Uncategorized
U. of Vermont agrees to improve antisemitism training, ending federal case and capping a tumultuous year
(JTA) – A year of strained relations between the University of Vermont and its Jewish community has led to the school resolving a federal antisemitism complaint and pledging to do more to protect its Jewish students — including from anti-Zionist rhetoric.
The university and the U.S. Department of Education announced Monday that they had reached a resolution to the complaint, which the department took up last fall after it was filed by students and pro-Israel groups. The complaint alleged that the institution had not properly responded to Jewish students’ allegations of antisemitic discrimination. Investigators determined that the university “received notice, but did not investigate” several claims of antisemitic behavior on campus, and that the steps it ultimately took did not adequately address students’ concerns.
Notably, the department’s office of civil rights determined that one of the ways the university’s Jewish students had been discriminated against was through “national origin harassment on the basis of shared ancestry,” reflecting a controversial argument promoted by pro-Israel groups that anti-Zionist rhetoric is harmful to all Jews because the Jewish people share Israel as an ancestral homeland. The resolution of the complaint also reflects a sharp change in course for the school, which had initially denied wrongdoing and blamed the accusations on an orchestrated external campaign — a response that upset the campus Jewish community.
“This complaint was overwhelmingly dealing with the antisemitism that masks as anti-Zionism, and what the resolution demonstrates is how seriously [the office] is taking that kind of antisemitism,” Alyza Lewin, president of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency after the ruling. A pro-Israel legal group that often involves itself in campus disputes, the Brandeis Center was one of the organizations that filed the initial complaint on behalf of mostly anonymous students.
The Department of Education responded to a JTA request for comment by pointing to its letter of resolution with the university. Its civil rights office has fielded several challenges to anti-Zionist rhetoric since the Donald Trump administration expanded the department’s mandate around antisemitism in 2019 under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The office of civil rights is fast becoming a favorite tool for pro-Israel activists: It also announced this week it would open an investigation into allegations of a professor’s antisemitic behavior at George Washington University, a week after the university’s own investigation cleared the faculty member of charges brought by another pro-Israel group.
In the agreement, the University of Vermont pledged to revise its policies for reporting discrimination and to train its staff on how to specifically respond to discrimination complaints. The Department of Education will also review the university’s records regarding its response to last year’s allegations of antisemitism. One of the areas in which the university said it would train staff is on how to recognize “the Title VI prohibition against harassment based on national origin, including shared ancestry.”
Among the allegations: cases of unofficial student groups denying admission to “Zionist” students (including a support group for sexual-assault survivors); one graduate teaching assistant who had mused on social media about lowering the grades of Zionist students; and a group of students who’d reportedly thrown an object at the campus Hillel building (the complaint claimed it was a rock; Hillel staff told JTA it was a puffball mushroom). More than 20% of the university’s student body is Jewish, according to Hillel International.
Evan Siegel, a Jewish junior at the University of Vermont, poses in his off-campus housing in Burlington, October 13, 2022. Siegel was initially critical of his school for its handling of a federal antisemitism investigation, but praised its eventual resolution. (Andrew Lapin/Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
The agreement marked a sharp change from how the university first responded when the government announced its intent to investigate the complaint last fall. Back then, the university’s president, Suresh Garimella, issued a combative statement in which he said the university “vigorously denies the false allegation of an insufficient response to complaints of threats and discrimination.” He also issued a point-by-point refutation of the allegations in the complaint.
Garimella further charged that the complaint had been orchestrated by “an anonymous third party” that had “painted our community in a patently false light.” In addition to the Brandeis Center, the complaint was filed on behalf of students by the watchdog group Jewish On Campus, whose antisemitism-tracking methodology has been criticized by other groups.
Garimella’s combativeness at the time was an unusual move for the leader of a university accused of violating Title VI law, which prohibits discriminatory behavior at federally-funded programs or institutions, such as public universities. Groups like the Brandeis Center have increasingly leaned on Title VI in federal complaints to argue that pro-Israel students face discrimination. Title VI cases have become a central component of litigating multiple kinds of Israel discourse on campus, ranging from a pro-Israel student body president being targeted at the University of Southern California to a resolution passed by pro-Palestinian law student groups at the University of California, Berkeley.
In Burlington, where the university is located, some liberal Jews were initially dubious of the complaint. Felicia Kornbluh, a history professor on campus who often teaches American Jewish history, told JTA she was concerned about “playing into the narrative” of a conservative, pro-Israel agenda set by the Brandeis Center, whom she described as “allies of the Trump wing of the Republican party.” (The center’s founder, Kenneth Marcus, served as assistant secretary of education for civil rights under Trump.)
