World Jewish News
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.
World Jewish News
News from Syria shouldn’t distract from what’s been going on in Gaza
By BERNIE BELLAN Amidst the head-spinning news coming out of Syria this past week, it’s easy to forget that there is still a war going on in Gaza. What, exactly, Israel’s government is trying to accomplish there now is not easy to figure out.
The Israel Defense Forces would seem to have achieved all their military goals, including completely nullifying Hamas and Islamic Jihad as threats to Israel, so what more does the Israeli government (and here, I want to clearly differentiate between the goals of the government and the goals of the IDF) hope to accomplish?
In asking that, I want to reflect on two recent articles that appeared in Haaretz. One was about a Hebrew University professor by the name of Lee Mordechai, who has been carefully cataloguing war crimes that the IDF has been committing in Gaza.
Here is the introduction to that Haaretz article: “A woman with a child is shot while waving a white flag ■ Starving girls are crushed to death in line for bread ■ A cuffed 62-year-old man is run over, evidently by a tank ■ An aerial strike targets people trying to help a wounded boy ■ A database of thousands of videos, photos, testimonies, reports and investigations documents the horrors committed by Israel in Gaza”
The article goes on to note that “The report Dr. Mordechai has compiled online – “Bearing Witness to the Israel-Gaza War” – constitutes the most methodical and detailed documentation in Hebrew (there is also an English translation) of the war crimes that Israel is perpetrating in Gaza. It is a shocking indictment comprised of thousands of entries relating to the war, to the actions of the government, the media, the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli society in general.”
In talking with many people about what’s been going on in Gaza over the past year and a half, the reaction I often receive when I suggest that Israel achieved all its military goals very early on in this war is: “Good, let them keep on hitting them so that they’ll never pose a threat to Israelis again.”
That’s understandable, but the dehumanization of the Palestinians in Gaza is something that many of us find detestable. If Israeli soldiers have lowered themselves to the same level of brutality as their enemies, is that anything to be proud of?
As for the rationalizations that by now we’ve become so accustomed to hearing – that you have to fight dirty when you’re fighting terrorists or that the IDF maintains the highest principles of conduct – notwithstanding any evidence to the contrary, simply don’t excuse the kinds of behaviour that Dr. Mordechai describes in graphic detail in his report.
As if that weren’t enough to lead one to doubt Israel’s ongoing campaign in Gaza – which is being pushed forward by the right wing forces who are calling the shots within the Likud-led government of Israel, there was yet another thorough indictment of Israel’s strategy offered up recently, this time by former Defense Minister and Army Chief of Staff Moshe Ayalon, who accused the IDF of engaging in “ethnic cleansing” in northern Gaza.
In an interview with Channel 12 news in Israel, Ayalon maintained that “The IDF is not the most moral army in the world.”
Later in that same interview, Ayalon offered two clarifications of what he meant by using the term “ethnic cleansing.” According to a report, also in Haaretz, Ayalon explained that “First, his definition of ethnic cleansing did not include genocide, but rather ‘evacuating civilians from their homes and demolishing those homes, as is happening in Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya.’ He also said that he does not hold the military responsible for these crimes but rather the government, in particular far-right lawmakers like National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Betzalel Smotritch, who have repeatedly declared their intentions to build Jewish settlements in Gaza.”
I would venture to say that, if you didn’t know who it was that offered that assessment of what Israel has been doing in Gaza, you would likely think that it came from one of the usual suspects, such as UN Secretary-General António Guterres. The fact that it came from a former Israeli defense minister, also a former IDF chief of staff, not to mention a member of the Likud Party, should lend it some credibility.
But, in the black and white worldview that permeates so many individuals’ thinking when it comes to what Israel has been doing in Gaza, Ayalon would no doubt simply fall into the category of naive critics of Israeli policy according to so many defenders of Israeli government policy.
