As far as I know, this week is some kind of pro-Palestine week, and it’s kicked off with a bang at the University of Chicago. The usual suspects, the Students for Justice in Palestine, have erected a tent accusing the administration (through President Paul Alivisatos) and the Board of Trustees of the University of guilt for “economic genocide”, failure to divest (it’s not clear from what), and complicity in the deaths of Palestinians. This is in the form of a painted tent erected in the Quad yesterday, covered with caricatures of Trustees and the President Alivisatos, many with blood running out of their eyes and mouths. Yep, it’s the old “blood libel,” and I have no compunction in calling this anti-Semitism. (See some photos below.)
Note the “red hands” drawings, which have always been a symbol of death to Jews, reflecting a Palestinian who, in 2000, held up his blood-covered hands after helping kill two Jews. They were two Israelis who lost their way and wound up by accident in Ramallah. The PA detained them, but the mob gathered and, storming the building, tore the pair to pieces:
From Honest Reporting (note: gore and murder):
What followed can only be described as a savage, barbaric lynching. The crazed mob beat and stabbed the Israelis, tore the men limb from limb and gouged out their eyes. During the attack, Mr Avrahami’s wife Hani called him on his mobile phone. Instead of being greeted as usual, an unfamiliar strange voice answered the phone : “I just killed your husband.”
As all this was happening, one man came to the window and, much to the delight of the delirious crowd below, triumphantly held up his blood-soaked hands for all to see.
The crowd stood below, waving fists and cheering. The body of one of the soldiers was then thrown out of the window. The baying crowd rushed to attack, beating and stamping the lifeless body in a frenzy. The body of the other soldier was set on fire. One of the soldiers was later seen upside down, dangling from a rope.
The horrendous episode was not over. Within minutes of murdering the Israelis, the mob dragged the two butchered bodies to nearby Al-Manara Square, and broke out into impromptu victory celebrations.
The famous photo:
As The Canary Mission notes, “The ‘red hand’ has a decades-old violent meaning for Jews in the Middle East. It signifies the bloody history of pogroms and the slaughter of Jews.”
That said, here are photos of the “installation” erected in the Quad, probably last night (I don’t remember it from yesterday afternoon):
Approval for the installation, showing who put it up:
Paul Alivisatos, our President, called a “genocide normalizer”:
Rachel Kohler, David Rubenstein (chair of the Board) and Antonio Gracias, characterized as “ecociders”, “CEOs of blood baths”, and so on. Note all the red hands, which to me means “kill the Jews”. (Of course you could interpret it as the trustees kill Palestinians, but the red hand has never symbolized that.) Note the blood coming out of their mouths and their satanic appearance. It’s the old blood libel, put onto the Trustees.
Tom Pritzker, also a Trustee with blood running out of his mouth. He’s called a “baby killing scum” and “Epstein Scum”. Note the red hands again:
More red hands and Satya Nadella, also on the Board of Trustees. He was born in India, and the caricature, with dark brown skin, could be seen as racist. More red hands.
Finally, trustee Michele Kang, also with blood coming from every orifice.
As I said, this was erected by the Students for Justice in Palestine, the major contributor to antisemitism on our campus. I have noted this in a 2024 letter to the Chicago Maroon and have called for a reassessment of their status as a Recognized Student Organization. From my letter:
Has the time come to ask whether the activism of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) belongs on our campus? It’s not the morally reprehensible things they say that brings this question to the fore, as their speech is protected, but how they behave: in a way that violates campus rules and disrupts the University’s mission.
. . . . The continual disruption of our campus and violation of University regulations raises the question of whether SJP as a campus group is involved in these actions. If so, we should ponder whether that group should be a recognized student organization. At the very least, student organizations should enrich the mission of the University: promoting discourse and enriching our intellectual life. SJP does none of this, for their mission seems to be purely ideological: to promote Hamas and whitewash its terrorism—as well as to erase the state of Israel—all through disrupting campus activity. If it is to remain, it should at least desist from violating University regulations.