But the complaint also landed in the aftermath of a contentious Burlington city council meeting at which, Kornbluh and others said, pro-Palestinian protesters became hostile to Jews. The meeting featured a council resolution to endorse the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign against Israel, and resulted in a raucous scene where pro-Palestinian groups shouted down Jewish students singing prayers for peace. Kornbluh described the atmosphere there as “really scary,” and “a little like Nuremberg.” Vermonters for Justice in Palestine, a local activist group, held multiple rallies on campus in support of the administration after the antisemitism complaint was publicized.
Against this backdrop, Garimella’s dismissiveness left the university’s Jewish community frustrated and angry. During a Jewish Telegraphic Agency visit to Burlington after the president’s initial statement, Jewish students and faculty said they felt like university administration was not taking their concerns seriously.
“I feel like we’re not being supported here,” Evan Siegel, a Jewish junior who is involved with student government, told JTA while sitting in off-campus housing adorned with Jewish summer camp memorabilia. “And that sucks.”
Employed as a campus tour guide, Siegel wondered, “How am I supposed to give tours and be like, ‘UVM is the best,’ when my president is being an ass?”
Other Jewish students told JTA at the time they had no intention of supporting the university financially or otherwise after they graduated, and wouldn’t advertise the fact that they were alums.
Matt Vogel, executive director of Hillel at the University of Vermont, where one of the alleged antisemitic incidents had taken place, also reluctantly played a role in the drama of the last year, after hoping he would be able to keep his focus on Hillel’s student programming. As the fall semester was starting, he sent an email home to parents reading, “Antisemitism keeps me awake at night.” Throughout the semester, Hillel also became more active in calling out antisemitism on social media.
“Just by default, we’re at the center of it,” Vogel told JTA last fall in the Hillel building, as student volunteers chopped vegetables for that evening’s Shabbat dinner in the next room. “I’ve overheard a student saying, like, a Hillel sticker on their water bottle might turn into a political conversation about Zionism in the first two seconds.”
Matt Vogel, executive director of Hillel at the University of Vermont, prepares for Shabbat in his Burlington office, October 14, 2022. Vogel praised the university for ultimately resolving its federal antisemitism complaint in April 2023 after months of tension. (Andrew Lapin/Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
Soon, Kornbluh decided that the administration’s response to the allegations was unacceptable, and penned a local op-ed opposing it that was later shared by her faculty union in a show of solidarity.
“I was stunned by the tone and content” of Garimella’s letter, Kornbluh wrote in the piece. Accusing the university of “gaslighting,” she added, “I do know that one persistent rhetorical strategy of antisemites in Europe and the United States has been to say that there is no antisemitism.”
Garimella reversed course following weeks of criticism, a strongly worded letter from more than a dozen Jewish groups including the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee and news of several high-profile antisemitic incidents nationally. In October, the university published a website intended to support Jewish students — accompanied by a new statement from Garimella, who now condemned antisemitism unequivocally.
“I have listened to members of our campus community who experience a sense of risk in fully expressing their Jewish identity,” he wrote. ”I want my message to be clear to the entire campus community: antisemitism, in any form, will not be tolerated at UVM.”
This time, Garimella pledged not only to investigate individual reports of antisemitism, but also to work to change the campus community’s approach to the issue. He committed to further anti-bias training and building a streamlined bias reporting system for students, and said the university’s diversity office would work to build and maintain “meaningful actions that ensure our Jewish students and community members feel support and care.”
After Monday’s resolution, Garimella was fully supportive of the findings of the Department of Education’s investigation.
“The resolution reflects an important step in UVM’s engagement with our students, faculty, staff, alumni, and the surrounding community,” he wrote in a message to the campus. “It also reflects numerous conversations we have had with our campus Jewish community and important local and national voices on the consequential and complex issue of antisemitism.”
In response to a JTA request for comment, a university spokesperson sent copies of the letters from the president and provost. (Throughout the year, the president’s office had declined multiple JTA interview requests.)
Jewish groups, including the university Hillel, celebrated the resolution. “The President and senior leadership’s new statements today represent tangible and accountable steps forward,” Vogel told JTA in a statement. “We hope this ensures that no Jewish student or any student at UVM experiences discrimination or harassment because of their identity.”
The Hillel building at the University of Vermont in Burlington, October 14, 2022. Hillel found itself at the center of a federal antisemitism complaint against the university. (Andrew Lapin/Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
Also celebrating the ruling was Jewish on Campus, a subsidiary of the World Jewish Congress and one of the groups that brought the initial complaint. “Today’s announcement is a victory for the safety and security of Jewish students,” Julia Jassey, the group’s CEO and a University of Chicago undergraduate, said in a statement.
