Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
This YouTube video hasn’t gotten many views since it was posted three months ago, but I like it. It also is telling in showing the age difference in how Jews react when asked to “act or talk like a; Jew”. Here are the YouTube notes:
Inspired by the viral “Like a Girl” campaign by Always, JITC (Jewish Institute for Television & Cinema) Hollywood Bureau’s new video challenges the entertainment industry’s harmful Jewish tropes by showing what being Jewish really looks like, through the voices of Jewish children.
They describe “acting like a Jew” not as being neurotic or greedy – depictions that we too often see on screen, but as living with kindness, compassion, justice, and a drive to make the world better.
Already praised by Mayim Bialik, Nancy Spielberg, and others, the video calls on Hollywood to portray Jewish pride, joy, and authenticity.
Read the story behind the video and join the movement to change the narrative >> (Go here).
The older folks act out the stereotypes of a Jew (I love the guy who swigs Mylanta and the one with the cigar who controls the globe), while the younger people evince the actual principles of Judaism (I like the little girl who lights the candles). Go to the site that explains this video to learn more.
I think this video was deemed necessary because of the rise of antisemitism and the attendant stereotypes of Jews. For example, lots of people, including Young Turks moderator Ana Kasparian has said that the Israeli lobby controls the US (see this enlightening video showing Bill Maher vs. Kasparian).
Years ago I was a big fan of Doctors Without Borders (originally MSF for “Médecins Sans Frontières”, since the group’s origin is French). Supposedly apolitical, MSF, provides medical care to people in regions where it’s scarce—a mission I like. I gave them a fair amount of dosh, including all of the $12,000 or so I got for auctioning off a copy of WEIT signed by many notables and illuminated by Kelly Houle.
Then I began hearing rumors that MSF was anti-Israel, which disturbed me because it’s not supposed to favor one country over another. The rumors were not unfounded, and MSF’s dissing of Israel increased during the war with Hamas, when it not only bought into the “genocide” narrative spread by antisemites, but also promulgated false rumors about Hamas, Israel, and hospitals in Gaza. Eventually I took MSF out of my will, diverting those funds to other humanitarian organizations. Yes, MSF is still doing good work in other places, but it will no longer have my support.
I consider the “genocide” canard, the dumbest of all the Big Lies about Israel, as a manifestation of antisemitism. If you want to see why, read Maarten Boudry’s Substack article, “They don’t believe it either,” arguing that even those groups like MSF that accuse Israel of genocide are completely wrong: there’s no evidence that the aim of the IDF is to kill Gazan noncombatants or wipe out Palestinians. An excerpt:
Why then did this war have such a terrible toll on civilians, despite Israel’s efforts? There are two major reasons, both consistently ignored by all the genocide reports: Hamas’ cult of martyrdom, and the perverse incentives created by its unwitting enablers. Hamas is not just indifferent to civilian casualties; it actively solicits them as part of its military strategy. It has constructed hundreds of kilometers of tunnels for its fighters, while failing to build a single shelter for its own women and children. It deliberately fires rockets from hospitals, schools, UN buildings, mosques, and in the vicinity of humanitarian zones. Fully aware that it is no match for the Israeli army on the battlefield, it possesses one secret weapon to bring Israel to its knees: the moral conscience of the international community. If they sacrifice enough innocent women and children and then broadcast the harrowing images and casualty figures all across the international media, they can push Western nations to ostracize, delegitimize, and boycott Israel.
In fact, to any reasonable observer, it is undeniable that the Israeli army cares more about the lives of Palestinian civilians than Hamas. While Hamas invites civilian deaths as part of its strategy, Israel attempts to avoid them. Whereas the Israeli government urges Gazan civilians to evacuate combat zones, Hamas prevents them from escaping or from seeking shelter in their tunnel network. When Israel set up its own system of humanitarian aid, Hamas threatened anyone who dared to collaborate, killed multiple humanitarian workers, and punished Gazans who collected GHF food packages.
Note that those who promulgate the “genocide” myth, including MSF, never accuse Hamas of genocide, despite the fact that the terrorist organization is overtly genocidal, bent on destroying Israel by wiping out all Jews, not merely ones with guns. This Big Lie comes from willful ignorance, and, for MSF, makes their claim of ideological neutrality worthless. Yes, a few members of IDF may have aimed at civilians, but that is vanishingly rare. The majority of Gazan civilian deaths came from Hamas’s strategy of hiding behind civilians, including their tunnel system (built at huge expense with money diverted from Gaza) and embedding themselves within schools and hospitals. As Maarten notes, the death of Palestinian civilians is part of Hamas’s plan, and the more who are killed the more the world blames Israel.