In fact, SJP did not desist from violating University regulations, and was given a slap on the wrist: an “official warning” that further “discipline” (LOL) would be enacted should SJP violate university regulations. This tent, since it was approved, is not a violation, but if the past is any guide, there will be more violations. And the University, which has other problems, won’t do anything.
Note that the University has already affirmed that it’s not divesting from anything, so this is purely performative, and I see it as an act of hatred and antisemitism. That, of course, is within the purview of the First Amendment, and although this kind of thuggery makes me queasy, we Jews have been subject to this for millennia and we’re not going to be put off or scared by it now.
It’s going to be a rough spring. SJP knows that it’s lost the war, both in Gaza and on campus, and that will simply make them more active and more hateful. I trust that the Jewish students will respond with messages that aren’t hateful, but simply call for the return of the remaining hostages and embody the phrase “Am Yisrael chai” (“The people of Israel live.”)
UPDATE: We have high winds here today, and apparently the tent blew down. Here’s a photo of the remnants. I’m sure it will be put up again.
****************
Malgorzata, who lost many of her family in the Holocaust, has been arguing with me for several years about whether stuff like this constitutes free speech. I think it does since it doesn’t violate how our courts have construed the First Amendment, but she differs and thinks installations like this should be banned. I will reproduce with permission what she said to me when we discussed this installation this morning:
You see, Jerry, that’s why I’m definitely not a free speech absolutist. As somebody famous (I don’t remember who) said: the Holocaust didn’t start with Auschwitz, it started with words. OK, the ground was fertile, hatred of Jews was very popular for centuries, and smaller orgies of murders were done in many places. The words which are spoken now, the pictures which are shown (like this installation in your University), can very easily morph into violence (in some places it already has) and to greater and more organized violence. In Rwanda they needed the radio dehumanizing Tutsis for a few months before they went over to calling for the murder of Tutsis. The ground was prepared and people started the mass murder with joy. It’s always easier to give rise to hatred and violence than to love and tolerance. Good ideas always lose against murderous ideas.
It’s not a good time for Jews and not a good time for Western civilization. The monsters of barbarism are awake again and many people are embracing them.
Thank you for this post, including Malgorzata’s (always) important thoughts on the issue. It may turn into a real test of the administration’s commitment to appropriate time, place, manner restrictions. As abhorrent as I find the depictions, they appear for now to be on a single tent, on the grass, not blocking the walkways…a silent sentinel…for now…and I support this type of speech being allowed. A response might be UChicago Hillel doing a similarly approved display on a nearby area providing much of the same information as that you showed in photos last spring from what might have been a Hillel or Chabad display. I hope that part of the approved sjp installation is a limit on associated crowd-size that keeps the demonstration within the grassy area or areas approved and that limits or outlaws electronically amplified sound with swift action by the administration to enforce these restrictions up to and including removal of the installation if a violation occurs. Oh and certainly must not allow singling out of individuals walking by for invective, physical or verbal threats. I am one of those who thinks the solution to offensive and hateful speech is simply more speech of a different bent…the university is the sponsor of display of competing viewpoints within time, place, and manner restrictions. And of course, violations of university regulations by students, faculty, or staff must lead to a fair and meaningful punishment for those individuals. I understand Malgorzata’s concerns, but come down on the more rather than less free speech side of the line.
As I see it and I have never understood antisemitism, or more to the point why it exists today, is this is a show of hate, look how we hate, we are batshit crazy with it!
I think you pretty much nailed it. Monstrous barbarians, indeed.
I don’t understand antisemitism either.
Ditto. One good thing is it allows everyone to see who they really are. The Palestinian version of Operation Let Them Speak.
The more you see the less support they will garner and the less sympathy invoked for murderers and rapists of innocent people.
Truly abhorrent messaging.
Thanks for putting this up – of course, only to the extent that a crystal-clear idea of what “Justice” means in this context means. The “red hand” is a new one to me.
I mean this, of course, with some version of …sarcasm… sardonic? Not sure.
I agree, my response to installations like this one is mockery (and I guess is less serious than the responses by Malgorzata and our host, or by Jim @ 1).
