Uncategorized
Gaza protest slogans amounted to ‘racial slurs’ toward Jews, Trump administration alleges in new Harvard lawsuit
In the Trump administration’s year-long battle with Harvard University threatening federal funding over alleged antisemitism, its precise concerns have emerged in fuzzy and piecemeal fashion — in comments from White House officials, administrative agency findings and letters to the university as a pressure campaign and negotiations dragged on.
That changed Friday with a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which levels specific allegations of how the government contends Harvard violated the rights of Jewish and Israeli students.
The government claims in its federal court complaint that these students had been “harassed, physically assaulted, stalked, and spat upon,” and relies heavily on the report produced by Harvard’s own antisemitism task force, which found many Jewish students had experienced painful social isolation but stopped short of alleging that the university itself had engaged in antisemitism.
The lawsuit goes further, though, presenting its specific allegations alongside strident arguments popular with political opponents of the campus demonstrations that swept Harvard and other higher education institutions across the country after Oct. 7.
Harvard was not only too lenient toward protesters who violated school rules, but the protests themselves sought to intimidate and threaten violence toward Jewish students — the lawsuit claims — through the use of particular language.
Offensive terms
In laying out their case that students’ civil rights have been violated, lawyers for the federal government detailed offenses that Harvard allegedly permitted or allowed against Jewish students, and cited testimony from students who told the antisemitism task force that they had been assaulted and were afraid to display wear Jewish symbols on campus.
The complaint also provides examples of Harvard responding to claims of bias and discrimination lodged by other minority groups, that it says were not taken when community members raised concerns around antisemitism.
While stating that “peaceful protests that annoy Jewish and Israeli students” are not the target, the DOJ goes on to detail demonstrations that it asserts crossed a line, using slogans such as “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” “globalize the intifada,” and “there is only one solution, intifada revolution.”
The DOJ stated: “to a Jewish or Israeli ear, these chants are racial slurs.”
After summarizing the Hamas attack against Israel — including a graphic allegation that Hamas terrorists cut open a pregnant woman’s womb and stabbed her fetus — the lawsuit said that the violence was “representative of what is meant by ‘intifada.’”
And the complaint also stated: “‘Intifada’ was the name given to a pair of wars waged by Palestinian groups against Israeli civilians” and that the only “reasonable” way to interpret the terms used by protesters was “as calls to kill Jews, rather than metaphors expressing political opposition to Israel.”
Prevailing on this point won’t necessarily be easy.
“Intifada,” in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, refers to two periods of political unrest that combined widespread protests against Israeli military rule in the West Bank and Gaza with violent attacks on Israeli civilians. Palestinian militants killed around 1,000 Israelis during the second Intifada, which took place between 2000 and 2005, while Israeli soldiers killed an estimated 3,000 Palestinians.
“Globalize the intifada” has become an especially controversial slogan because it invokes this history of violence for many Jews.
But proponents of the slogans, including some Jews in the campus protest movement, have embraced them as an expression of solidarity with Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation.
The lawsuit similarly states that “from the river to the sea” is similarly not a political slogan but a call to expel the Jewish population of Israel.
Potential precedent
Legal precedent on the slogans don’t work in Trump’s favor.
In October, a panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals — which oversees the Massachusetts district court in which the government filed its lawsuit against Harvard — rejected
the argument by student plaintiffs and StandWithUs that protesters at MIT were engaged in antisemitic behavior when they used similar slogans.
“Plaintiffs say that we should construe chants of ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ and ‘intifada revolution’ as calls to wipe out the Jewish people as such,” the judges wrote in their ruling. “But neither slogan says as much on its face, nor do plaintiffs allege facts suggesting that either chant was commonly so constructed by the protesters.”
Ken Marcus, who ran the Education Department’s civil rights division during the first Trump administration, acknowledged that ruling could create a “controlling precedent” compelling the judge assigned to the Department of Justice’s case against Harvard to reject claims that the slogans were de facto antisemitic.
