With the reigning champion Oklahoma City Thunder fighting to return to the NBA Finals, one bold writer dug deep for an analogy: The Thunder, he wrote, is like the state of Israel — a former underdog now despised for its success.

The Oklahoman, a daily newspaper, published the opinion column on its website Monday morning, hours before the Thunder began their semifinal series against the San Antonio Spurs. The story was accompanied by an image of a basketball with the Israeli flag painted on it.

It did not survive to the game’s opening tip; by then, The Oklahoman had taken the article down without comment, amid waves of online ridicule that came from well beyond Oklahoma, from readers who saw Israel as unworthy of the comparison.

Amid the uproar, The Oklahoman distanced itself from the piece. Its executive editor, Ray Rivera, said in a statement sent to the Forward that the column had been “mistakenly published because our approval policies were not followed.”

“After further review, our team determined the content did not align with our opinion standards,” the statement continued. “We’re strengthening our review process to prevent future errors and deeply regret any distress this may have caused.”

The writer, a freelance contributor named Eitan Reshef, had intended to flatter. Reshef wrote that he was both Jewish and Oklahoman, and couldn’t shake the similarities in his rooting interests.

When Israel was attacked on Oct. 7, 2023, the Thunder were coming off of a season in which the team had finished with a losing record. But they have grown into one of the league’s titans since then — during which time Israel has been at war virtually without pause.

Some fans have criticized Thunder players for their penchant for earning free throws, regarding the tactic as unsportsmanlike.

Reshef wrote that he was proud of both Israel and his favorite team for persisting over the din of their critics.

“The Thunder are not hated because they somehow gamed the system,” Reshef wrote. “They are hated because they mastered it. Israel is not obsessively scrutinized because it failed, but due to its success despite deeply-rooted envy and darker historical motives.”

Many were quick to point out other reasons Israel is hated, but they weren’t the ones Reshef had in mind. “My tally has Chet Holmgren guilty of zero baby murders,” wrote one critic on Bluesky. Jeopardy! host Ken Jennings piled on, joking on the same social media platform that Reshef had suggested that “it’s antisemitic to not root for the OKC Thunder.”

Reshef told the Forward he had expected to get some blowback for the piece. But he was not prepared for the deluge of personal attacks he received.

Reshef shared screenshots of messages he received on social media and via email, calling him various profanities. “I hope you feel shame,” one wrote in a direct message, adding that he should be institutionalized. An X user, tagging Reshef in a public post, wrote, “Don’t let me find you.” The same user previously posted that “now we know why Hitler killed Jews.”

And in the comments of the Oklahoman’s Facebook post, Reshef saw one person he knew from his childhood. “‘I grew up with the guy who wrote it. He’s a moron,’” Reshef said the comment read. “This is someone I haven’t spoken to in 25 years, and actually, I would have thought he was my friend. But I guess he’s not.”

Reshef, who works in marketing, had never written an article for publication before. But after coming up with the idea, he wrote the column and submitted it to the Oklahoman via email. He received a reply from an editor he declined to name, which said that the newspaper planned to run it online Monday and in print next week. Reshef was not paid for the piece.

The Oklahoman did not consult or inform him about taking down the piece, he said, and had not replied to his email seeking explanation. And he was not sure whether he was disappointed that the newspaper had removed it, considering that perhaps its editors had been looking out for his safety.

This isn’t the first time anti-Israel sentiment has resounded among basketball fans.

The league’s most prominent Israeli player, Deni Avdija, was frequently the target of anti-Israel and even antisemitic hate from basketball fans online amid his own recent playoff success. And the Thunder itself is known as an Israel-friendly team: star Chet Holmgren was once mockingly nicknamed “Chetanyahu” for practicing in a gym where an Israeli flag hung.

The Thunder are once again the underdog, having lost Monday’s game in double-overtime.

Whether on the team’s record or on Israel’s, Reshef he had no regrets about what he had written.

“We can disagree with each other — we should disagree with each other,” he said. “I treasure that value. I’m willing to step up to the plate, talk to anybody, just talk to me. But to make personal attacks on me, as if you know me, or make threats. It’s frightening that that’s the world that we live in right now.”

The post An op-ed compared an NBA team to Israel as underdog success stories. Then the threats poured in. appeared first on The Forward.

Universities are supposed to expose students to difficult perspectives, not shield them from uncomfortable ones. But on many campuses, Jewish and Israeli voices are increasingly treated not as viewpoints to engage with, but as problems to manage or condemn.

Few recent incidents captured that shift more clearly than the reaction to a former Israeli hostage speaking at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

On April 14, UCLA Hillel hosted former Israeli hostage Omer Shem Tov to speak about his experience being held captive in Gaza following the October 7 attacks.

For most universities, hosting a survivor of mass kidnapping and terrorist violence would not seem particularly controversial. At UCLA, however, the event triggered a formal condemnation from the student government that quickly made national headlines.

Rather than merely protesting the event or disagreeing with its message, UCLA’s Undergraduate Students Association Council accused the visit of promoting “one-sided narratives that erase systems of oppression and occupation.” Student leaders further expressed “concern” that having Omer on campus would somehow “marginalize” and “silence” Palestinian and Arab students.

Furthermore, the letter, which reportedly passed with unanimous consent, was drafted on Yom HaShoah, the day set apart to mourn the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. More disturbingly, the student government intentionally excluded USAC General Representative Talia Davood from discussions surrounding the letter, despite her direct involvement in organizing the event with Hillel.

