“The one topic,” he said, “even at Human Rights Watch, for which there remains an unwillingness to apply the law and the facts in a principled way is the plight of refugees and their right to return to the homes that they were forced to flee.”
In a statement shared with Jewish Currents and the New York Times, Human Rights Watch stated that the report “raised complex and consequential issues” and its publication was “paused pending further analysis and research.”
“In our review process, we concluded that aspects of the research and the factual basis for our legal conclusions needed to be strengthened to meet Human Rights Watch’s high standards,” the group said.
The post Human Rights Watch’s top Israel-Palestine staffer quits over shelved report criticizing Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Protests roil Australia ahead of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s planned visit
(JTA) — Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s planned visit to Australia this weekend, which was scheduled in the wake of the Bondi massacre in December, has drawn widespread opposition and planned protests, including from some Jews.
Following Herzog’s invitation to visit the country by Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, some Labor party members and pro-Palestinian groups called for the invitation to be rescinded.
Those calls have reached a fever pitch in recent weeks, with Australian human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti calling on Albanese to rescind the invitation or arrest Herzog on arrival for inciting “genocide.”
Australia’s minister of foreign affairs, Penny Wong, defended the visit in an interview with ABC radio, telling the station that it was the wishes of the Jewish community following the December terror attack on a Hanukkah celebration in Sydney that killed 15.
“We have the Australian Jewish community who have been targeted in an overtly antisemitic terrorist attack. We have had 15 Australians die, we have families mourning, and this was a request from the Jewish community for President Herzog to visit,” said Wong, herself a staunch a critic of Israel.
In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald published Friday, Herzog called Sidoti’s statements “another lie and another distortion of the facts,” adding that he was visiting the country to “visit my sisters and brothers of the Jewish community to console and pay our respects to the grieving families and to the community.”
Herzog is expected to visit the country from Sunday to Thursday and is slated to meet with Albanese as well as the survivors and the families of the victims of the shooting.
Multiple groups have petitioned for Herzog’s possible arrest. On Thursday, Human Rights Watch cited a U.N. Commission of Inquiry report accusing Herzog and other Israeli leaders of “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” in calling on Albanese to consider deploying local laws to prosecute him.
“While showing appropriate concern for the Jewish community, the Australian government should not shy away from denouncing and pushing for an end to the Israeli government’s longstanding serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law,” the human rights NGO said.
The progressive Jewish Council of Australia lodged a legal complaint last week calling for Herzog to be “arrested or barred from entering Australia.”
The complaint, which was jointly filed with the Hind Rajab Foundation and the Australian National Imams Council, alleges that Herzog “incited genocide and aided and abetted war crimes, rendering him unfit to enter the country under Australian law.”
Widespread protests against Herzog’s visit have been planned throughout Australia by the Palestine Action Group, including in Sydney, where New South Wales Police have announced restrictions on protests, citing the behavior of some protesters who “continue to incite violence and cause fear and harm.”
New South Wales Police have deployed thousands of officers to ensure the mandate is upheld. They have also warned that they will arrest protesters who breach the restrictions in place.
While officials said during a press conference earlier in the week that there was “no particular known threat” to Herzog known by police, a 19-year-old Sydney man was granted bail on Thursday after he being charged with making online threats to Herzog.
The executive director of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Colin Rubenstein, condemned the protest efforts as the group issued a rebuttal on Friday to claims against Herzog.
“We are disturbed and saddened by the groups and individuals determined to politicise this visit by labelling it ‘divisive’ and attempting to misrepresent Herzog’s words after October 7,” he said in a statement. “Our view is that, after Bondi, Herzog’s visit is not only appropriate, but an essential part of the healing process — and we are very confident we represent the overwhelming majority of Australian Jews in saying as much.”
The post Protests roil Australia ahead of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s planned visit appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
The coffee capital of the world
צו הערן דעם אַרטיקל און אַנדערע אַרטיקלען דורכן פֿאָרווערטס־פּאָדקאַסט, גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ:
אין מײַנע יונגע יאָרן האָב איך געקוקט סײַ מיט ביטול, סײַ מיט רחמנות אויף די אַלע דערוואַקסענע, קאַווע־אַדיקטן, וואָס קענען ניט אויפֿשטיין אין דער פֿרי אָן אַ טעפּל, אָדער אַ גאַנצן טאָפּ קאַווע. דאָס הייסט, אויף איבער 80% אַמעריקאַנער. זעענדיק ווי דער טאַטע גיסט אָן אַ טערמאָס מיט קאַווע, ער זאָל האָבן מיט וואָס איבערצולעבן די נסיעה צו דער אַרבעט, האָב איך געשוווירן צו זיך אַליין, אַז איך וועל קיין מאָל ניט ווערן פֿאַרשקלאַפֿט פֿון דעם דאָזיקן אומווערדיקן געטראַנק.
