Uncategorized
Hating Israel Isn’t New; How the CIA and State Department Undermined the Jewish State
“Teddy Roosevelt’s great-great-great grandson is an anti-Israel protester at Princeton,” blared a New York Post headline on May 4, 2024.
The Post reported that Quentin Colon Roosevelt, an 18-year-old freshman, and descendant of the 25th President, is an anti-Israel activist at the Ivy League university. But far from being hip and new, Quentin’s brand of anti-Zionism is old hat — he is merely continuing a long family tradition of anti-Israel activism.
There is an abundance of literature on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s views on Jews and Zionism, the belief in Jewish self-determination. Both FDR and his wife Eleanor had made antisemitic remarks. In a private conversation in 1938, then-President Roosevelt suggested that by dominating the economy in Poland, Jews were themselves fueling antisemitism. And in a 1941 Cabinet meeting, FDR remarked that there were too many Jewish Federal employees in Oregon. In his final days, FDR promised Saudi leader Abdul Aziz Ibn al Saud that he would oppose the creation of Jewish state in the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland.
FDR is the president who led the United States to victory against Adolf Hitler. He also employed Jews in high-ranking positions in his government. But he is also the president whose administration failed to save more Jews fleeing Nazism, and who refused to bomb the railway tracks leading to Auschwitz and other death camps where millions of Jews met a ghastly end. Accordingly, it makes sense that his beliefs regarding Jews have been the subject of books and belated study.
Less examined, however, is the Oyster Bay branch of the Roosevelt clan, and their beliefs regarding Zionism. In part, this is easily explained by the unique place that FDR holds in American history. He is the only president to serve four terms, and presided over both the Great Depression, World War II, and arguably the beginning of the Cold War. His branch of the family, the Hyde Park Roosevelts, were Democrats and remained active in public life for decades after his 1945 death.
At first glance, the Oyster Bay Roosevelts were more of a turn of the 19th century affair. They were Republicans, and their scion was Teddy Roosevelt, a war hero turned governor of New York state who, thanks to an assassin’s bullet, found himself as the nation’s leader in 1901.
The famously ebullient Roosevelt helped redefine the country’s idea of a president, and served as an inspiration for his cousin Franklin. But Teddy largely presided over an era of peace and tranquility, not war and upheaval.
Teddy was a philosemite. He was the first occupant of the Oval Office to appoint a Jewish American to the Cabinet. He championed the rights of Jews, both at home and abroad, and was harshly critical of the numerous pogroms that unfolded in czarist Russia.
As Seth Rogovoy has noted, Roosevelt’s “special relationship with Jews was forged during his time serving as police commissioner in New York City, a post he assumed in 1904.” When an antisemitic German preacher named Hermann Ahlwardt gave speeches in the city, Roosevelt assigned a contingent of Jewish police officers to guard the man.
Roosevelt was also a Zionist. In 1918, shortly after the Balfour Declaration, he wrote: “It seems to me that it is entirely proper to start a Zionist state around Jerusalem.” He told Lioubomir Michailovitch, the Serbian Minister to the United States, that “there can be no peace worth having … unless the Jews [are] given control of Palestine.” Six months later Roosevelt died in his sleep.
Not all his descendants would share his belief in Jewish self-determination, however.
Two of Teddy Roosevelt’s grandchildren, Kermit and Archie, served their country in the CIA during the early years of the Cold War. Both were keenly interested in Middle East affairs, and were fluent in Arabic. Both were well read and highly educated, authoring books and filing dispatches for newspapers like the Saturday Evening Post, among others.
They were also prominent anti-Zionists.
Kermit Roosevelt, known as “Kim,” played a key role in anti-Zionist efforts in the United States and abroad. He was not, by the standards of his time, an antisemite. But he was ardently opposed to the creation of Israel.
As Hugh Wilford observed in his 2013 book America’s Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East: “the anti-Zionism of the overt Cold War foreign policy establishment is well known” but “less widely appreciated is the opposition to Jewish statehood of the individuals responsible for setting up the United States’ covert apparatus in the Middle East.”
This began with the OSS, the CIA’s precursor. And it included men like Stephen Penrose, a former American University of Beirut instructor, and Kim Roosevelt’s boss during his wartime service in the OSS.
“Documents among Penrose’s personal papers reveal him engaged in a variety of anti-Zionist activities at the same time that he was commencing his official duties with the OSS,” Wilford notes.
Like many of his fellow Arabists, Penrose was the son of American missionaries who, failing to convert the native population to Christianity, sought to foster Arab nationalism instead. Penrose described himself as a “chief cook” who was “brewing” opposition to Zionism. He became one of Kim Roosevelt’s mentors.
In a January 1948 Middle East Journal article entitled, “Partition of Palestine: A Lesson in Pressure Politics,” Kim called the 1947 UN vote in favor of a Jewish state an “instructive and disturbing story.”
Roosevelt believed that the US media was unduly supportive of the creation of Israel, and claimed that almost all Americans “with diplomatic, educational, missionary, or business experience in the Middle East” opposed Zionism.
Kim’s pamphlet was reprinted by the Institute for Arab American Affairs, a New York-based group whose board he sat on. He also began working with the Arab League’s Washington, D.C., office and “turned elsewhere for allies in the anti-Zionist struggle, starting with the Protestant missionaries, educators, and aid workers.”
This nascent group soon received financial support from the American oil industry, which maintained close links to Kim’s OSS/CIA colleague, William Eddy.
As Wilford noted, the Arabian consortium ARAMCO “launched a public relations campaign intended to bring American opinion around to the Arab point of view.”
In addition to missionaries and big oil, Kim gained another important ally in the form of Elmer Berger, a rabbi from Flint, Michigan. Berger served as executive director of the American Council for Judaism, an anti-Zionist group that, among other things, opposed the creation of a Jewish army during World War II at the height of the Holocaust. Berger and Roosevelt became drinking buddies and close collaborators on their joint effort against the Jewish State.
Kim eventually became “organizing secretary” for a group called The Committee for Justice and Peace. The committee’s original chair, Virginia Gildersleeve, was both a longtime friend of the Roosevelts of Oyster Bay and the dean of New York City’s Barnard College, which today is part of Columbia.
Gildersleeve was “also a high-profile anti-Zionist” who “became involved with the Arab cause through her association with the Arabist philanthropist Charles Crane and the historian of Arab nationalism George Antonius.”
Crane, a wealthy and notorious antisemite, had lobbied against the creation of a Jewish state since the beginning of the 20th century, even advising then-President Woodrow Wilson against supporting the Balfour Declaration.
By 1950, the Committee had managed to recruit famed journalist Dorothy Thompson to their cause. Thompson was reportedly the basis for actress Katharine Hepburn’s character in the 1942 movie Woman of the Year. A convert to anti-Zionism, Thompson’s extensive network of reporters and celebrities proved crucial to Kim and Berger’s efforts to rally opposition to the Jewish State. In a 1951 letter to Barnard College’s Gildersleeve, Thompson wrote: “I am seriously concerned about the position of the Jews in the United States.” People, she claimed, “are beginning to ask themselves the question: who is really running America?”
Another ally emerged that year: the Central Intelligence Agency.
The CIA began funding the Committee, as well as its successor, the American Friends of the Middle East (AFME). Beginning in June 1950, Kim’s correspondence with Berger began making veiled references to the ACJ head taking on “official work” in Washington. This, Wilford believes, is a reference to working with the CIA. Indeed, the well-connected Kim and Archie Roosevelt had known top CIA officials like Allan Dulles since childhood.
With support from figures like Eddy, AFME also began encouraging Muslim-Christian alliances — ostensibly to counter Soviet influence, but also to attack the Jewish state. This led to some awkward alliances, including with Amin al-Husseini, the founding father of Palestinian nationalism and an infamous Nazi collaborator.
Husseini had ordered the murders of rival Palestinians, incited violence against Jews since the 1920s, and had led forces, equipped with Nazi-supplied arms, to destroy Israel at its rebirth in 1948. Now, along with the Secretary General of the Arab League, and Saudi King Ibn Saud, he was meeting with Eddy to discuss a “moral alliance” between Christians and Muslims to defeat communism. Kim himself knew Husseini, having interviewed him for the Saturday Evening Post after World War II.
AFME lobbied for the appointment of anti-Zionist diplomats and in favor of Eisenhower administration efforts to withhold aid from Israel. And both Berger and Thompson pushed for favorable coverage of the new Egyptian dictator, Gamal Nassar, who would wage war on the Jewish state for nearly two decades. Initially, they were successful, with TIME magazine writing that Nasser had the “lithe grace of a big, handsome, all-American quarterback.” Of course, there was nothing “all-American” about Nasser, who would become a Soviet stooge.
AFME officials like Garland Evans Hopkins would draw rebukes after claiming that Jews were bringing violence against themselves — a staple of antisemitism. Hopkins claimed that Zionists “could produce a wave of antisemitism in this country” if they continued acting against “America’s best interests in the Middle East.”
AFME itself would eventually lose influence, particularly after its boosting of figures like Nasser was revealed as foolhardy. Berger would go on to advise Senator J. William Fulbright (D-AR) in his efforts to get pro-Israel Americans to register as foreign agents.
In 1967, as Arab forces gathered to annihilate Israel, Berger blamed the Jewish State, accusing it of “aggression” and its supporters of “hysteria.” Top ACJ officials resigned in protest. That same year, Ramparts magazine exposed CIA support, financial and otherwise, of AFME.
Kim and Archie Roosevelt, however, would continue their careers as high-ranking CIA officers before eventually starting a consulting business and making use of their extensive Middle East contacts.
For some college protesters, attacking Israel — and American support for Israel — might seem new and trendy. Yet, both the CIA and big oil were precisely doing that, decades ago, forming alliances with anti-American dictators, antisemitic war criminals, the press, Protestant groups, academics, university administrators, and fringe Jewish groups claiming to represent “what’s best” for American Jewry.
As William Faulkner once wrote: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
The writer is a Senior Research Analyst for CAMERA, the 65,000-member, Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis
The post Hating Israel Isn’t New; How the CIA and State Department Undermined the Jewish State first appeared on Algemeiner.comhttps://www.algemeiner.com/.
Uncategorized
Support for Israel, Trump Gaza Peace Plan Remains High Among US Voters, New Poll Finds
Pro-Israel rally in Times Square, New York City, US, Oct. 8, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Jeenah Moon
A new national survey suggests that American support for Israel remains resilient overall but with notable generational divides that could shape the future political landscape.
According to the February 2026 Harvard CAPS / Harris Poll, strong majorities of US registered voters back policies aligned with Israel’s security posture and express approval of President Donald Trump’s handling of the conflict in Gaza. At the same time, the data shows that support for Israel fluctuates significantly depending on age.
Notably, the survey was conducted last week on Wednesday and Thursday, just before the US and Israel launched their military campaign against Iran over the weekend.
Among respondents, 73 percent of voters say they support Trump’s Gaza deal framework. The proposal, aimed at restructuring governance and stabilizing post-war conditions in Gaza, commands bipartisan backing in the poll’s toplines.
The plan calls for the dismantling of Hamas’s military and political control, the establishment of an interim administrative authority backed by regional Arab partners, and a major internationally funded reconstruction effort. Trump has also emphasized expanding normalization between Israel and Arab states, building on the Abraham Accords, as a cornerstone of long-term stability, while maintaining Israel’s security oversight during a transitional period.
Voters appear to prioritize stability and deterrence, responding favorably to an approach framed around preventing Hamas from reasserting control and reinforcing Israel’s long-term security.
The poll shows that a clear majority of Americans continue to side with Israel over Hamas and support Israel’s right to defend itself. However, support levels vary considerably by age group.
Older voters, particularly those over 55, show the strongest pro-Israel sentiment, with large majorities backing Israel’s military actions and expressing sympathy with Israel over the Palestinians. Voters between 35 and 54 also lean pro-Israel, though by narrower margins.
The sharpest contrast appears among younger voters. Americans under 35 remain more divided, with significantly lower levels of sympathy toward Israel and greater skepticism about its military campaign in Gaza. While even in this group Israel retains meaningful support, the margins are slimmer and opposition more vocal.
The generational gap reflects broader cultural and media consumption differences, as well as the impact of campus activism and social media narratives. Yet the topline remains clear: despite softness among younger voters, Israel continues to command majority support nationwide.
Further, strong and stable majorities support Israel over the Hamas terrorist group. According to the survey, 71 percent of Americans support Israel over Hamas. However, support for Israel heavily fractures along age lines. Per the poll, 82 percent of those over 55 years old support Israel, compared to only 62 percent between the ages 35-44. However, a striking 58 percent of those between the ages 18-24 support Hamas over Israel, indicating a groundswell of backing for a foreign terrorist organization among American youth.