This reveals that the people condemning the event had little interest in actually hearing from anyone who disagreed with them — and proves they clearly did not act in good faith.

Davood was later questioned regarding the funding for the event, even though it did not come from the student government’s budget. So what exactly was the concern supposed to be, other than hostility toward the community that she, Hillel, and Omer represent?

The students’ reaction to Omer’s appearance exposed that rather than engage with voices they disagree with, these liberal students are trying to silence any voices or viewpoints they oppose.

When UCLA organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine are freely permitted to organize activism on campus while Jewish cultural events are scrutinized and condemned, it reveals a deeply ideological and hostile climate at UCLA.

When pro-Palestinian activists on campus engage in violence, prevent Jewish students from attending class, and destroy university property, the administration drags its feet. But when Jewish students try to invite a speaker to campus, the administration refuses to support them.

For UCLA student Amit Cohen, the message communicated something much larger than disagreement over Middle East politics. “What I took from the letter is that Jewish students don’t belong on campus,” he said. “They condemned our story. They didn’t want to listen to it. It’s the most hypocritical thing I’ve ever read.”

But this hypocritical hostility extends beyond UCLA.

In the same month, UC Berkeley students hosted a convicted failed suicide bomber and justified the event using the same language about standing in solidarity with Palestinians. Of course, the event did not receive condemnation from Berkeley’s student government either.

The contrast would be laughable if it were not so revealing.

A moral inversion of reality is beginning to dominate parts of university culture. Certain forms of violence are granted moral context and institutional patience, while Israeli and Jewish suffering increasingly appears politically inconvenient to acknowledge too sympathetically.

When platforming a literal terrorist is framed as giving voice to the marginalized while a former hostage speaking about his captivity is considered beyond the pale, something is deeply wrong with the culture of those academic communities.

Students at UCLA have the power to influence the culture of their campus. They should not only speak out against this letter, but actively refuse to participate in the atmosphere that these disappointing student leaders are helping to cultivate.

The good news is that Jewish students at UCLA remain undeterred. As Amit Cohen affirmed, “We’ve been keeping our heads up. The UCLA Jewish community is going to stay strong.”

Destiny Lugo is a third year International Relations and Journalism student at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She is a fellow for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA). The views expressed are the opinion of the author, and don’t reflect those of CAMERA.

In much of the public debate in the US, the relationship between Israel and the United States is often reduced to a simplistic and misleading story of unilateral American support. According to this view, Israel is portrayed as a dependent state sustained by American generosity.

Such a framing may be politically convenient for critics, but it fails to reflect the complexity and the mutual benefits of one of the most consequential alliances in modern geopolitics.

A more accurate reading shows a partnership that delivers strategic depth, military advantage, technological innovation, and economic gains for the United States, while reinforcing stability for allies around the world.

From a strategic standpoint, Israel functions as a critical anchor of stability for American interests in a region defined by volatility and shifting power struggles. It is one of the few consistent democratic partners the United States can rely on in an area where state collapse, militant movements, and authoritarian regimes often intersect. Israeli experience in counterterrorism and unconventional threats also contributes to this strategic value.

The economic dimension of this relationship is equally significant and often misunderstood. American assistance to Israel, frequently cited as evidence of imbalance, is in practice deeply integrated into the United States domestic economy. A substantial portion of defense related funding is actually a windfall for American defense contractors, supporting skilled employment across multiple states. This includes engineering, manufacturing, research, and logistics sectors that sustain high quality jobs and reinforce the American industrial base.

Beyond defense production, the technological ecosystem known as Silicon Wadi has become an important extension of global innovation networks. Major American technology companies maintain significant research and development operations in Israel, not out of symbolism but out of necessity.

Israeli engineers and entrepreneurs have played central roles in advances in cybersecurity, semiconductor development, artificial intelligence applications, and medical technology. These contributions are embedded in everyday American life, from secure banking systems to consumer electronics and enterprise infrastructure. Thousands of companies founded or co-founded by Israelis operate in the United States, contributing to job creation, tax revenues, and technological competitiveness.

Every American uses products and technologies that were developed in Israel, by Israelis.

The impact of Israeli innovation extends well beyond the United States as well. Agricultural technologies pioneered in Israel, particularly in water management and irrigation efficiency, have been deployed in countries facing severe food security challenges. India has incorporated such systems to improve agricultural yields and resource efficiency across large farming regions. Across Africa and Asia, desalination and water reuse technologies developed in Israel are helping communities adapt to climate-related scarcity.

These examples illustrate a broader reality. Israel functions as a hub of applied innovation, often developing solutions under conditions of constraint that are later adapted globally. This dynamic produces a multiplier effect that benefits not only the United States but also a wide range of international partners.

At a time when global politics is increasingly defined by technological competition, asymmetric warfare, and resource insecurity, the value of this partnership becomes even more apparent. The United States and Israel form a cooperative model that enhances both national security and economic resilience.

The suggestion that Israel represents a burden on the United States does not withstand close examination. It overlooks the strategic advantages, the economic integration, and the technological interdependence that define the relationship. Rather than a one sided arrangement, this alliance operates as a mutually reinforcing system that strengthens both nations and extends benefits to allies across the democratic world.

The partnership between Israel and the United States is not merely a matter of foreign policy tradition or diplomatic preference. It is a strategic asset that advances shared interests in security, innovation, and global stability. In an era of increasing uncertainty, such alliances are not optional. They are essential.

Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel