Uncategorized
‘What is antisemitism?’ At Northwestern, a class on the subject resists simple answers
At Northwestern University, a class about what is — and isn’t — antisemitism doesn’t shy away from taboo questions.
“Is it antisemitic to call a Jewish person a pig?” the course description asks. “To advocate for boycotts against Israel? To work to criminalize infant circumcision, or kosher slaughter?”
The class does not promise answers, but rather historical and scholarly frameworks to wrestle with the subject. That’s the premise of “What is Antisemitism?” — a history class taught by professor David Shyovitz amid national debate over that very question.
Shyovitz, who once considered becoming a rabbi and now researches Jewish-Christian relations in the Middle Ages, developed the class in fall 2020, well before pro-Palestinian encampments on college campuses across the country made national news. But at Northwestern, a fierce debate about antisemitism was already taking place.
In October 2020, student protesters marched to then University President Morton Schapiro’s house demanding that he abolish campus police. “Piggy Morty,” the protesters chanted.
Schapiro responded in an email to students and staff, saying the “piggy” chant came “dangerously close to a longstanding trope against observant Jews like myself,” alluding to a medieval antisemitic trope associating Jews with pigs. Protesters, however, said they were merely using “piggy” as slang for police. (Full disclosure: I attended Northwestern when this was taking place and graduated in 2023.)
“I thought, this is not really being discussed in a very academic or historically literate way,” Shyovitz said. “We should be having better conversations about this, based on some actual knowledge and scholarship and expertise.”
Shyovitz, director of Northwestern’s Crown Family Center for Jewish and Israel Studies, saw a classroom as the ideal forum for those discussions. He taught the first iteration of “What is Antisemitism?” in winter 2024 — just a few months after the attacks of Oct. 7, at a moment when debates over antisemitism were intensifying.
Those discussions often devolved into debating definitions. The widely used — but controversial — International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition classifies most anti-Zionism as antisemitic. Alternative frameworks, like the Jerusalem Declaration and Nexus Document, define antisemitism more narrowly and allow for a broader swath of Israel criticism.
But relying on gut instinct alone to determine what is and isn’t antisemitic is equally unsatisfying, Shyovitz said, likening it to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s famous line about pornography: “I know it when I see it.”
Shyovitz largely circumvents those definitional debates in the first half of the class by examining antisemitism through a historical lens, while the latter half focuses on contemporary antisemitism.
“What we try to do is say, ‘Where did this term come from?’” Shyovitz said. “How has it been used by historical actors, but also by scholars to try to make sense of phenomena in the past? And then, when is it helpful? When isn’t it helpful?”
For example, Shyovitz teaches, the word “antisemitism” was coined in 1879 by German journalist Wilhelm Marr, who sought to classify Jews as an inferior “semitic” race. So when discussing “antisemitism” in the Middle Ages, it’s notable that the term was not how anyone in that time period would have referred to the phenomenon.
Labelling pre-modern Jew hatred as antisemitism can import the modern associations that that word has accrued today, Shyovitz said.
“There has never been a kind of a unanimous sense that this is a term that means a single thing and can be easily grasped,” Shyovitz said, “It’s kind of been a contentious topic from the get go.”
Contentious, too, on Northwestern’s campus. Last spring, then-university president Michael Schill faced intense scrutiny over his decision in 2024 to negotiate with pro-Palestinian protesters in an encampment. The Anti-Defamation League, StandWithUs and the Brandeis Center called for Schill’s resignation, writing that Schill, who is Jewish, had “capitulated to hatred and bigotry.”
Schill resigned in September, citing “painful challenges” that Northwestern had faced during his tenure.
Later that month, hundreds of Northwestern students were barred from registering for classes after refusing to watch an antisemitism training video. Protesters said the video, which stated that most forms of anti-Zionism are antisemitic, ostracized anti-Zionist Jews.
Those controversies occurred after Shyovitz first taught the course, so he’s curious how class discussions will unfold when he teaches it for the second time this fall. The course culminates in a debate where students are randomly assigned to defend either the Jerusalem Declaration or the IHRA definition, the latter of which was formally adopted by Northwestern as part of its code of conduct in February.
Still, campus politics are not the course’s primary focus.
“The history that they’re studying actually has very clear stakes for present day policy questions,” Shyovitz said. “But if all we did was debate Northwestern politics in class, I think that would be a real wasted opportunity.”
For Northwestern senior Maria Chebli, who grew up in Beirut, taking the class last year helped her gain a more nuanced perspective on discourse surrounding antisemitism. Though she often disagreed with her classmates, she also formed friendships with them — a dynamic she credited to Shyovitz, who she said fostered an environment where students felt free to respectfully challenge one another.
“The class was quite refreshing, because everyone was very open to discussion,” Chebli said. “I don’t know if I would have had these conversations with the same people outside the classroom, and if I had, whether they would have been that fruitful.”