In the nearly two-and-a-half years following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, support for the Jewish state has seen significant declines across political and age lines in the US. Younger Americans, particularly, have largely turned against Israel. The increasingly tense relationship between Israel and US voters has become a flashpoint in Democratic primaries, with liberal political hopefuls increasingly vowing not to accept support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the preeminent pro-Israel lobbying group in the US.
The February poll was conducted among 1,999 registered voters, with a margin of error of ±2 percentage points.
Uncategorized
US-Israel War Effort Bolstered by Growing Support in Middle East, Europe as Iran Left Isolated
Smoke rises after reported Iranian missile attacks, following United States and Israel strikes on Iran, as seen from Doha, Qatar, March 1, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Mohammed Salem
As Iran’s missile and drone attacks widen and prompt outrage, a loose coalition is forming of Middle Eastern and Western powers to act against Tehran, leaving the regime increasingly isolated as the US and Israel continue their military campaign.
On Monday, several Israeli media outlets reported that Qatar launched strikes against Iran over the last 24 hours, following what officials described as a series of Iranian attacks targeting the country and the broader region.
However, Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Majid al-Ansari denied Doha’s involvement in “the campaign targeting Iran,” describing its actions as defensive in nature rather than part of any war effort.
“We exercised our legitimate right to self-defense and to deter Iranian aggression against our territory,” al-Ansari said in a statement.
The Qatari diplomat further confirmed that officials had prevented a planned attack aimed at Hamad International Airport in Doha.
“It is misguided to suggest that pressuring Gulf nations will bring Iran back to the negotiating table,” al-Ansari said.
“We received no advance warning from Iran regarding the missile strikes,” he continued. “The target was not limited to military installations, but extended to the country’s entire territory. Such attacks will not go unanswered.”
Amid escalating regional tensions, Saudi Arabia could also be drawn into the military campaign against the Islamist regime after two Iranian drones struck near the United States Embassy in Riyadh, igniting an explosion in the city. Saudi Arabia is considering a symbolic attack on Iran in response, according to Israeli media reports.
US President Donald Trump strongly condemned the attack, issuing a stark warning to Tehran and saying that Iranian aggression would be met with a forceful US response.
“They will soon learn the price of the attack on the US Embassy in Riyadh and the killing of American service members,” Trump wrote in a social media post.
Since the start of the war this past weekend, Iran has reportedly launched 450 missiles and 1,140 drones toward Gulf states, a barrage that has pushed regional governments to distance themselves from Tehran and align more openly with the Israeli and American offensive.
As the conflict widened, Iran extended its attacks beyond Israel, targeting what it described as “US interests” across the region and launching missile and drone strikes that reached several Gulf countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait.
Iran “is now in complete isolation in the entire world, including among the Gulf states,” Darar al-Hol al-Falasi, a former member of the UAE’s Federal National Council, told the Israeli broadcaster Kan News. “The attacks were like the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
Media reports also indicated Iranian strikes in the autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iraq, reportedly to preempt any uprising from Kurdish opposition groups, and an Iranian-made drone, likely launched by Iran-backed Hezbollah from Lebanon, striking a British base in Cyprus.
According to analysts, Iran appeared to believe that expanding the war and targeting Gulf states would push regional governments to press Washington toward de-escalation. However, the move has instead reinforced regional resistance and prompted closer alignment against Tehran.
Meanwhile, both Washington and Jerusalem have indicated that there is no fixed timetable for ending their military operation, stressing that actions will continue as long as necessary to neutralize the threat posed by Iran
“From the beginning, we projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that, we’ll do it,” Trump said in a statement.
“This was our last best chance to strike … and eliminate the intolerable threats posed by this sick and sinister regime,” he continued.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar also said there is no set timeline for the joint military effort with Washington against Iran, describing the strikes as a necessary step to weaken Tehran’s leadership and strategic capabilities.
Initially cautious, European Union members are now gradually increasing their involvement, moving to safeguard strategic assets in the region against Iranian drone and missile threats.
On Tuesday, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot announced an increased French military presence in the region, confirming the deployment of fighter jets to the UAE after an Iranian drone struck a French military installation in Abu Dhabi.
“Discussions are underway with France’s allies in the Middle East regarding the provision of equipment to strengthen their defensive capabilities,” Barrot said.
France will dispatch a warship and anti-missile and anti-drone systems to help protect British facilities in Cyprus after two drones targeting the British air base at RAF Akrotiri were intercepted.
Greece also announced its support for Cyprus, deploying four F-16 fighter jets and two frigates, including one carrying the Centauros anti-drone jamming system, while pledging to defend the island “by all necessary means.”
Britain said it would deploy the Type 45 destroyer HMS Dragon and two Wildcat helicopters armed with Martlet missiles to strengthen defenses in the Eastern Mediterranean.
European support is expanding beyond Cyprus. French President Emmanuel Macron on Tuesday said France was sending its aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Mediterranean and working to build a coalition that would help secure maritime traffic.
“We have economic interests to protect, because oil prices, gas prices, and the international trade situation are being profoundly disrupted by this war,” Macron said in a televised address.
As Iran presses ahead with its regional escalation despite growing opposition, the United States, along with Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, issued a joint statement strongly condemning Tehran’s “indiscriminate and reckless missile and drone attacks” against sovereign territories across the region.
“We stand united in defense of our citizens, sovereignty, and territory, and reaffirm our right to self-defense in the face of these attacks,” the statement read.
Britain, France, and Germany — collectively known as the E3 — have also condemned what they described as “the indiscriminate and disproportionate missile attacks” by Iran on regional countries, saying the strikes pose a broader threat to regional stability.
“Iran’s reckless attacks have targeted our close allies and are threatening our service personnel and our civilians across the region,” the statement said.
“We will take steps to defend our interests and those of our allies, potentially through enabling necessary and proportionate defensive action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones at their source,” it continued. “We have agreed to work together with the US and allies in the region on this matter.”
Meanwhile, China and Russia — despite their close ties to Iran — have so far limited their response to diplomatic statements and calls for de-escalation, echoing their restrained posture during last year’s 12-day war with Israel.
Moscow convened emergency meetings and publicly denounced the attacks but stopped short of offering material assistance to Tehran, despite the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership treaty the two countries signed last year.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stressed that Beijing opposes unilateral military action and supports Iran’s right to defend itself.
“China supports Iran in upholding its sovereignty, security, territorial integrity, and national dignity, while safeguarding its legitimate rights and interests,” the Chinese diplomat said in a statement.
“Major powers should not exploit their military superiority to launch arbitrary attacks on other nations, and the world must not return to a law of the jungle,” she continued.
Beijing is even urging Tehran to avoid disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz — a vital passage connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and a key route for global energy shipments — as escalating conflict threatens international oil and gas supplies.
Iran has long threatened to close the waterway in the event of war with the US.
Uncategorized
‘Solidarity’: Faculty for Palestine Groups Urge Students to Stand With Jihadists, Remnants of Iranian Regime
A woman holds a photo of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as she takes part in anti-US protest outside the White House. Photo: Matrix Images / Gent Shkullaku via Reuters Connect
Anti-Zionist faculty on college campuses are cajoling students to support Islamism, jihad, and terrorism by recruiting them to participate in demonstrations for the revolutionary government of Iran, a regime which is responsible for killing American soldiers through proxy groups across the Middle East.
“Dear Students, I know it is very short notice, but for those who would like to participate in social protest against the US and Israeli war on Iran, Angelenos are gathering in 2 hours at City Hall,” Elizabeth Ribet, a professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, wrote on Saturday, signing off the note with “solidarity.”
“This email is a blatant example of a professor abusing her academic authority to politicize the classroom,” Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, higher education expert and executive director of the campus watchdog group AMCHA Initiative, told The Algemeiner in an exclusive statement. “AMCHA Initiative’s latest report documents hundreds of similar examples and concludes that when faculty blur the line between teaching and anti-Israel political advocacy, antisemitic hostility on campus rises. Recognizing this danger, more than 350 UC [University of California] faculty have recently urged the Regents to act. UC leaders must recommit to academic integrity and ensure classrooms remain places of scholarship and rigorous inquiry, not platforms for political mobilization.”