It’s hard to know where readers of this publication stand, however, on what Israel has been doing in Gaza. There have been almost no letters to the editor commenting on this particular issue – not that letters to the editor offer a true picture of people’s thinking. Further, I don’t make it a habit of engaging everyone I meet in a conversation centering on Israel’s strategic goals in Gaza. Frankly, as is with the case involving a discussion of Donald Trump, tempers can flare easily – and trying to engage in a relatively dispassionate conversation about either Gaza or Trump isn’t easy.
But, a recent survey conducted by three different Canadian Jewish groups shows how diverse opinions are among Canadian Jews are when it comes to Israel.
The survey was conducted by marketing firm Leger and was sponsored by the New Israel Fund, JSpaceCanada and Canadian Friends of Peace Now.
Here are some of the findings from that survey:
• While 84% of Canada’s Jews say they are “very” or “somewhat” emotionally attached to Israel and 94% percent support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, just 51% of Canadian Jews consider themselves Zionists.
• The poll also found that 34% of Canadian Jews believe the continued building of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank hurts Israel’s security, with only 27% saying they believe it helps Israel’s security. The remainder of those polled either said it made no difference or they didn’t know.
• Most Canadian Jews still believe that the ideal outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a two-state solution – a Jewish state of Israel alongside an Arab state of Palestine, with 61% support amongst Canadian Jews with an opinion on the subject. 55% of Canadian Jews agree that Canadian politicians should increase pressure on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to engage in a meaningful peace process.
• Canadian Jews are also more likely to indicate their intention to vote for the federal Conservative party if the election were to be held tomorrow, with 55% indicating support for the Conservatives, and 26% for the Liberals. These trends are similar to those in the general population, but the decline in Liberal support and increase in Conservative support is more pronounced among Jews.
I would suggest that the majority of Canadian Jews don’t pay much attention to what Jewish federations do – and here it’s important to note that determining who is Jewish is not easy – as I showed repeatedly ever since the results of the 2020 census came out. (For instance, I was able to establish that only 6700 Winnipeggers identified as Jewish both in terms of their religion and ethnicity in that census.)
The groups that conducted this most recent survey of Canadian Jews’ attitudes would likely not be considered mainstream Jewish organizations in the sense that they do not follow along with what our Jewish federations and CIJA would suggest is the nominal position of most Canadian Jews on Israel. All three are highly critical of Israeli government policies and all three strive to promote peaceful co-existence among Israeli Jews and Palestinians.
Yet, by referring to the work done by Prof. Mordecai documenting Israeli war crimes in Gaza, the assessment that Moshe Ayalon offered that what Israel has been doing lately in Gaza amounts to “ethnic cleansing,” and the recent survey of Canadian Jews’ attitudes towards Israel, I wanted to show how thoughtful Jews – whether they’re in Israel or in Canada, can hold highly divergent opinions from what you are likely to read in most Jewish media (including The Jewish Post). If nothing else, if I can get some readers to consider different viewpoints when it comes to thinking about Israel, I will have accomplished something.
World Jewish News
‘Israel’s Strikes Helped Us Get Free,’ Senior Syrian Rebel Tells i24NEWS
Syrians and Palestinians living in Syria stand next to a poster depicting Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad as they mark the annual al-Quds Day (Jerusalem Day), in Damascus, Syria April 29, 2022. REUTERS/Firas Makdesi
i24 News – After the rebels entered Damascus Sunday night and announced the fall of the Assad regime, Fahd Masri, the founder of the defunct National Salvation Front and spokesperson for the Free Syrian Army, spoke with the Arab affairs commentator of i24NEWS, Baruch Yedid, to thank Israel for its “contribution” to the dramatic events.
“Without the blows you inflicted on Hezbollah and Iran, we could not free Syria,” Masri said. “Thank you, Israel. This is an Israeli victory, our brothers and neighbors.”
He added that he wished “a peace of love and respect” between Israelis and Syrians. “This is a morning of victory!”
“We will build peace with you,” he said regarding the future between the countries.
In the early morning hours of Sunday, rebels arrived in Damascus and announced the overthrow of president Bashar al-Assad’s regime, 24 years after he took over from his father, Hafez. Assad reportedly left the country and his location is currently unknown. According to foreign reports, IDF armored forces were stationed in the Quneitra area of southern Syria to prevent rebels from reaching the border between the countries. The Israel Air Force allegedly attacked strategic weapon warehouses, chemical weapon warehouses, and laboratories around the Syrian capital.
The post ‘Israel’s Strikes Helped Us Get Free,’ Senior Syrian Rebel Tells i24NEWS first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
World Jewish News
Amnesty Lied About Israeli ‘Genocide’ — the Media Gladly Joined In
Amnesty International’s latest significant report, “‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza,” is in keeping with the organization’s long history of hostility towards Israel — and accuses the Jewish State of genocide in Gaza.
According to Amnesty, its report:
documents Israel’s actions during its offensive on the occupied Gaza Strip from 7 October 2023. It examines the killing of civilians, damage to and destruction of civilian infrastructure, forcible displacement, the obstruction or denial of life-saving goods and humanitarian aid, and the restriction of power supplies. It analyses Israel’s intent through this pattern of conduct and statements by Israeli decision-makers. It concludes that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
Amnesty’s conclusion, however, is categorically wrong.
Amnesty Redefines Genocide
Having already resorted, in 2022, to formulating a totally new definition of what it calls “the crime of apartheid,” Amnesty has changed the definition of genocide to suit its predetermined conclusions.
Perhaps knowing it doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on, @amnesty has resorted to manufacturing its own definition of ‘#genocide’ against Israel, by claiming in their report that the universally established – and sole accepted legal definition – as outlined in the Genocide… pic.twitter.com/cUTDliObR5
— Arsen Ostrovsky
(@Ostrov_A) December 5, 2024
Despite this, the coverage of Amnesty’s genocide report demonstrates how too many journalists are not prepared to exercise their own critical thinking.
The media commonly suffer from the “Halo Effect,” whereby journalists cite non-governmental and so-called human rights organizations like Amnesty, treating them as beyond reproach and assuming their information is authoritative.
This effect is exacerbated by the need for the media to get the story out quickly. It’s unlikely that a journalist would spend their time properly reviewing the substantial 296-page Amnesty report. So, Amnesty’s talking points in its six-page press release summary or statements at a press conference will be what appears in the media.
And the news cycle moves quickly. By the time those who wish to respond to the report in-depth will have finished reading it and issuing a response, the Amnesty story will be over. The impact of the report, however, and the genocide charge, will last much longer, becoming part of the media narrative, as Israel comes under sustained assault from multiple sources seeking to delegitimize its right to self-defense and even its right to exist.
NGO Monitor did manage to obtain the Amnesty press release in advance, noting in its preliminary analysis that the six-page, 2,500-word embargoed summary “highlights the absence of substance and the dominance of slogans and myths. Following previous practice, the press release declares Israel to be guilty of genocide, regardless of the reality in Gaza. This basic paradigm is evidenced by Amnesty’s highly selective use of ‘evidence,’ including fundamental omission of facts that do not support its political line, and the blatantly manipulative discussion of civilian casualties.”
This discussion of civilian casualties is taken up by Salo Aizenberg, who notes Amnesty’s avoidance of addressing the combatants killed figure and the resulting civilian/combatant ratio would have shown evidence of the IDF’s precision targeting, thus eviscerating Amnesty’s report.
I noticed on page 59 Amnesty cites an IDF claim from Jan 2024 saying they killed 8,000 fighters. I searched for the recent estimates of 17,000-20,000 (I searched several numbers) and read the entire section 6.1.2 “Scale of Killings and Injuries” where casualties are discussed in…
— Aizenberg (@Aizenberg55) December 5, 2024
NGO Monitor also noted that Amnesty had “made an embargoed text of the report and a lengthy press release available to select journalists in an attempt to ensure favorable media coverage. Although under no obligation to adhere to Amnesty’s embargo, journalists who cover Amnesty’s report should avoid this manipulation and incorporate detailed critical analysis.”
It appears that ship has already sailed as media outlets, including Associated Press, CNN, Reuters, AFP, BBC, The Guardian, Washington Post, and Sky News, jump on the story.
Amnesty Israel Rejects the Report
So, it’s unlikely that any international press will do the extra legwork to question Amnesty’s malleable definition of genocide. It’s also unlikely that any will sit up and take notice of the press release (Hebrew) issued by Amnesty’s Israel branch.
While still highly critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza, Amnesty Israel states it “does not accept the claim that genocide has been proven to be taking place in the Gaza Strip and does not accept the operative findings of the report.”
Haaretz, meanwhile, which is followed religiously by foreign media, reports on a joint statement from several members of Amnesty Israel and Jewish members of Amnesty International who:
argue that report’s “artificial analysis” — especially with regard to the widespread destruction in Gaza, which allegedly indicates a genocidal intent — suggests that the authors “reached a predetermined conclusion — and did not draw a conclusion based on an objective review of the facts and the law.”
“From the outset, the report was referred to in internal correspondence as the ‘genocide report,’ even when research was still in its initial stages,” the Jewish employees reveal.
“This is a strong indication of bias and also a factor that can cause additional bias: imagine how difficult it is for a researcher to work for months on a report titled ‘genocide report’ and then to have to conclude that it is ‘only’ about crimes against humanity. Predetermined conclusions of this kind are not typical of other Amnesty International investigations.”
The joint statement further stated that the report “is motivated by a desire to support a popular narrative among Amnesty International’s target audience,” and that it stems “unfortunately, from an atmosphere within Amnesty International of minimizing the seriousness of the October 7 massacre.
“It is a failure — and sometimes even a refusal — to address the Israeli victims in a personal and humane manner.” According to the Jewish staff, the international organization also “ignored efforts to raise these concerns.”
But will Western and foreign journalists take any notice?
Holocaust Appropriation
It says much about a journalist’s mindset when the Holocaust is appropriated to subconsciously associate Israel’s actions in Gaza, which Amnesty is claiming to be genocide, with the very real Nazi genocide against the Jewish people.
Sadly, both the Associated Press and The Guardian went down that road in their stories on the Amnesty report.
Whatever is happening in Gaza, it is categorically nothing like the Holocaust.
So why does @AP need to mention it other than to subconsciously plant an offensive and inappropriate parallel? pic.twitter.com/81VWL1LaPZ
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) December 5, 2024
Accusing Israel of weaponizing antisemitism even in advance of a reaction to an Amnesty report.
We see you, @guardian. pic.twitter.com/n9u4LXP6Uu
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) December 5, 2024
The Guardian even went as far as to preempt Israeli reaction to the Amnesty report, claiming it would “generate accusations of antisemitism,” effectively accusing Israelis and Jews of weaponizing antisemitism in bad faith.
AFP didn’t even bother to include any Israeli reaction to the report beyond the boilerplate line: “Israel has repeatedly and forcefully denied allegations of genocide, accusing Hamas of using civilians as human shields.”
The Washington Post quotes Paul O’Brien, executive director of Amnesty International USA who says: “What the law requires is that we prove that there is sufficient evidence that there is [genocidal] intent, amongst all the other complex intents that are going to exist in warfare.”
And this is the crux: The death toll and destruction in Gaza can be explained as an inevitable and tragic outcome of a war where Hamas have done everything possible to put Gaza’s civilian population in harm’s way. And Israel has taken every precaution to avoid civilian casualties, while still allowing humanitarian aid to cross into Gaza.
The inevitable result of Amnesty’s approach is to turn every war into a genocide, thereby stripping the word of its true meaning.
Israel’s actions are not those of a state that shows intent to commit a genocide, and to charge Israel with such a crime shows just how divorced from reality Amnesty International and its cheerleaders are.
Sadly, the international media have given an unquestioning platform for this libel.
The author is the Managing Editor of HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Amnesty Lied About Israeli ‘Genocide’ — the Media Gladly Joined In first appeared on Algemeiner.com.