אָבער די יוגנט איז פֿול מיט נאַרישע געדאַנקען, און נאָר די יאָרן ברענגען חכמה און פֿאַרשטאַנד. איצט דערמאָן איך זיך אין יענע אידילישע צײַטן און וווּנדער זיך, ווי אַזוי האָב איך אָן קאַווע אָנגעשריבן די אַלע אַרבעטן פֿאַר דער שול און געלייזט די אַלע מאַטעמאַטישע רעטענישן? הײַנט וואָלט איך די רעטענישן ניט געלייזט אַפֿילו מיט קאַווע. נאָר צום גליק, האָב איך אַנטדעקט, אַז די קאַווע איז ניט אַזאַ געפֿערלעכער סם־המוות, ווי איך האָב זיך דעמאָלט פֿאָרגעשטעלט.
פֿאַקטיש שאַדט די קאַווע ניט צום געזונט, פֿאַרקערט, זי היט אָפּ דעם טרינקער פֿון פֿאַרשיידענע קרענק, ווי ראַק און פּאַרקינסאָנס. זי פֿאַרשטאַרקט די מוסקלען, קלאָרט אויס דעם קאָפּ, און גיט צו מער ענערגיע און שוווּנג. ניטאָ קיין ספֿק, אַז אַ גרויסן חלק פֿונעם מענטשלעכן פּראָגרעס אין די לעצטע 400 יאָר האָבן מיר צו פֿאַרדאַנקען דער קאַווע, וואָס אָן איר וואָלטן אונדזערע דערפֿינדער אַנטשלאָפֿן געוואָרן אין מיטן דער אַרבעט און אפֿשר גאָרניט דערפֿונדן.
פּונקט אַזוי וויכטיק ווי די קאַווע אַליין, איז די קולטור אַרום דער קאַווע. אין יאָר 2011 האָט „אונעסקאָ“ אָנערקענט די ווינער קאַוועהויז־קולטור ווי אַ טייל פֿון דער „אוממאַטעריעלער קולטור־ירושה“ פֿון עסטרײַך, און דערמיט באַשטעטיקט ווין ווי די קאַווע־הויפּטשטאָט פֿון דער וועלט. דאָרט איז קאַווע ניט בלויז אַ געטראַנק, נאָר אַ גאַנצער לעבנס־שטייגער מיט אַ טראַדיציע פֿון הונדערטער יאָרן.
לויט דער לעגענדע איז דער ערשטער ווינער קאַפֿע אויפֿגעקומען נאָך אין „מלך סאָביעסקיס צײַטן“ — טאַקע אין 1683, ווען דער פּוילישער קעניג יאַן סאָביעסקי האָט באַפֿרײַט ווין פֿון דער טערקישער באַלאַגערונג. צווישן די זאַכן, וואָס די טערקישע אַרמיי האָט דאָרט איבערגעלאָזט, זײַנען געווען זעק מיט קאַווע־בעבלעך. סאָביעסקי האָט זיי איבערגעגעבן צו זײַנעם אַן אָפֿיציר, וואָס האָט דערנאָך געעפֿנט דעם ערשטן קאַפֿע.