Avi Zatz, the only University of Vermont student on the initial complaint who has made their identity public, is himself an employee of Jewish on Campus. Citing antisemitism in Vermont, Zatz recently transferred to the University of Florida — in a state that may soon pass legislation that, critics say, could harm Jewish studies on all its public campuses.
“I can’t have hoped for a better resolution,” Zatz, a junior, told JTA from his new school in Gainesville, Florida. While he said he was still glad to have left Vermont, he added, “I finally feel a sense of closure.”
Kornbluh, for her part, said the resolution was “a start,” but criticized the university for not voicing a stronger commitment to Jewish studies or meeting with Jewish faculty.
Reached by phone from Madrid, where he is studying abroad this semester, Siegel said he was “proud, determined, ready for more” following the university’s agreement.
“This resolution was really, in a respectful way, a slap in the face to the university to do better,” he said. “I, for one, am ready to get back on campus and continue my work as hard as I can.”
—
The post U. of Vermont agrees to improve antisemitism training, ending federal case and capping a tumultuous year appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
How phase one of the Gaza peace plan is beginning to fray
President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan – which was reinforced in principle during a “peace summit” on Monday with the presidents of Egypt and Turkey, and the Emir of Qatar – is long on intention and short on details. Aaron David Miller, who advised six secretaries of state on Arab-Israeli negotiations under both Republican and Democratic presidents, says the road map may offer limited help in navigating peace in a place fraught with challenges.
Phase One
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted the terms of the deal during a White House meeting in September, while Hamas has agreed to only the plan’s first phase, which mandates an immediate ceasefire, an Israeli troop withdrawal to an agreed upon line, a return of the hostages held by Hamas, and the release of Palestinian prisoners.
The ceasefire’s fragility is already apparent. Today, Israeli forces killed several Palestinians in Gaza City who they say were “crossing a yellow line” that is under IDF control as part of the ceasefire agreement.
Only four of about two dozen deceased hostages were turned over to Israeli authorities on Monday, with four more turned over on Tuesday. Egyptian teams are working to locate the remains, as the Red Cross warned that some may never be found.
Israeli officials reduced the number of aid trucks allowed into Gaza to 300 trucks daily, from the 600 originally intended, because of the delays in returning the dead hostages.
What’s missing
Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says that what the plan leaves out may be just as significant as what it includes.
“This is not the Oslo agreement. It doesn’t call for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. It’s not a peace agreement between Israel and key Arab states,” Miller said. “It is a road map that could potentially end the war in Gaza. That’s what it is. It’s nothing more than that.”
One of the reasons Netanyahu was able to accept the plan, Miller said, is because there are enough provisions to satisfy the majority of the Israeli public, such as Hamas disarmament.
“It’s inherently a pro-Israeli plan, both in terms of structure and substance,” Miller said. “You could have created this plan in an Israeli laboratory.”
What the plan says will happen to Hamas, Gaza, and Palestinians
According to the plan, “Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza, who have suffered more than enough.”
Specifics include that Gaza “will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee.” The committee will “be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts,” with oversight from a “Board of Peace” headed by Trump, until it is determined that the Palestinian Authority has sufficiently reformed and can effectively govern.
Hamas will “agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form,” the plan says. “All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt.”
But Hamas has said it will not lay down its arms. According to Miller, Hamas’ main objective — political survival and the need to retain influence in Gaza’s government — has not changed.
“What are the terms and circumstances [of disarmament]? What do you do about the tunnel infrastructure? Does Hamas get to keep its personal weapons, for example?” Miller said. “Every point in this plan is filled with a universe of complexity and detail that’s yet to be negotiated.”
The plan also says that “No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.”
The provision marks a departure from Trump’s previous plan to turn Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East,” which called on Arab states to absorb Gaza’s displaced population. Trump had said those relocations would be permanent, with no right of return.
Still, some aspects of the plan nod to his idea for real estate development, including the establishment of a special economic zone with preferred tariff rates and “a Trump economic development plan.”
The agreement also establishes “an interfaith dialogue process” with the goal to “change mindsets and narratives of Palestinians and Israelis by emphasizing the benefits that can be derived from peace.”
The plan concludes that when these processes are complete, “the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.”
But Miller remains dubious that the language is meaningful.
“I suppose you might argue that the nod to Palestinian statehood could be a problem [for Israel], but it’s so general and so distant as to be more or less not terribly relevant,” he said.