Ribet’s note is one of many communications that pro-jihadist student and faculty groups have issued since the US and Israel launched military strikes against Iran and killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei over the weekend.
Since then, The Algemeiner has reviewed over a dozen examples of faculty, specifically the Faculty for Justice in Palestine organization, proclaiming solidarity with Iran’s Islamist, authoritarian regime and lambasting the US and Israel for their joint operation.
“These u.s.-backed attacks are designed to spark a regional war, sacrificing the people of Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and beyond to further amerikkkan and zionist domination [sic],” said a post liked by the University of California Ethnic Studies Council, a body of professors who proposed an ethnic studies high school requirement for UC admissions. Critics have noted that the proposal pushed anti-Zionism in the classroom.
“Every drop of their blood spilled ignites our rage, our grief, and our duty,” the post continued. “We must continue to organize in solidarity with the Palestinian people, until the end of zionism [sic] and the liberation of Palestine.”
It added, “RESISTANCE IS GLORIOUS.”
The UC Ethnic Studies Council also shared a post by the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism, a far-left group that has defended terrorism against Israel, which said, “We reject imperialist and wear mongering narratives that position Iran as the intruder in the region, rather than US military bases and US interventionism.”
In Bronxville, New York, Sarah Lawrence College’s Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP) chapter posted a volley of messages which called for “de-platforming Zionists” and ending military operations in Iran. The group also shared false claims that the US opened fire on Pakistani civilians.
Just miles away, Saint John’s University FJP group shared agitprop falsely alleging that the US intentionally targeted an Iranian school with an airstrike and has “always … sacrificed” children. The group also called for sabotaging the war effort by refusing to file taxes or to file by paper to delay the government’s receiving revenue. Meanwhile, the post suggested that agents in the government are prepared to participate in the conspiracy.
“The absolute bare minimum those of us in the imperial core should be doing is NOT FUNDING THIS SH—T,” said the post. “For example even just filing your taxes via paper slows down the IRS and makes it easier for other tax registers to make an impact with their actions as well.”
Bowdoin College, New York University, Bryn Mawr College, and Haverford College all have Faculty for Justice in Palestine groups sharing similar social media content.
The posts come after the Iranian regime killed tens of thousands of civilian anti-government protesters last month in a brutal crackdown. Iran for years has also been the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, according to Western intelligence agencies. For example, Iran funded, armed, and trained Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that perpetrated the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
College faculty not only promote terrorism but also play a singular role in triggering and accelerating the campus antisemitism crisis, according to a recent study by AMCHA Initiative.
Focusing on UC campuses as case studies, the study exposed Oct 7 denialism; faculty calling for driving Jewish institutions off campus; the founding of pro-Hamas, Faculty for Justice in Palestine groups; and hundreds of endorsers of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
“While students are the most visible actors, faculty and academic departments are key institutional drivers of the hostile environment,” the AMCHA Initiative said following the report’s publication. “Across three campuses, many faculty who promoted anti-Israel activism through university channels had previously endorsed an academic boycott of Israel (academic BDS). The boycott’s guidelines explicitly call on supporters to implement ‘anti-normalization’ in their professional roles. These include excluding Zionist perspectives, speakers, and programs from academic life.”
The report followed previous studies revealing the extent of faculty misconduct in higher education promoting anti-Israel animus and even outright antisemitism.
Just last month, The Algemeiner learned that, according to a lawsuit, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University assigned a Jewish student a project on “what Jews do to make themselves such a hated group.”
Similar incidents have come at a fast clip since the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre: a Cornell University praised the terrorist group’s atrocities, which included mass sexual assaults; a Columbia University professor exalted Hamas terrorists who paraglided into a music festival to murder Israeli youth as the “air force of the Palestinian resistance”; and a Harvard University chapter of FJP shared an antisemitic cartoon which depicted Zionists as murderers of Blacks and Arabs.
“The report documents how concentrated networks of faculty activists on each campus, often operating through academic units and faculty-led advocacy formations, convert institutional platforms into vehicles for organized anti-Zionist advocacy and mobilization,” the report stated. “It shows how those pathways are associated with recurring student harms and broader campus disruption. It then outlines concrete steps the UC Regents can take to restore institutional neutrality in academic units and set enforceable boundaries so UC resources and authority are not used to advance activist agendas inside the university’s core educational functions.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.