Further, those who cry “Israeli genocide” never seem to mention the kidnapping of Israeli civilians on October 7, a war crime that was followed by shooting or even strangling some of the hostages. What does MSF say about this? Nothing. They have, as the video shows, “never issued a single condemnation of Hamas.” That is reprehensible but shows MSF’s own bigotry.
As far as buying into Hamas propaganda goes, MSF has, as the video shows, accused Israel of deliberately striking the Al-Ahli Hospital, despite subsequent investigation having convinced all rational observers (and yes, even the New York Times) that the “strike” was an explosion of a rocket misfired AT Israel by Palestinian Islamic Jihad—a rocket that landed in the hospital’s parking lot. There is in fact video showing the path of the misfired rocket, as well as photos of the damaged parking lot itself. As the Quillette article notes (and I’ve appended a tweet):
On 17 October, Abu-Sittah was working at al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza City when a major explosion rocked the compound. MSF immediately quoted him in a press release: “We were operating in the hospital; there was a strong explosion, and the ceiling fell on the operating room. This is a massacre.” Abu-Sittah was one of six Palestinian doctors who held a grotesque press conference from the hospital parking lot surrounded by the bodies of those allegedly killed in the blast. His testimony was broadcast globally, and presented as the objective account of a medical professional who bore witness to a devastating Israeli air strike. With the added credibility bestowed by MSF’s endorsement, his words were used to support international condemnations of Israel for the alleged perpetration of systematic war crimes.
Shortly afterwards, Israel and the US produced evidence showing that the explosion occurred in the hospital parking lot and that it was caused by a misfired Palestinian rocket, not an Israeli airstrike. The New York Times and a number of other major news platforms admitted that their initial coverage had relied on unverified claims and amended their reporting as new information became available. Even Human Rights Watch—hardly an impartial observer of Israeli combat operations—conceded that “the possibility of a large air-dropped bomb, such as those Israel has used extensively in Gaza, [is] highly unlikely.” MSF, on the other hand, refused to correct the record. More than two years later, it has still not retracted or corrected Abu-Sittah’s false testimony.
English translation of doctors from the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza hold a press conference among the bodies of those slaughtered by Israel in an airstrike. pic.twitter.com/GJB17tQoA2
Did MSF retract its accusations? Of course not, even though Human Rights Watch—itself anti-Israel—did.
As the video above shows, MSF has distanced itself from some of the more extremist people it once endorsed, but it has not publicly retracted or even modified its claims. That too is reprehensible.
I found a 2016 article in the Forward, an Israeli newspaper, that is telling. Already stung then by accusations of antisemitism, the executive director of MSF USA denied “institutional antisemitism.”. The bolding is mine:
We are perceived by some as taking sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when communicating about the West Bank and Gaza, where MSF has been operating medical programs for more than 20 years.
. . .MSF does not work in Israel — not because of any bias, but because Israel can cover its medical needs. While MSF has offered medical support at various times, including during the 2006 Lebanon war, these offers were respectfully declined, given Israel’s strong emergency medical capabilities. We are therefore not in a position to make medically based observations regarding Israeli suffering. To be clear, Palestinians are by no means the sole victims in this conflict. Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, other factions and so-called lone-wolf attackers are in no uncertain terms responsible for crimes and violations of the laws of war, such as indiscriminate attacks.
Palestinian leaders bear direct responsibility for their actions, including firing into civilian areas rockets that have killed and wounded Israelis and perpetuated fear and psychological trauma among so many.
While not witnessed directly by MSF teams, allegations of Hamas and other fighters placing weapons or command centers near or inside health facilities and other civilian structures would amount to grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. Such tactics directly endanger noncombatants, including medical personnel and patients, and are explicitly forbidden under international law. Responsibility for other obstacles to health care must also be forthrightly assigned.
How that tune has changed! The same “crimes” of Hamas given in bold somehow were neglected by MSF after October 7, 2023. Hamas is apparently seen as the innocent victim of Israeli genocidal aims. In an undated statement after the current war began, MSF tries to exculpate itself again. An excerpt (bolding is theirs):
Why are your statements so critical of Israel? Why are you not talking about Hamas?
As humanitarians, we grieve for all civilian lives lost [JAC: except for Israeli ones], and the vast majority of the victims of this conflict are civilians, including many elderly people, women, and children. Violence against civilians is never justified, and all civilians deserve protection. [JAC: what about the Israeli hostages?]
Our statements and reporting are rooted in the experiences of our patients and staff on the ground, and the actions we directly witness in the areas where we work. In Gaza, Israeli armed forces’ activities are central to the challenges civilians face, particularly in terms of access to medical care and the safety of health workers and facilities. We report on these realities because they directly impact our ability to provide care.
That is about as weaselly as it comes. By placing tunnels and combatants in and under hospitals, Hamas itself is impeding “access to medical care and the safety of health workers and facilities.” That’s not to mention their theft of food and supplies intended for Gazan civilians.
As Hamas refuses to lay down its arms, and MSF refuses to condemn their terrorism, I am closing my wallet to MSF and directing considerable resources to alternative groups like Helen Keller International, the Malaria Consortium, and Peter Singer’s organization the Maximize Your Impact Fund.
I haven’t told MSF how much money they’re going to lose because of their ideological position. They wouldn’t care anyway. I believe I told them, after they kept begging me for more after our initial donation, that they could expect no more donations from me. As for others reading this site, where you donate is of course up to you, but be sure to check out whether recipients are politically and ideologically neutral.
Reader Norman sent me the first video below saying, “in one of your posts the other day you gave a link to an article about how anti-Zionism = antisemitism.” Yes, I’ve frequently said that and in fact did so in the last post. And I think the equation is clearly true. For those on the left justifying anti-Zionism, the claim that it is NOT antisemitism rests on an incorrect construal of “anti-Zionism” as “criticism of the politics of Israel/Netanyahu”. Alternatively, “anti-Zionism could mean “favoring a one-state solution, a state that includes both Palestinians and Jews—and we all know what that means for the Jews.
As the moderator defines it in the video, “anti-Zionism” is “opposition to the existence of a Jewish state in the territory defined as the historic land of Israel or Palestine” and that view implicitly favors the erasure or destruction of Israel, which to any reasonable person is antisemitic (where would the Jews go?). Further seeing the “anti-Zionism” trope as being politically okay ignores the fact that nearly all Muslim states in the Middle East are explicitly religiously Muslim as part of their government (viz., the formal name of Iran is “The Islamic Republic of Iran”). In contrast, while Israel was approved as a homeland for Jews after WWII, there is no requirement for residents to adhere to the tenents of Judaism, for 20% of the population are Arab Muslims and many of the resident “Jews” are, like me, atheists who are culturally Jewish. To show the difference, try being gay in Gaza or Iran as opposed to Israel.
So, below is what Norman wanted me to see: a short speech by British author and commentator Melanie Phillips. It’s part of a four-person intelligence² debate that took place six years ago. The proposition debated is is “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” Phillips’s bit, agreeing with the proposition, starts 47 seconds into the video, and I’ve begun the video at that point. Her bit ends at 10:28, so the part to listen to is about ten minutes long. The rest is some person, not part of the formal debate, banging on.
As Norman says, “this is one of the most forceful and succinct statements I have heard or read.” It is indeed. And despite its title, Mehdi Hasan does not explode here. That is in the second video below, which gives the entire two-hour debate.
Here’s the whold video, including besides Mehdi Hassan (his speech starts at 35:45) and Melanie Phillips, Einat Wulf (who agrees with Phillips; her speech starts at 24:00) and Ilan Pappé, an Israeli who favors a “one-state solution” (his speech starts at 12:25). The audience, clearly on the side of Hassan and Pappé throughout, defeated the motion. They are wrong.
Here is a specimen of the well-known podcast “Ask Haviv Anything”, with the moderator being Haviv Rettig Gur, described in a Sam Harris podcast as “a veteran Israeli journalist who serves as the senior analyst at The Times of Israel. He has covered Israel’s politics, foreign policy, and relationship with the U.S. and Jewish diaspora since 2005, reporting from over 20 countries. Since October 7, he has been touring the English-speaking world — the U.S., Canada, Australia, and the U.K. — to discuss the war in Gaza, resilience, and antisemitism.” In this 70-minute video, Haviv interviews Ashley Rindsberg “an American writer and a senior editor at Pirate Wires, an American online media company. He is the author of Tel Aviv Stories and The Gray Lady Winked: How The New York Times’s Misreporting, Distortions & Fabrications Radically Alter History.”