The post How phase one of the Gaza peace plan is beginning to fray appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Trump drew Arab leaders into a historic peace agreement. Too bad about the one glaring caveat
It was impressive, no question about that: A sitting American president, flanked by the heads of Egypt, Turkey and Qatar — among dozens of other countries — signing a document that contains all the right words and sentiments needed for achieving Middle East peace.
But Tuesday’s display in the Egyptian city of Sharm el-Sheikh may be all for naught. For Hamas to disarm and disappear — which is the only way that this two-year nightmare can truly end well — massive, sustained, multi-dimensional and focused pressure will be needed in the days and weeks ahead.
The newly signed so-called Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity is a far-reaching and courageous diplomatic text. It unambiguously denounces radicalization and violent extremism, signalling that the Arab states are no longer willing to indulge militancy as a permanent fact of life — a major move in shifting the balance of the Arab-Israeli conflict away from jihadism. The declaration also does something else extraordinary: it explicitly acknowledges the Jewish historical and spiritual connection to the land of Israel, and insists on “friendly and mutually beneficial relations between Israel and its regional neighbors.”
The text envisions new efforts to create peace between Israelis and Palestinians, on the heels of the Gaza war, not as working toward a reluctant truce, but rather as a civilizational project grounded in tolerance, education, opportunity and shared prosperity. All of this — if it is to be enforced — will represent a moral revolution for a region long trapped in denial, grievance, and violence. It suggests the assembled are truly ready for an end to the cycles of violence.
The symbolism does have meaning. That Qatar and Turkey, both of which have long existed in enmity with Israel, lined up behind a statement calling for peaceful coexistence is no small thing. For a region so long dominated by grievance, that alone suggests a tectonic shift.
But symbolism is not a plan.
The leaders who signed the Tuesday statement know this, and have thrown their weight behind the successful execution of President Donald Trump’s peace plan, which both Israel and Hamas have agreed to. “We acknowledge that the Middle East cannot endure a persistent cycle of prolonged warfare, stalled negotiations, or the fragmentary, incomplete, or selective application of successfully negotiated terms,” they wrote.
Reading between the lines, that’s an acknowledgment that there is one major way in which the plan could fail: If Hamas refuses to disarm and vacate Gaza. That one clause — buried among the 20 points of the deal Trump announced two weeks ago — is the fulcrum on which the entire edifice rests. And the problem is that this “successfully negotiated term” has not been publicly agreed to by Hamas. Trump merely announced that peace had been achieved. And experienced observers of Hamas know that the group will seek any possible out to ensure their own survival.
If they find one, and Trump and his regional collaborators don’t crack down, then the whole thing collapses. The Arab leaders can declare peace, but if Hamas still has weapons, the war is not over. It’s paused.
The early signs are bad, despite Hamas’ release of the 20 remaining living hostages on Monday. Even as Trump and the Arab leaders signed their declaration, reports from Gaza described Hamas commanders consolidating power, executing accused collaborators, and appointing local “emirs” to replace municipal officials. The group is not surrendering; it is reorganizing.
Trump’s triumph is real enough in the short term. But if the deal falters on this front, it will mean disaster for Gaza, where Israel would be within its rights to resume the war to oust Hamas. It could also be a death stroke for the career of embattled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. If Hamas doesn’t disarm, and reestablishes power, Netanyahu’s critics will argue correctly that what actually occurred — ending the fighting in exchange for the hostages — was achievable since the very early days of the war, when many more people were still alive. Netanyahu will be accused of having fought, and sacrificed, for nothing — except for, perhaps, the survival of his extremely unpopular far-right coalition.
Though unseemly to admit, some in Israel may be quietly hoping for this outcome: That Hamas, true to form, will make a mockery of the deal, and ensure that Netanyahu cannot escape political judgment for his failures — leading up to the attack of Oct. 7, 2023, and ever since.
I sympathize: Netanyahu is terrible for Israel. But it’s in all our best interests to hope against that result, and for the peace powerfully if vaguely outlined in Tuesday’s agreement. We must hope, too, that Trump resists his habitual pattern of losing interest. His pattern in global affairs — from North Korea to Iran — has been to claim credit and move on, leaving others to clean up the contradictions. If that happens again here, the “Trump Peace Agreement” will join a long list of Trumpian theatrics.
The post Trump drew Arab leaders into a historic peace agreement. Too bad about the one glaring caveat appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
‘They’re fed up’: Post-ceasefire, Israel faces an enormous political reckoning
My brother-in-law, David Levy, didn’t sleep much the night before the release of the last living hostages. That day, he stayed glued to the family TV — along with what seemed like the entire country.
“You could just see the injection of spirit this has given to Israel,” he said.
“I finally get why Judaism talks so much about ‘the redemption of captives,’” he said, referring to the religious duty to free prisoners. “You see how this has just driven Israelis crazy for the past two years.”
Now, there’s a budding sense of normalcy, he said, and a tentative if clear-eyed hope for the future.
But when I asked David if he thought Palestinians and Israelis would achieve coexistence — the last point on President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan to end the war — he broke into a smile.
“Yeah,” he said, “maybe Hamas will ask for the sheet music to ‘HaTikvah.’”
After the hostage release, a reckoning
I called David, my wife’s brother, on Oct. 7, 2023, after news broke of the Hamas attack. He and his wife, Etti, had just endured a two-hour missile barrage at Kibbutz Mishmar HaNegev, where they have lived for 40 years, some 20 minutes by car from the Gaza border. He was seething with anger at how his government could let this happen.
“This is a total f-ed up,” he said at the time. He spent the next several days at funerals, shivas and memorial services for many murdered friends and colleagues.
With the release of the 20 living hostages Monday, in exchange for close to 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, there’s finally a real chance for the anger he and other Israelis felt that day to have a political impact, David said when we spoke by video app on Monday.
There will likely be an election before fall, David said — elections are mandated in 2026. He expects Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to face a reckoning over three primary issues: the cash payments Qatar made to Hamas under his watch, essentially financing the Oct. 7 attack; his refusal to force Haredi men to serve in the army, which has contributed to enormous strains on Israel’s reserve forces amid the war; and his rejection of a government investigation into Israel’s failures on and leading up to Oct. 7.
“As opposed to almost everybody else, he has never said, ‘I’m sorry,’ David said.
The long-running complaint of many Israelis is that the political opposition to Netanyahu has never coalesced around a strong candidate. But David said the past two years may have changed that as well. A new generation of young people became politically engaged because of the attack, the hostage crisis and the war.
“You had guys with jobs and families spending 400, 500, days in the army doing reserve service,” he said. “They’re fed up. All these young, capable people that just went through this war, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re going to get their say and do something.”
‘Israelis are still mourning’
I asked David if that reckoning will include an acknowledgment of Israel’s destructiveness in the war in Gaza. If the ceasefire holds, rebuilding efforts will surely be accompanied by more reports on the death toll and debastation — although international journalists are still being denied entry to the strip.
How will Israelis come to terms with it?
“What did Mosul look like after the Americans left?” he asked. Meaning: American, Iraqi and allied troops destroyed an estimated 60% of the Iraqi city of Mosul in a 2017 effort to rout ISIS fighters, killing an estimated 9,000 civilians. Did Americans ever really confront that harm — or even, as a collective, feel an obligation to?
“I don’t think the mindset was we just turn the place into rubble for the sake of turning it into rubble,” he said.
He has seen the rubble of Gaza himself, during visits to friends in border communities, and said he agrees “the destruction is going to be something that has to be reckoned with,” he said.
“But you know, Israelis are still mourning. That sounds like a cop out, but Israelis have not totally not dealt with the other side.”
The reason, he said, is that two years later, the trauma of Oct. 7 is still fresh.
“The Israeli public has been so devastated,” he said, “we’re wrapped up in ourselves. I don’t know when we’ll get over it. Everybody knows somebody who knows somebody who’s been affected directly by this war.”
What comes next?
Israel wants its image abroad to improve, David said. Trump’s peace plan, although fragile — already, there are clashes over Hamas’ delay in returning the bodies of slain hostages — offers an opening.
“If there’s peace, and Gaza gets rebuilt properly, so that these people can have a good life instead of just being pawns in this crazy death cult of Hamas, then I’m sure that this will improve Israel’s reputation around the world,” David said. “But will Hamas give up power and disarm?”
That question is central to fears over whether Trump’s plan will be fulfilled. It’s a serious concern. Even as David raised it, I noticed an incoming news alert that Hamas militants had killed at least 33 Gazans whom the group accused of collaborating with Israel.
Yet there are still reasons to be hopeful. After attending a day of memorials on the second anniversary of Oct. 7, David said he was preparing to spend Simchat Torah — the holiday on which the massacre took place in 2023 — at a festive family meal, cooked by his son-in-law, who owns a Jerusalem restaurant.
Is that kind of true celebration a sign the war is really over? I asked.
“I want to hope so,” he said. “I really, really want this to be over.”
The post ‘They’re fed up’: Post-ceasefire, Israel faces an enormous political reckoning appeared first on The Forward.