But he said other judges in the district had rejected attempts by Harvard to dismiss on free speech grounds other lawsuits that claimed that the school tolerated an antisemitic environment for Jewish students.
And some courts elsewhere in the country have reached the conclusions the Trump administration seeks. A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled in August that stealing an Israeli flag could be a hate crime because “targeting the Star of David is as racially motivated as the highly offensive racial slur, ‘‘n—.’” And the judge overseeing a lawsuit against the University of California, Los Angeles, that was ultimately settled ruled that anti-Zionist demonstrations required Jewish students to “denounce their faith,” declaring this “unimaginable and so abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.”
Marcus, who now runs the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said he supported the government lawsuit and was not worried that an unfavorable ruling — in which a judge rejects the notion that the campus protests were inherently antisemitic — would make it more difficult to bring similar cases against other universities.
“Even if the Justice Department loses its case, other universities aren’t going to want to be dragged through this sort of process,” Marcus said. “It will be expensive, it will be time-consuming — it’s just not the sort of thing that other institutions would want to risk.”
Latest salvo
The lawsuit is only the latest chapter in a campaign against Harvard that began almost a year ago when three federal agencies threatened to suspend $9 billion in funding to the venerable Cambridge institution unless it made a wide range of changes ostensibly intended to address antisemitism, including changes to academic departments and campus protest policies.
When the government made good on its threat to cut funds, Harvard sued and won a series of legal victories starting in June. Those, culminated in the fall, when a federal judge in Boston ruled that the funding freeze was illegal and that the White House had used “antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.”
The government is appealing that ruling. But where the initial funding freeze relied on an untested legal theory in which the government claimed it was allowed to suspend grants for violations of civil rights law without following the standard procedure, Friday’s lawsuit follows the more conventional path and asks for judicial approval to revoke federal funding for Harvard and clawback three years worth of grants.
“In theory this process is what they should have been doing all along,” said Katy Joseph, who served as an Education Department official during the Biden administration. “But I think the conflict between the federal government and Harvard has gone far beyond vindicating the rights of Jewish and Israeli students — it’s more about proving a point than ensuring all students can learn.”
The post Gaza protest slogans amounted to ‘racial slurs’ toward Jews, Trump administration alleges in new Harvard lawsuit appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
In Congress, a measure to tighten U.S.-Israel military ties sparks backlash on both sides of the aisle
Next year’s National Defense Authorization Act has made its way to the House floor, and has some Democrats and conservatives alike rallying against a provision that critics in Congress say would embroil the U.S. in unprecedented levels of military integration with Israel.
The measure, Section 224 of the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act, was advanced by Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., and ranking member Adam Smith, D-Wash., as part of the committee’s annual defense bill. If enacted, it would establish a framework for expanded U.S.-Israel defense cooperation. An official designated by the Pentagon would be responsible for coordinating collaboration with Israel on technologies ranging from missile defense and drones to artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and biotechnology. The provision also encourages joint research projects, shared manufacturing arrangements, military training exercises, and closer cooperation between American and Israeli defense companies.
While the proposal has generated controversy in its own right, it is also fueling a broader conversation about what the U.S.-Israel defense relationship should look like after 2028, when the current 10-year memorandum of understanding governing American military assistance to Israel expires.
The United States has provided military assistance to Israel since 1960, but since 1998, the bulk of that aid has been directed by a series of such memoranda negotiated between the two countries. Congress must still approve the funds annually, but lawmakers have historically funded the agreements as negotiated.
But in recent months, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear that he does not wish to renew the 2016 MOU to its full extent, stating that he hopes to “taper off” U.S. aid over the next decade and wishes to focus instead on a more collaborative defense relationship.
His comments come as public support for Israel has declined in the United States and military aid has come under increasing political scrutiny, with many Democrats and some Republicans calling to reduce or cut off assistance. An April Pew Research Center survey found that 60% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% a year earlier. Negative views have risen among both Democrats and Republicans, particularly among younger generations. Today, 57% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats ages 18 to 49 have an unfavorable view according to the Pew survey.