The subject is how Wikipedia, as well as reddit, have distorted the facts about Zionism and Israel by adopting a progressive, left-wing, and, yes, antisemitic stance. As I wrote a few days ago:
Wikipedia’s main “Israel” entry now declares that “following the October 7 attacks… Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza,” placing a blatant lie in the lead section meant for basic, non-contentious context.
As evidence, I heard from a reader who, upon sending me the video, added this:
As an example, a friend of mine noted that the Wikipedia article on Israel states that Israel started a genocide on Oct 7, 2023. She decided to try and edit it. She jumped through several hoops and I will share a quote from what Wikiedia sent her:
In short, you are not permitted to edit any page on Wikipedia related to the Arab-Israeli conflict until your account is 30 days old with 500 substantive edits (not edits made simply to reach 500). I will tell you that the current wording of the article was reached after extensive discussion and deliberation amongst Wikipedia contributors; you are free to review that discussion yourself, it may be accessed from Talk:Israel (see the FAQ at the top). 331dot (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Edit requests are permitted if they are wholly uncontroversial (something that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with) and do not require extensive discussion to reach a consensus. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
But this kind of redaction is only the tip of the iceberg. In this discussion you’ll learn about the “Gang of 40”, a group of ideologues who seem to spend nearly all their time as lay editors of Wikipedia articles about Israel, Palestine, and Zionism. (There is even an article on “Gaza genocide recognition.”) You’ll learn that Wikipedia either has no response to this kind of bigoted malfeasance or doesn’t seem to want to fix it. Yet Wikipedia was, at the outset, dedicated to giving just the facts and documenting them.
And it’s not just Judaica. Rindsberg notes that Wikipedia is also determined to ensure that the “lab leak theory” for the origin of covid remains a “conspiracy theory” (I myself am agnostic about the issue), and to the denigration of Trump.
The lesson: crowdsourcing does not ensure neutrality, and there is no chance to defeating a dedicated group of ideologue editors who dominate some topics. Rindsberg does discuss how to fix the problem of bias in Wikipedia, which is really a serious problem for some topics since Wikipedia is automatically given a #1 search rating by Google, making it the go-to source for people seeking information. The fixing begins with the kind of outing of sites instantiated in this discussion.
I am averse to long podcasts, but the eloquence of the discussants and my own interest in the topic kept me listening to the end. Even if you think Israel is committing genocide (and Ceiling Cat help you if you do), you will at least learn some things about the biases promulgated by one of the world’s most important sources of information. (Note the shorter discussion near the end arguing that reddit does the same thing.)
The piece ends with criticism of AI. Bogus AI writing and its bogus claims have apparently made their way into the scientific literature. Then these claims make their way back into popular culture when people cite “scientific information” that was actually written by AI in the first place. That doesn’t mean that we should stop using AI and ChatGPT, but that we have to carefully check any of their factual assertions.
The attack on Jews celebrating Hanukkah at Bondi Beach near Sydney (the capital of New South Wales), was horrific: fifteen people were killed (not including the perps) and 40 injured. It was clearly a terrorist attack designed to kill Jews, putting the lie that this kind of violence is “anti-Zionist” rather than antisemitic.
Now the PM and the state of New South Wakes are trying to do something, by banning certain forms of “hate speech”. But it’s too little and too late, and banning “hate speech” that doesn’t threaten to create imminent and predictable violence won’t work. (This kind of “hate speech” is, in my view, properly permitted under the U.S.’s First Amendment.)
Click below to read the story from the Times of Israel:
Excerpts:
The Australian state of New South Wales is planning to ban “Globalize the intifada” chants, according to a Saturday BBC report, amid a crackdown on “hateful” rhetoric and slogans in the wake of Sunday’s devastating terror attack at a Bondi Beach Hanukkah event.
New South Wales is home to Sydney and its iconic Bondi Beach, where 15 people were killed and dozens wounded by two gunmen who opened fire on a crowd celebrating the Jewish holiday.
. . . .The mass shooting was Australia’s worst in nearly 30 years and is being investigated as an act of terrorism targeting Jews. Authorities have ramped up patrols and policing across the country to prevent further antisemitic violence.
Since the attack, New South Wales Premier Chris Minns has said he plans to convene the state’s parliament and pass stricter hate speech and incitement laws.
According to the BBC, Minns is looking to classify the “Globalize the intifada” chant, popular among anti-Israel activists, as illegal hate speech, and aims to encourage a “summer of calm,” without mass anti-Israel demonstrations.