For example, the protestors caricature “Tom Pritzker, also a Trustee with blood running out of his mouth. He’s called a “baby killing scum” and “Epstein Scum”.” But this is not very intersectional on the part of SJP because the Pritzkers are among the top financial supporters of trans activists in the USA. And as we all know there is only “One struggle, one fight. Palestine and trans rights!”
https://x.com/JuliaHB1/status/1913625058968215921
It is said :
While Leftist activists might be ruthlessly inconsistent – the inconsistency drives praxis.
I guess that means it deliberately creates a milieu of confusion to take advantage of… with dialectic…
“Leninism as developed by Mao is really a doctrine of propaganda plus action, indissolubly linked to Marxism, of which it is an expression.”
bold-added excerpt from
Propaganda – The Formation of Men’s Attitudes
Jacques Ellul
Vintage/Random House
1965
Should also say I’m glad to hear Malgorzata’s insight altogether. Perhaps she detects a provocational intent to action of this “free speech”.
“One struggle, one fight. Palestine and trans rights!”, would scan much better if “trans” were replaced by an offensive synonym, not that I would ever do that.
Whilst I agree it probably doesn’t violate freedom of speech, it certainly tests those freedoms and probably harms the concept. Could you imagine similar, but about Blacks?
And, returning to a topic of frequent discussion here at the moment, should those same speech protections apply to those in America on a temporary/non-permanent basis including green cards?
Freedom of speech is a western foundational principle, but so is anti-bigotry. Neither should be allowed to be attacked and certainly not by temporary residents from cultures that do not align.
Free-speech protection against jail and fines exacted by the state extend to all people on American soil. No exceptions. (Our more limited Charter rights apply similarly to everyone on Canadian soil.) What non-citizens don’t have is the right to remain in the United States (or Canada.) They can be removed administratively as undesirables either by revoking their visas or, in the case of visiting Canadian tourists who don’t need visas, detaining them to make sure they’re not plotting criminal actions and then chucking them back over the border if they haven’t committed any other crime. Note that if we think someone has committed an actual crime in Canada, we put him on trial. We don’t just deport him scot-free. We for sure deport him after he’s served his sentence which of course we can’t do to a citizen. I’m sure America does the same.
You can argue about what the procedure should be for deporting undesirables and how much judicial oversight it should have, whether it’s “justified.” My point is just that deeming a non-citizen undesirable because of his speech and deporting him doesn’t in and of itself violate his Constitutional rights in either Canada or the U.S. Everyone has free-speech rights against jail. Non-citizens don’t have free-speech rights against deportation. And I’m a free-speech absolutist.
Indeed, Leslie. I think the HUGE misunderstanding from our media and the left involves them not recognizing that there is a very bright line between citizen and non-citizen in many (but not all) contexts.
Otherwise the notion of citizenship and a “waiting” period of 5 years (or 3 if married to a US cit) would be meaningless.
D.A.
NYC
I think the bigger issue with the current administration is that they are deporting people without due process, something the court has ruled is a right for all people in the US, regardless of immigration or citizen status. The most obvious reason to uphold this right for all is that you can easily imagine that, without a hearing, the government deporting a citizen. Secondly, the group sent to El Salvador (to a PRISON) were never convicted of a crime and as we know, one of them had a court order preventing his deportation (whether you think he is a good person is not relevant since court orders have to be followed to have the rule of law). Also, some but not all of those deported, were not even from El Salvador and there are a lot of reasons why deporting a person, without a hearing, to a country not of their origin is problematic. And finally, while non-citizens might not have the same free speech rights as citizens, the government deciding who to deport based on their speech is an extremely scary thought, or at least it should be, for anyone who is a free speech absolutist.
Well, we’ll see what your Supreme Court eventually says. It’s not whether he should, but whether he can. If you go by the rule of law then if the Supreme Court says he’s within the law, he’s within the law. End of story, until the Legislature sees fit to change the law. Do we agree?
In Rasul v. Bush 2004, the court ruled that even “enemy combatants” have the right to habeas corpus as does anyone under US jurisdiction. So yes, a new Supreme Court ruling could change that, but the Trump administration clearly violated current law by ignoring that ruling. Also the fact that men were sent to prison without a trial or even a hearing is unlikely to be upheld by this court, no matter how conservative they are.
Regarding migrants and other non-citizens:
Trump officials to monitor immigrants’ social media for antisemitism
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/09/trump-antisemitism-immigrants-social-media
I had not known about explicit meaning of the “red hands”. Monstrous — and thanks for the link. Re Mike Hart’s link above, yes — beyond parody.
Terrible. One can only hope that this display serves to expose SJP and its minions for what they truly are: purveyors of hate. Let them have their display. Let us see their faces.
Good point norman. Please let us see their faces. There needs to be a university rule against masking on campus…particularly outdoors. Flu numbers are down; covid numbers are down. I avoid indoor crowds and unfortunately miss a number of cultural events that I would have attended before 2020. I generally do not worry about outdoor gatherings. That is my choice. Demonstrators can choose on their commitment to their ideological strength of feeling versus their fear of disease given that covering their face for anonymity will simply not be allowed. And by the way, is anyone else bothered by masked agents of the U.S. government carrying out police actions on civilians?
All these antisemitic tropes and threats to Jews are what PZ Meyers refers to as “legitimate resistance”. That’s apart from when he’s denying there is any antisemitism on display at these protests, of course!
Wasn’t long ago he was forever banging on about “safe spaces”.
Perhaps less obvious than the symbolism of the red hands, the big white circle in the Satya Nadella caricature is, I think, supposed to tell us that while he’s dark skinned, he’s white on the inside or his thinking is.
This is racist and antisemitic and a celebration of the murdering of Jews. It’s sickening.
I also agree that the reaction should be more speech and the airing of opposing viewpoints as well as the identification of those who set up the tent.
Something tells me however that if a bunch of young white men in brown shirts set up the exact same display that the university would quickly move to remove it.
Hmmm. I’d be willing to contribute to fund some adventurous actors to do exactly that. Not kidding.
Apropos face masking. Maybe somebody could try this: walk around campus in KKK garb with white hood, etc.
I’d really prefer full-on SA-style uniforms. AIUI KKK are mainly about Blacks, with Jews as a sideline.
I generally favor parody in response to ideological excesses, but the over-the-top hysteria of these caricatures is far beyond anything that could be parodied. It shrieks blood libel not just at Jews, but at the U. of Chicago Trustees—it could shriek the same at Apple, Intel, IBM, or for that matter at all individuals who use Israeli technology (such as the 8088 microprocessor). My sense of this display is that most viewers will conclude that SJP hysterics ought to receive treatment with haldol.
Malgorzata is spot on. The “Red Hand” is not free speech. It is a call to violence by monsters and barbarians.
I’m sympathetic to Malgorzata’s views on hate speech, but as a resident of a country that criminalizes hate speech, I have to demur.
The difficulty is that it criminalizes an otherwise lawful act — speech — according to what the state believes the motive of the speaker was and how the speaker believed his speech would be received by his audience. In most offences the accused’s defence is, “I didn’t do it. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt I did.” But that defence isn’t available to the person charged with hate speech. He has to admit he said the things he did in order to construct his defence according to the defences allowed in the legislation. Truth is not an absolute defence the way it is in libel. Speaking the truth in a hateful tone of voice, or in ALL-CAPS!!!, or saying that a true statement should cause the audience to vilify the group so described, could all be hate speech. Your fate depends on what a jury (or a judge alone as many criminal defendants opt for in Canada) thinks about what you meant when you said it. Our Charter of Rights allows “reasonable limits” to be placed on speech protections, and laws criminalizing hate speech fall within these limits, says our Supreme Court.
There is the risk of mission creep. It won’t be just Jews who will be protected by hate-speech laws, the one group that really does have a case for them. People opposing trans ideology or supporting “residential schools denialism” are regularly accused of hate speech by activists. All the police have to do one day is get the provincial Attorney-General’s permission to lay a charge and your life is ruined.