Shyovitz said the class has been one of the most fulfilling of his teaching career. At a time when discussions about antisemitism are often ill-informed, he said, “these students really were able to get to the crux of some of these issues in a much more productive way.”
The post ‘What is antisemitism?’ At Northwestern, a class on the subject resists simple answers appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
The Forward publishes exclusive interview with Columbia protest leader Mahmoud Khalil
New York — April 7, 2026 — Today, the Forward, the nation’s leading Jewish news organization, published an exclusive, in-depth interview with Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University protest leader whose arrest during last year’s campus demonstrations thrust him into the national spotlight.
In a candid and wide-ranging conversation with Arno Rosenfeld, an enterprise reporter and author of the Forward’s Antisemitism Decoded newsletter, Khalil critiqued Hamas and said it had come to power through collaboration with Israel, explained his “nuanced” view of Zionism and detailed his vision for a “free Palestine” that includes the Jewish citizens of Israel.
“I was glad to have the opportunity to drill down on specifics that have been widely speculated upon but not addressed in Khalil’s previous interviews,” said Rosenfeld. “He wanted to speak directly to a major Jewish audience.”
The interview offers rare insight into one of the most scrutinized figures to emerge from the campus protest movement, drawing on original reporting, Khalil’s past public statements, and interviews with current and former Columbia students.
The post The Forward publishes exclusive interview with Columbia protest leader Mahmoud Khalil appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
US Hits Military Targets on Iran’s Kharg Island, Vance Says No Change to Strategy
US Vice President JD Vance delivers remarks at the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles, California, US, June 20, 2025. Phone: REUTERS/Daniel Cole
US strikes on Iran’s Kharg Island do not represent a change in American strategy, US Vice President JD Vance said on Tuesday as a US official separately told Reuters the additional strikes on military targets did not impact oil infrastructure.
The official, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, described at least some of the strikes as targeting sites that had been previously struck before and said the attack occurred in the early morning hours of Tuesday.
Vance, speaking separately in Budapest, said the strikes were not a change in US strategy, with the Trump administration confident that it can get a response from Iran by 8 pm (0001 Wednesday GMT) in negotiations to end the conflict. US President Donald Trump is demanding Iran forswear nuclear weapons and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil transit waterway.
“We were going to strike some military targets on Kharg Island, and I believe we have done so,” Vance said.
“We’re not going to strike energy and infrastructure targets until the Iranians either make a proposal that we can get behind or don’t make a proposal,” he added. “I don’t think the news in Kharg Island … represents a change in strategy, or represents any change from the President of the United States.”
Uncategorized
French Nationals Leave Iran After Three and a Half Years Amid Softer France Tone on War
A woman walks past posters with the portraits of Cecile Kohler and Jacques Paris, two French citizens held in Iran, on the day of support rallies to mark their three-year detention and to demand their release, in front of the National Assembly in Paris, France, May 7, 2025. The slogan reads “Freedom for Cecile Kohler and Jacques Paris.” Photo: REUTERS/Abdul Saboor
Two French nationals were heading home on Tuesday after Iran allowed them to leave the country following three and a half years in detention, a surprise move that came as Paris sought to distance itself from the war in the region.
Cecile Kohler and Jacques Paris had been confined to France‘s embassy in Tehran since November, after being held since 2022 in the notorious Evin prison on spying charges that France has said were unfounded.
“This is a relief for all of us and obviously for their families,” President Emmanuel Macron said in a post on X. “Thank you to the Omani authorities for their mediation efforts.”
Neither the French presidency nor the foreign ministry responded to requests for comment on what had been agreed between the two sides to ensure their release.
Iran‘s official news agency IRNA said the couple were freed following an understanding under which France would in turn release Mahdieh Esfandiari, an Iranian student living in the French city of Lyon, and withdraw a complaint against Iran at the International Court of Justice.
However, both assertions were unclear. Esfandiari, who was convicted at the end of February for glorifying terrorism in social media posts, was released after serving almost a year in prison but has appealed the conviction.
It was not clear whether she had left the country, as ordered by the February ruling. France dropped the ICJ complaint last September.
Iran‘s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi spoke with his French counterpart Jean-Noel Barrot on Sunday, confirming the pair’s imminent release.
Macron has criticized US President Donald Trump’s approach to the US-Israeli war on Iran and said France would only help restore freedom of navigation to the Strait of Hormuz once there is a ceasefire and after consultations with Tehran.
France last week refused Israel permission to transfer weapons through French airspace for the war and has led efforts to water down a draft UN Security Council resolution that could have opened the door to forceful action in the strait.
A French official briefing reporters after the release denied that France had a softer position towards Iran and said Paris had warned the Iranians about the safety of their citizens given the escalation in the war.
“I think the Iranians rightly considered that if anything happened to our compatriots, the reactions here would have been extremely catastrophic,” the official said, declining to comment on the details of the negotiation.
French officials have also refused to comment on why a container ship belonging to French shipping group CMA CGM was able to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a sign that Iran may not consider France to be a hostile nation.