די בליצײַט פֿונעם ווינער קאַפֿע איז אָבער געווען סוף 19טן, אָנהייב 20סטן יאָרהונדערט, ווען די שטאָט האָט געקאָכט מיט קאַוועהויז־ליטעראַטן און קינסטלער. זיי פֿלעגן באַשטעלן איין טעפּעלע קאַווע און זיצן איבער אים אַ גאַנצן טאָג, און דער דעמאָלטיקער קעלנער האָט זיי ניט געטשעפּעט. אין זײַנע זכרונות האָט דער פּראָזאַיִקער שטעפֿאַן צווײַג באַשריבן דעם קלאַסישן ווינער קאַפֿע אַזוי:
„ער שטעלט מיט זיך פֿאָר אַן אינטסיטוציע פֿון אַ ספּעציעלן סאָרט, וואָס מע קען זי ניט פֿאַרגלײַכן מיט קיין ענלעכער אין דער וועלט. דאָס איז טאַקע געווען אַ מין דעמאָקראַטישער קלוב, צוטריטלעך פֿאַר יעדן איינעם פֿאַר אַ ביליקן טעפּל קאַווע, וווּ יעדער גאַסט האָט געקענט פֿאַר אַ גראָשן זיצן שעהען לאַנג, שמועסן, שרײַבן, שפּילן אין קאָרטן, באַקומען זײַן פּאָסט און, דער עיקר, קאָנסומירן אָן אַ שיעור צײַטונגען און זשורנאַלן. יעדן טאָג זײַנען מיר געזעסן שעהען לאַנג, און האָבן גאָרנישט פֿאַרפֿעלט.“
זינט די 1990ער יאָרן איז די קאַוועהויז־קולטור צוריק אַרײַן אין דער מאָדע און די ווינער האָבן מזל, וואָס ניט ווייניק פֿון זייערע אַלטע קאַפֿעען זײַנען נאָך פֿאַראַן — כאָטש ווי ערטער ניט פֿאַר שרײַבער און קינסטלער, נאָר פֿאַר גבֿירים און טוריסטן. אין דער אַלטער קײַזערלעכער קאָנדיטערײַ „דעמעל“, למשל, מישן זיך די ריחות פֿון קאַווע און שאָקאָלאַד מיטן גלאַנץ פֿון שפּיגלען און גאָלדענע הענגלײַכטערס. אַז אַן אָרעמער שרײַבער וואָלט זיך דאָרט געזעצט צו דער אַרבעט, וואָלט ער ניט פֿאַרענדיקט אַפֿילו די ערשטע זײַט, ווײַל די ניט זייער העפֿלעכע קעלנערינס וואָלטן אים אַרויסגעטריבן.
צו דער ווינער קאַוועהויז־קולטור געהערט אויך אַ רײַך־אַנטוויקלטער קאַווע־וואָקאַבולאַר: באַליבט איז דער „מעלאַנזש“ — האַלב קאַווע, האַלב געשוימטע מילך; די „אײַזקאַווע“ — אַ דריטל קאַווע, אײַזקרעם און קרעם (זייער געשמאַק!); דער „פֿאַרלענגערטער“ — האַלב מאָקאַ (קאַווע מיט שאָקאָלאַד), האַלב הייס וואַסער. ווי אויך מער עקזאָטישע מינים: די „קאָזאַקן־קאַווע“ — אַ מאָקאַ, געמישט מיט צוקער, רויטווײַן און וואָדקע; דער „אָטעלאָ“ — אַן עספּרעסאָ מיט הייסן שאָקאָלאַד; און די „צאַרן־קאַווע“ — אַן עספּרעסאָ, באַדעקט מיטן פֿאַרצוקערטן געלכל פֿון אַן איי. דערצו קומט יעדע קאַווע מיט אַ גלעזל וואַסער און אַ קיכל אָדער ביסקוויט, וואָס מאַכט פֿונעם קאַווע-טרינקען אַ גאַנצע צערעמאָניע.
אין די לעצטע יאָרן איז די ווינער קאַוועהויז־קולטור נאָך „באַרײַכערט“ געוואָרן מיט אַן אַמעריקאַנער אימפּאָרט — די פֿירמע „סטאַרבאָקס“ האָט געעפֿנט אַ צענדליק פֿיליאַלן אין דער שטאָט. איינער אַזאַ קאַפֿע שטייט אַנטקעגן דער „הויפֿבורג“, דעם קײַזערלעכן פּאַלאַץ, וווּ עס האָט אין משך פֿון 600 יאָר רעזידירט די האַבסבורג־דינאַסטיע. דערווײַל זײַנען די ווינער אפֿשר צופֿרידן, וואָס זיי האָבן נאָר אַ צענדליק „סטאַרבאָקס“, און ניט 250, ווי ניו־יאָרק.
איין וויכטיקע זאַך האָב איך זיך געלערנט פֿון די ווינער: דרך־ארץ פֿאַר דער קאַווע. זי איז ניט סתּם אַן אַדיקציע, וואָס האָט פֿאַרשקלאַפֿט כּמעט די גאַנצע מענשהייט. זי איז אַן אַדיקציע מיט אַן אַריסטאָקראַטישער טראַדיציע און מיט אַ לאַנגער היסטאָריע פֿון קינסטלערישער שעפֿערישקייט. אַזוי דאַרף מען טראַכטן, ווען מע פֿילט אָן דעם טערמאָס מיט קאַווע אין דער פֿרי.
The post The coffee capital of the world appeared first on The Forward.