Uncategorized
The Quiet Antisemitism: My Experience as a Jewish College Professor
There are plenty of examples of blatant antisemitism and attacks on Jews that have occurred over the past 10 months. It seems that every day, we read about a synagogue being attacked, a Jewish student being spat on or assaulted, or the all too mainstream protester chants calling for Intifada or for Jews to go back to Poland — and the list goes on.
Perhaps less obvious — but more frequent — is the antisemitism that’s happening under the radar: things that are circumstantial and much harder to prove.
I’m not talking about Jewish writers having their lectures cancelled out of concern “for their safety” — it’s clear to everyone (except the organizers) where the motivation comes from.
No, this is the kind of discrimination that Black people and others experienced before the Civil Rights movement — and even after: being rejected as a tenant on a lease to an apartment, passed over for a job or promotion based on the color of their skin , or — as in my case — perhaps not having a contract renewed at a college after speaking out against their policies regarding “free speech.”
Do I have proof that me being Israeli or Jewish had anything to do with my dismissal?
Absolutely not.
But are the circumstances suspicious? Yes.
Two years ago, I accepted a Visiting Assistant Professorship in the English Department of a private Midwestern college in the United States. It was a one-year contract, and following the first year, the Chair of the Department notified me how much he appreciated my work — noting the anonymous student evaluations that gave me high marks, that a large number of students requested to take a second class with me, and that I helped raise the visibility of the college through public performances by my students. He also informed me that there was restructuring going on in the English Department, which would result in some of the classes I was teaching being offered only periodically.
In short, he asked me if I would be interested in remaining affiliated with the school, and return either every other semester, or, for instance, if another English teacher took a sabbatical. That suited me fine, as it allowed me to continue teaching, but also gave me time for my own creative endeavors back in Los Angeles, where I was commuting from every week.
On October 7, I was not teaching on campus. But like so many other colleges, a segment of the student population rose up to protest Israel. And even though I was a thousand miles away, I received an email from a student member of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) notifying all faculty that the group was calling for a one-day strike to protest, accompanied with a list of atrocities Israel had allegedly committed, even listing the bombing of the Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza two weeks earlier, which had already been attributed to a stray missile from Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
How was it possible for one student to access the entire faculty and student body to spew their propaganda?
I contacted the Provost and Dean of the college to inquire. She replied that this was a recent policy change put into place two years earlier to encourage freedom of expression. I asked how this policy might play out if I rebutted the student’s charges through the college-wide email system, only to have another student rebut my defense, and so on and so on?
She replied that if it got out of hand, the school would shut it down.
I replied that the situation had already gotten out of hand, and trusted I wouldn’t be receiving anymore emails from such organizations.
The student newspaper got wind of this, and contacted me for my opinion. Here’s what they wrote in their article:
Safdie, who is of Israeli and Syrian Jewish descent, found sections of the message antisemitic and questioned why he received the email. “I’m all for freedom of expression, but I’m not sure this decision was able to foresee such a situation where students might abuse the privilege and create a hostile work/study environment for other members of the community.”
Fast forward several months, when I returned to campus for the Spring semester. Within a week of arrival, I received an email from the new chair of the English Department (who was also the associate Dean of the Race and Ethnic Studies program). She wanted to set up a Zoom meeting with me — even though our offices were 10 feet apart.
In a carefully worded statement that sounded like it was crafted by an attorney, she got to the point. Although the college was extremely pleased with all the work that I’d done, and that all my students loved my teaching, the college was making budget cuts and were not going to be able to renew my contract.
When I tried to explain to her my prior arrangement with the previous Chair, she simply replied that she’d be happy to write me a letter of recommendation.
Something about the Zoom call and her demeanor felt suspicious.
On a whim, I did an Internet search on my new Chair.
The first thing that came up on her Twitter Feed was a statement on the masthead of a literary magazine she edited, condemning the alleged mass killing and displacement of Palestinians in the wake of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks.
As I explored further, I discovered other parts of the statement:
The Israeli military—with the support of the U.S. government—has bombarded Palestinian civilians relentlessly, in violation of international law, and deprived Palestinians of food, water, fuel, and electricity.
And:
Because we work to “bring our readers into the living moment, not as tourists, but as engaged participants,” we believe that Palestinians need space to speak directly, whether from siege in Palestine or in diaspora. So too do others who bear witness to the ongoing settler-colonial violence in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Two days after the Zoom meeting, I figured I might as well take the Chair up on her offer to write me a letter-of-recommendation; it was March, and I could still apply to other universities for employment the following year. (Universities can be suspicious if you leave a position after just two years, so a letter would be crucial to securing a position.)
After a week of email silence, the Chair wrote me back, saying that she wasn’t familiar with my teaching and requested to attend one of my classes to observe my skills. I invited her the following week to attend a class, which fit her schedule, but she did not show, and didn’t even write to give an explanation.
I followed up with an email to offer her another opportunity, followed by a second and third, but there was nothing but email silence.
I should also mention that, at the one faculty meeting we had, she stayed as far away from me as possible, and if I approached, she would quickly engage in discussion with another professor. The topic that day was adding a requirement for English Majors to take an anti-Racism class. One of the new offerings for the following year was focused on racism against Palestinians.
By the end of April, I decided to contact the Associate Dean of Humanities who oversaw the English Department, and sure enough, within an hour of my email, I finally received an email back from the Chair of the English Department, offering to attend my class, but letting me know that she was too busy to write me a letter of recommendation until the end of May — well past the end of the semester, and too late to help with a teaching application for the following year.
If there was ever a thought of going to the administration to complain about my treatment, that was quickly extinguished following an SJP demonstration that demanded that the college divest from Oracle. Apparently, Oracle’s website had stated support for Israel, and the Head of Financial Aid for the college felt the need to apologize for the school’s actions.
A response from the school’s administration read thus:“The business strategy or public statements from Oracle do not represent the viewpoints of the College. Due to the College’s contract with the business and the cost it took to make such major system changes, the College does not have any feasible or affordable alternative.
It also went on to assure protesters:
Less than 0.5 percent of the College’s investments are tied to Israeli companies and that none of these investments are directly held by the college.
As the semester ended, on another whim, I searched the Human Resources page of the college, and sure enough, there was a listing for a new English professor. The skills they were looking for were for someone who taught poetry as well as Race and Ethnic studies courses — none of which I was qualified to teach.
Was the college looking to shift away from courses like Screenwriting, Playwriting, and Non-Fiction — three popular courses I had taught that were always in high demand and had long waiting lists?
I guess I’ll never know.
Oren Safdie is a playwright and screenwriter.
The post The Quiet Antisemitism: My Experience as a Jewish College Professor first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
Uncategorized
French Appeals Court Rejects Antisemitism Charge in Case of Nanny Who Poisoned Jewish Family
Tens of thousands of French people march in Paris to protest against antisemitism. Photo: Screenshot
A French appeals court has acquitted a nanny of antisemitism charges after she was sentenced for poisoning the food of the Jewish family she worked for, in what appears to be yet another instance of France’s legal system brushing aside antisemitism as a potential motive for crime.
On Wednesday, the Versailles Court of Appeal, located just southwest of Paris, upheld the nanny’s previous conviction but again rejected the aggravating circumstance of antisemitism, after prosecutors appealed a criminal court ruling that had acquitted the family’s nanny of antisemitism-aggravated charges after she poisoned their food and drinks.
Last year, the 42-year-old Algerian woman was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for “administering a harmful substance that caused incapacitation for more than eight days.”
Residing illegally in France, the nanny had worked as a live-in caregiver for the family and their three children — aged two, five, and seven — since November 2023.
During the first trial, a French court declined to uphold any antisemitism charges against the defendant, given that her incriminating statements were made several weeks after the incident and were recorded by a police officer without a lawyer present.
Now, the Versailles Court of Appeal ruled in its latest decision that the nanny’s remarks do not even constitute antisemitic statements.
The family’s lawyer announced plans to appeal the decision again, arguing that the repeated rejection of the antisemitism-aggravating circumstance overlooks the seriousness of the case and its legal characterization.
“This decision makes the judicial prosecution of antisemitism impossible and reduces protective laws to nothing more than empty words,” they said during a press conference. “Faced with rulings like this, those seeking justice risk losing all faith in the judicial system and any sense of protection it is meant to provide.”
The nanny, who has been living in France in violation of a deportation order issued in February 2024, was also convicted of using a forged document — a Belgian national identity card — and barred from entering France for five years.
The shocking incident occurred in January 2024, just two months after the caregiver was hired, when the mother discovered cleaning products in the wine she drank and suffered severe eye pain from using makeup remover contaminated with a toxic substance, prompting her to call the police.
After a series of forensic tests, investigators detected polyethylene glycol — a chemical commonly used in industrial and pharmaceutical products — along with other toxic substances in the food consumed by the family and their three children.
According to court documents, these chemicals were described as “harmful, even corrosive, and capable of causing serious injuries to the digestive tract.”
Even though the nanny initially denied the charges against her, she later confessed to police that she had poured a soapy lotion into the family’s food as a warning because “they were disrespecting her.”
“They have money and power, so I should never have worked for a Jewish woman — it only brought me trouble,” the nanny told the police. “I knew I could hurt them, but not enough to kill them.”
According to her lawyer, the nanny later withdrew her confession, arguing that jealousy and a perceived financial grievance were the main factors behind the attack.
At trial, the defendant described her statements as “hateful” but denied that her actions were driven by racism or antisemitism.
Yonathan Arfi, president of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF) — the main representative body of French Jews — strongly condemned the court’s latest ruling, saying it sends a troubling message and deepens concerns over how antisemitism cases are being assessed by the justice system.
“How is it possible not to see antisemitism when it is expressed so clearly, through explicit antisemitic prejudice? This incomprehensible decision calls into question the willful blindness in French society toward antisemitism when it appears as a backdrop to cases without being the sole element,” Arfi wrote in a post on X.
“Are there contexts that make antisemitic remarks acceptable to the point that the justice system refuses to see them? This legitimization of antisemitism is another step in its tragic normalization since October 7,” he continued, referring to the historic surge in antisemitic incidents following Hamas’s invasion of Israel in 2023.
“Parce qu’ils ont l’argent et le pouvoir, j’aurais jamais dû travailler pour une juive, elle n’a fait que m’apporter des problèmes”
Comment est-ce possible de ne pas voir l’antisémitisme quand il est exprimé aussi clairement, au travers de préjugés antisémites explicites ?… https://t.co/K2enyTW8Qz pic.twitter.com/kx3gCFjxTv
— Yonathan Arfi (@Yonathan_Arfi) April 15, 2026
This latest case is by no means the first in France to raise alarm bells among the Jewish community, as courts have repeatedly overturned or reduced sentences for individuals accused of antisemitic crimes, fueling public outrage over what many see as excessive leniency.
On Wednesday, the lawyers for the family of Sarah Halimi announced they have filed a request with the Paris Court of Appeal to reopen the investigation into her death nearly a decade ago, after she was brutally beaten and thrown from a third-floor window.
According to the defense, new evidence regarding the accused Kobili Traore calls into question the original ruling that found him not criminally responsible.
Among the evidence cited are alleged crack cocaine use prior to the incident, indications of premeditation, and an audio recording taken at the moment of the victim’s fall, which they claim reflects Traore’s “political and antisemitic awareness.”
Taken all together, the defense argues that these elements are incompatible with any finding of diminished responsibility.
In 2017, Traore killed Halimi, his 65-year-old neighbor, in her apartment in the 11th arrondissement of eastern Paris, brutally beating her while shouting “Allahu Akbar” before throwing her from a balcony.
Given that he was a heavy cannabis user, Traore was found not criminally responsible and has been hospitalized in a psychiatric ward since his arrest 9 years ago.
“We will do everything to ensure this murderer is brought to justice,” Halimi’s brother, William Attal, said during a press conference.
“No one can imagine the suffering my sister endured,” he continued. “If, in France today, we are unable to try and convict someone for a premeditated murder of this magnitude, then France is no longer the country it claims to be.”
Uncategorized
Israeli Government Report Ranks World’s 10 Most Influential Antisemites
Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, who was part of the Global Sumud Flotilla seeking to deliver aid to Gaza and was detained by Israel, gestures as she is greeted by supporters upon her arrival to the Athens Eleftherios Venizelos International Airport, in Athens, Greece, Oct. 6, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Louisa Gouliamaki
Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism published this week its official ranking of the 10 most influential antisemitic figures in the world in 2025, and the No. 1 spot was given to social media influencer Dan Bilzerian, who is running for US Congress in Florida.
The Armenian-American entrepreneur and US military veteran is a prominent critic of Israel and Judaism who has promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial. He has said he wants to “kill Israelis” and thinks Judaism is “terrible.” He recently claimed antisemitism is a “made-up term” and there is a “big Jewish supremacy problem” in the United States. He formally filed paperwork earlier this month to run as a Republican and unseat incumbent Jewish Rep. Randy Fine in Florida’s 6th Congressional District.
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg is the world’s second most influential antisemite, according to Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, which highlighted her use of terms such as “genocide,” “siege,” and “mass starvation” in reference to Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip.
Third place was given to Egyptian comedian and former television host Bassem Youssef, followed by far-right American political commentator Candace Owens in fourth place and Palestinian-British journalist and editor Abdel Bari Atwan in fifth.
The list includes American imam Omar Suleiman, Denmark-based doctor Anastasia Maria Loupis – who has shared online conspiracy theories about Jews and Israel – far-right commentator and white nationalist Nick Fuentes, and conspiracist Ian Carroll.
Rounding out the top 10 is far-right podcaster and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who regularly promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jewish influence.
Israel said the 10 most “prominent influencers in the global antisemitic and anti-Zionist arena in 2025” were selected based on “both the severity of their actions/statements and the scope of their influence” related to their activities last year. “Each of them has expressed antisemitic views or promoted false information related to Jews, Israel, or both,” the ministry explained. The list does not include individuals with formal political or government positions.
Each individual was ranked based on their influence on social media, but also other factors such as their repeated appearances on news channels, “perceived influence on public opinion, and prominence in certain communities.” The ministry also took into consideration each person’s “level of impact and risk,” which includes how often they upload antisemitic and anti-Israeli posts on social media. The report was released ahead of Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, known in Hebrew as Yom HaShoah.
In a separate section of the report dedicated to antisemitic and anti-Israel influencers in the US, Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs singled out YouTuber and children’s educator Ms. Rachel, who has “increasingly used her social media accounts to amplify pro-Palestinian messages and criticize Israel.”
“Her posts have been interpreted by pro-Israel organizations as one-sided and hostile to Israel, and organizations such as StopAntisemitism have accused her of spreading anti-Israel or pro-Hamas propaganda and called for an examination of her activities,” the ministry stated.
Uncategorized
US Military: ‘Locked and Loaded’ to Strike Iran’s Power Plants, Energy Industry if Ordered
US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks during a briefing on the Iran war, at the Pentagon in Washington, DC, US, April 16, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Nathan Howard
The US naval blockade of Iran is just an example of “polite” behavior during the ongoing ceasefire and US forces are ready to strike Iran’s power plants and energy industry if ordered, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Thursday.
Standing alongside two of the US military‘s most senior officers, Hegseth said Iran needs to choose wisely as it prepares for negotiations with the United States.
“We are reloading with more power than ever before, and better intelligence,” Hegseth said at a Pentagon news briefing. “We are locked and loaded on your critical dual-use infrastructure, on your remaining power generation, and on your energy industry. We’d rather not have to do it.”
President Donald Trump’s administration expressed optimism on Wednesday about reaching a deal to end the Iran war, while also warning of increasing economic pressure against Iran if it remains defiant.
That has included a blockade of Iran that went into effect on Monday, with the US military forcing 14 ships to turn around. Dozens of US warships and aircraft, including about 10,000 military personnel, are enforcing the blockade.
Trump is hoping the effort will force Iran to accept US terms for ending the war, which was launched by the US and Israel on Feb. 28, including opening up the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which roughly one fifth of global oil and gas exports ordinarily transits. Trump has said that was also a condition of the ceasefire due to expire next week.
The war has resulted in a major disruption of global oil and gas supplies.
Analysts have said that Iran can withstand a complete halt in oil exports of up to two months before being forced to curb production.
Hegseth, in comments aimed at the Iranian leadership, said that the blockade “is the polite way that this can go.”
READY TO RESUME OPERATIONS
Admiral Brad Cooper, the head of US Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, said the military was adjusting tactics, techniques, and procedures, but he did not provide any details.
During the same briefing, General Dan Caine, chairman of the US military‘s Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that American forces are “ready to resume major combat operations at literally a moment’s notice.”
US Navy ships would pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran, Caine told the briefing. He added that could take place not just in the region, but also the Indo-Pacific.
Ships trying to break the blockade would be intercepted and warned that “if you do not comply with this blockade, we will use force,” and enforcement would occur inside Iran’s territorial seas and in international waters, Caine said.
No ships have been boarded so far, Caine said.
The US military has widened its blockade to include cargoes deemed contraband, and any vessels suspected of trying to reach Iranian territory will be “subject to belligerent right to visit and search,” the US Navy said in an advisory on Thursday.
“These vessels, regardless of location, are subject to visit, board, search, and seizure,” the Navy said in an updated advisory.
Contraband items listed included weapons, weapons systems, ammunition, nuclear materials, crude, and refined oil products as well as iron, steel and aluminum.
Sources briefed by Tehran have told Reuters that Iran could let ships sail freely through the Omani side of the Strait of Hormuz without risk of attack under proposals it has offered in talks with the US, providing a deal is clinched to prevent renewed conflict.