I don’t think a Canadian-style hate-speech law would be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Bill of Rights doesn’t have our “reasonable limits” escape hatch for laws the state really really wants to pass no matter what the First Amendment says. So I don’t think you can have a hate-speech law even if you wanted one.
Combat bad speech with true speech. Let the police kill the violent ones if they have to.
I think I would have interpreted the bloody hands as saying to the administration addressed as “you have blood on your hands”.
Really? Your interpretation is extremely generous. The administration has blood on its hands. That is stretching it.
An interpretation alluding to a common metaphor is stretching it, while an interpretation that requires knowledge of a specific photo of a not-commonly-known event is not?
Maybe most Jews read it that way and maybe the SJP intended it that way (though I am not sure they know the background) but for most onlookers the “blood on your hands” interpretation will be the normal one.
Aboriginal troublemakers in Canada often display a Canadian flag where a red hand dripping blood replaces the maple leaf to accuse the rest of us of entirely imaginary genocide. The blood is depicted as theirs, not ours. (For now.). At least that’s how I’ve always taken it.
That is a problem with hate speech laws. What could be only a lawful (if invented) accusation becomes an unlawful threat if a jury says so.
Meh.
Better than huge poo-camps from infantile, morally broken low mate value teens like last year.
SJP are known crazies. The blood hand motif is the calling card of these unfortunate people. Eff em.
I believe things are about to get quite exciting in Gaza in the coming few weeks.
Fortunately other important US and international distractions will keep these campus fools in the background.
Onwards Israeli heroes.
D.A.
NYC
Things getting quite exciting in Gaza no doubt means events
like this: https://www.thefp.com/p/watch-gazans-confront-hamas-amid utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email .
It is worth recalling that Daniel Pipes predicted, right at the start, that Gazans would emerge who were utterly fed up with Hamas.
Wind of the night: How very Pesachish – and they were smitten by the finger of god at Swift Quad.
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword.
The only way for this to stop is for AOC or some other lefty heavyweight to call it out. People can draw their own conclusions as to why this has not happened.
Easy conclusion: apostates are invariably treated even worse than infidels.
We pay the cost of enduring vile speech with the hope that our norm prohibiting government interference will hold–even if vile people were to take office. Perhaps that hope is in vain, particularly given the zeal that has developed for policing “hate” and “misinformation.” But to Malgorzata I would ask questions I am sure Jerry has posed: to whom would you grant the power to determine what speech is allowed? What firm limits would you place on the categories: “hate,” “harm,” and “misinformation”?
And what if those misguided and hateful students were the ones in charge?
+1 for your last point
Malgorzata is right on this one, as is Dr. Coyne to call for the de-registration of SJP. There is something seriously amiss with the humanities departments if they aren’t teaching the truth about the Holocaust and what an enormous disaster it was for the Jews and other targets for extermination and the wider German, UK, European and Soviet public as well. Any country throughout history which has focused its resources on exterminating an “internal enemy” has descended into shit-hole status. The US and other Western countries will not be an exception.
This red hands emblem is awful…surely the students know about its origin.
It’s really in the same ball park as a Swastika. Or the white hand of Saruman.
Right, that does it. I need to put some money where my mouth is (metaphorically). Can anyone suggest a UK or Commonwealth broker who handles Israeli government bonds? TIA.
https://www.israelbonds.ca/
This is the Canadian agency that handles them for the Government of Israel.
Thank you!
Compared to the antics of last Spring, this one empty tent, as hateful as it is, is rather pathetic. No crowds, no entitled protestors demanding this, that and the other thing. No one stopping passersby to demand allegiance to the cause. Just one pathetic image, albeit one of ethnic and religious hatred and desired genocide. I’m a bit perplexed that the University is allowing a structure to stand in lieu of actual human speakers making their cases. Reminds me of the US Senate permitting an imaginary filibuster rather than requiring actual effort from members who want to protest an advancing bill.
At such time as SJP’s opponents deign to put up a structure in response, it should show photos of Sinwar and Bloody Hands Man and other such enlightened and noble human primates, festooned with words of praise and haloes around their heads. (This assumes that satire is not lost on SJP and its ilk.)