Rachel Brandenburg, managing director and senior policy analyst at the Israel Policy Forum, said Israeli leaders are likely aware that future aid packages could face greater scrutiny from both Democrats and an increasingly isolationist wing of the Republican Party, a factor that helps explain the Israeli interest in reducing its reliance on U.S. aid. At the same time, she said, Israel’s increasingly sophisticated defense industry and strong economy have made it less reliant on American financing than in the past.
Against that backdrop, supporters of Section 224 argue that deeper cooperation could help lay the groundwork for a future relationship based on mutual benefits.
“The United States has more to gain by harnessing Israel’s defense tech ecosystem, their innovative capabilities,” Brandenburg said. “Their economy is strong, so there’s quite a bit that they could be buying with their own dollars.”
Michael O’Hanlon, the Chair in Defense and Strategy and director of research in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, told the Forward he believes the concerns that Section 224 would integrate the U.S.-Israel defense relationship to unprecedented levels are overblown. “My overall sense is that this would move the US-Israel relationship in the direction of AUKUS,” he said, referring to an existing trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
“In theory, it shouldn’t really be needed because collaboration is already close,” he explained. “In practice, this kind of provision might help cut through bureaucratic red tape and speed up collaborations. But on balance, I don’t expect huge change because the partnership is already very tight.”
Critics, however, see the proposal very differently.
Its opponents worry that if the U.S. and Israel move away from a military-aid relationship and toward a more collaborative partnership, large parts of the U.S.-Israel defense relationship will be harder to scrutinize or limit. Instead of debating aid packages, lawmakers could find themselves dealing with defense projects that are already built into Pentagon programs and contracts.
“It’s taking one program that’s become unpopular and turning it into another program that those who would disapprove of an intensified U.S.-Israeli defense relationship won’t really know about,” said Steven Simon, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute.
If combined with Israel’s stated desire to reduce its reliance on aid and other efforts to deepen defense cooperation, Simon says Section 224 could produce a relationship that is “much more integrated, immutable, and immune to political pressures than has ever existed.”
Similar concerns have been raised by lawmakers on the left.
Sen. Bernie Sanders announced Monday that he intends to “strongly oppose” the provision, arguing that “Netanyahu is lobbying for Section 224 in the national defense bill, a provision that quietly expands U.S.-Israel military cooperation and weapons development with almost zero oversight.”
Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, also opposes the provision and introduced an amendment to strike Section 224 during committee markup, stating, “The American people are tired of the arrogance and insolence of Prime Minister Netanyahu telling America what we should do.”
On the right, political figures and commentators have framed the measure as a threat to American sovereignty.
Former representative Marjorie Taylor Greene tied the provision to the recent reports of Israeli espionage against the U.S., stating on X, “The Pentagon raised threat of Israeli spying on the U.S. to the highest level and AIPAC is openly cheering Republicans for section 224 in the NDAA that merges our military with Israel’s military.” Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie — who this week held a hearing premised on the conspiracy theory that Israel intentionally killed U.S. soldiers on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War — pledged to offer a floor amendment to strike the section.
The debate has also been picked up by far-right commentators, including podcaster Alex Jones, who stated: “This is beyond treason. This is absolutely a foreign government merging with us. Israel is now the main threat to the existence of this country.”
Brandenburg pushed back on concerns that the proposal would weaken oversight. Rather than moving cooperation further from public view, the legislation calls for additional reporting to Congress and public disclosure of some forms of existing coordination between the two countries, Brandenburg noted.
“That’s new,” she said, “in the sense of adding the accountability and transparency to these elements of the relationship in ways that didn’t exist previously.”
She also asserts many critics have overstated the significance of Section 224, noting that many of the forms of cooperation described in the legislation — including collaboration on missile defense, cyber security and counter-drone technology — are already taking place.
“Those who want to counter the idea that Israel and the United States should be working together have exaggerated what this legislation is actually saying,” she said. “They are accusing it of things like integrating the U.S. and Israeli militaries, or subjugating the U.S. military to the Israeli military. None of that is actually called for in here.”
The post In Congress, a measure to tighten U.S.-Israel military ties sparks backlash on both sides of the aisle appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel names a street after renowned Yiddish poet Abraham Sutzkever
The Israeli city of Netanya has renamed one of its streets Rechov Avrom Sutzkever (Abraham Sutzkever Street), after the renowned Yiddish poet and Vilna partisan.
The event on June 10 marked an important cultural moment, recognizing the legacy of a poet who devoted his life to Yiddish language and Jewish culture. During his lifetime, Sutzkever was celebrated not only for his poetry, but also for editing the storied Yiddish literary magazine Di goldene keyt (The Golden Chain) for 46 years. His work remains a fixture in the field of Yiddish literature today.
Sutzkever was born in 1913 in the shtetl of Smorgon, in what is now Belarus. During World War I, his family moved to Siberia, where his father, Hertz Sutzkever, died. In 1921, his mother Rayne moved the family to Vilnius, where Sutzkever attended cheder.
Sutzkever survived the Vilna Ghetto. He was a leader of the “Paper Brigade” that rescued Jewish cultural treasures from the Nazis and later became the only Jewish witness called by the Soviets to testify at the Nuremberg Trials.
His poetry chronicled his childhood in Siberia, his life in the Vilna ghetto and his escape to join the Jewish partisans. In 1947 he settled in Palestine, later Israel.
In Israel, he continued to create, publish and preserve Yiddish culture for decades. Yet, despite his immense influence around the world, he remained less known in Israel because he chose to write and fight for the Yiddish language rather than switch to Hebrew.
This is the first time a street in Israel has been named after him. Even Tel Aviv never did so, despite the fact that Sutzkever lived there for many years and the city was once a hotbed of Yiddish cultural activity, due to the influx of Yiddish-speaking immigrants who settled there after the Holocaust.
The street-naming ceremony was attended by the Mayor of Netanya, Avi Slama; representatives of the Lithuanian Embassy; public figures, artists, and members of the family, including Sutzkever’s granddaughter, Hadas Kalderon.
In the past decade, Kalderon has been instrumental in keeping Abraham Sutzkever’s memory alive, most notably through two documentary films: Ver Vet Blaybn? (Who Will Remain?) in 2021, and Black Honey: The Life and Poetry of Avraham Sutzkever in 2018.
Kalderon told me that she was very moved by Netanya’s decision to name the street after her grandfather, in a garden overlooking the Mediterranean Sea. “It was not only a tribute to Sutzkever himself, but also a powerful moment of recognition for Yiddish language and culture within the State of Israel,” she said.
The post Israel names a street after renowned Yiddish poet Abraham Sutzkever appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
At the dawn of the World Cup, the story of the Jews who helped bring soccer to America
When the North American FIFA World Cup starts in Mexico City on June 11, the story will largely be told through the familiar lenses of Lionel Messi, the geography of the 48 participants and three hosts, and — because 75% of the games will be played there — the continuing rise of soccer in the United States. But there is another, less familiar story woven through the tournament: the long, strange and often overlooked history of Jews in North American soccer.
Mostly that’s been in the United States where players and owners have included a larger proportion of Jews than in Canada and Mexico. By my count, no Jewish players have represented Mexico, and only two Jewish men have represented Canada at senior international level and one of them, Tomer Chencinski, only did so once, in a friendly game where Canada lost 2-0 to Belarus in Doha. (Daniel Haber played 5 international games in his career).
For whatever reason, whether more closely linked to Europe, denied entry to other sports, or just arbiters of excellent taste, Jewish Americans have been at the forefront of soccer in the United States for over a century. The first American to play for a major European team was Eddy Hamel for Ajax Amsterdam in 1922. Hamel was a New York-born winger who became a star for Ajax in Amsterdam during the 1920s. An injury forced his retirement in the 1930s and, after the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, he was deported and murdered at Auschwitz in 1943. His story remains one of the most tragic intersections of Jewish history and world football.
Jews also comprised the largest soccer crowd in America when 46,000 New Yorkers watched Hakoach Vienna play New York All Stars in 1926. That record stood for over 50 years but it also encouraged a number of members of the Hakoach team to emigrate to the US and start a New York team that was a crucial part of the American Soccer League of the era.
Later, in the 1970s, the National American Soccer League — the glitzy NASL — became a success thanks to the glamorous New York Cosmos. As head of Warner Communications, their CEO Steve Ross, born Rechnitz, was the person who brought Pele over and made the league the star-studded affair it became. After Herman Sarkowsky co-founded the Seattle Sounders, the continent was almost ready for football.
When the NASL faded and folded, soccer dwindled as a major sport in the United States. Alan Rothenberg saw an opportunity to revive the sport by hosting the 1994 World Cup and founding the MLS as a reset. As president of the U.S. Soccer Federation and the chief executive of the World Cup USA 1994 organizing committee, he made both of those happen and laid the foundations for the current shape of U.S. soccer.
The success of the MLS was not a foregone conclusion, though; indeed, it barely survived to the millennium. It was founded in 1993 but only started playing in 1996 — losing an estimated $350 million between its founding and 2004. The league initially turned to Don Garber, a former NFL executive, in August 1999 but even he couldn’t turn it around. By late 2001, it looked like the league would fold like its predecessors but it was able to secure new financing from owners Lamar Hunt, Philip Anschutz, and the Kraft family to take on more teams. Over the past 20 years, it has become robust, enjoying the general boom of all things soccer, riding the coattails of the English Premier League.
Without Robert Kraft and Anschutz, Major League Soccer might not exist today. During the league’s precarious early years, the two billionaire owners absorbed enormous losses to keep the fledgling competition alive. Kraft, the owner of the NFL’s New England Patriots, was also a central figure in bringing the 2026 World Cup to North America. As chairman of the United Bid Committee, he played a crucial role in securing the tournament for the United States, Canada and Mexico.
If Kraft represents one side of the Jewish soccer story, Chuck Blazer represents another.
The larger-than-life American soccer executive helped expose corruption inside FIFA, serving as a key witness in the investigations that ultimately toppled some of the most powerful figures in world football. Yet Blazer was a product of the very system he later helped unravel. His spectacular rise and fall remains one of the strangest chapters in soccer history, a tale of luxury apartments, exotic pets and global corruption.
Unlike baseball, basketball or boxing, soccer never became known as a major arena of Jewish achievement in the United States. Perhaps that has been due to the historic lack of status for soccer in the country. Despite the excellence of Yael Averbuch West for the USWNT and a number of Jewish players for the USMNT including Jonathan Bornstein, Benny Feilhaber, Dan Calichman, DeAndre Yedlin, Kyle Beckerman and the maverick Yari Alnutt there have been no soccer equivalents of Sandy Koufax or Hank Greenberg.
The stalwart defender Jeff “Goose” Agoos came closest with 134 international appearances and six more for the U.S. soccer Olympic team. But playing with a mediocre USMNT, he enjoyed few legendary moments. In fact, arguably no professional moments outshone the bizarre story of his 1989 NCAA championship ring in his junior year, the season that he played in the Maccabiah. On Dec. 3 of that year, his Virginia Cavalier team (playing for future USMNT coach Bruce Arena) met the top ranked, undefeated Santa Clara team in a freezing cold stadium in Piscataway, N.J. The teams were still tied 1-1 after FOUR overtimes and, with no penalties on the books, they shared the spoils. It was the third time that two teams shared the championship and has never happened again.
This year’s USMNT squad does include the only Jewish player at this summer’s tournament — reserve goalkeeper Matt Turner. If, as coach Mauricio Pochettino plans, Turner exclusively warms the bench, he will take his place alongside many of America’s notable Jewish soccer figures who have furthered the game, even if not on the field.
The post At the dawn of the World Cup, the story of the Jews who helped bring soccer to America appeared first on The Forward.