Critics point in particular to a now-infamous protest in Sydney held a few days after October 7, 2023, where video footage appeared to show demonstrators celebrating the attack and chanting “gas the Jews” and “f— the Jews,” rhetoric they say foreshadowed later acts of violence.
However, New South Wales police later claimed there was no evidence of the chant. The pro-Palestinian rally, which gathered over 1,000 people, also included the burning of an Israeli flag and the firing of several flares.
“Foreshadowing” apparently means that the chants occurred before the violence, and presumably quite a while before. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, such chants would be legal. They’re prohibited only if they are likely to involve either “fighting words” or to create “imminent and predictable violence”. As Wikipedia says in its article on exceptions to the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech:
Hate speech is not a general exception to First Amendment protection. Per Wisconsin v. Mitchell, hate crime sentence enhancements do not violate First Amendment protections because they do not criminalize speech itself, but rather use speech as evidence of motivation, which is constitutionally permissible.
. . . The Supreme Court has held that “advocacy of the use of force” is unprotected when it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action”.
A bit more from the TOI:
Many in Australia’s Jewish community say the government, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in particular, “abandoned” them, arguing that clear warning signs were ignored in the lead-up to the Bondi massacre.
Under pressure from critics who say his center-left government has not done enough to curb a surge in antisemitism, the prime minister has vowed to strengthen hate laws in the wake of the massacre.
“We can’t be in a position where we see a repeat of Sunday. We need to do everything within our power to make that change,” Minns told reporters.
As I implied, banning “hate speech”, which is a slippery slope if ever there was one, is not the way to go in this case—not if Australia wants to have free speech like the U.S. does. Now you can argue that the U.S. is too permissive, or that Australia, with its particular situation, needs hate speech laws that America doesn’t have.
That said, I don’t think banning “globalize the intifada”—or perhaps “From the river to the sea. . . “, which could be construed as hate speech, and certainly “Gas the Jews—will reduce the amount of antisemitism, or the frequency of antisemitic acts, in Australia. All that will do is drive the antisemitism underground, but also prevent us from knowing who holds those views since they can’t espouse them publicly. And yes, I would even favor the already-conferred right of people to stand in the middle of a public park (or the quad at the University of Chicago as well as at public universities) and shout “Gas the Jews.” That isn’t liable to lead to imminent lawless action on the part of the targets.
And, of course, “hate speech” is very often subjective. Criticism of the tenets of Islam, for example, can be deemed “Islamophobic hate speech.” Calls for banning trans-identified males from competing in women’s sports can be deemed “transphobic”. But in both cases there can be no palpable hate, but simply the desire to discuss rights and harms.
How do you stop antisemitism in Australia without banning “hate speech,” then? Counter speech is a good way, though it’s not guaranteed to work. But for sure banning “hate speech” is not going to reduce antisemitism in Australia. What it will do is reduce the frequency of publicly expressed antisemitic sentiments. That is not the same thing.
Maarten Boudry, a Belgian philosopher at the University of Ghent, is not a timorous man. You’ve met him before when he wrote this recent post defending our anthology, edited by Lawrence Krauss, against claims that we should not be criticizing the Left’s intrusion into science when the Right is doing it more vigorously. You may also recall that both he and I were deplatformed when we were supposed to hold a discussion on science and ideology at the University of Amsterdam, and this cancelation was done for a completely irrelevant reason: we were “too sympathetic to Israel.” Having visited both Belgium and the Netherlands in recent years, I have become depressingly aware of how anti-Israel, if not anti-Semitic, these countries are, perhaps because of a large influx of Muslim immigrants.
(I should mention by way of self-aggrandizement that Maarten and I also co-wrote a paper in Philosophical Psychology on the cognitive status of supernatural beliefs: my only philosophy paper, and one that gives me a soupçon of credibility in philosophy.)
But I digress. The point of this post is to show how anti-Semitic academia really is in the Low Countries, to the extent that Boudry has been threatened with being sanctioned (and certainly with having his speech chilled and repressed) simply for defending Israel in published interviews. And he’s standing up to some of his colleagues who would take away his professorship.
I reproduce some of the history of to this conflict, putting Maarten’s background explanation as well as the exchange of emails in indented text. Bold headings are mine, as are the words that are flush left.
Introduction from Maarten:
A few words on the context of the letter bellow. What “triggered” my colleagues was a joint interview I gave to a Flemish magazine alongside a rabidly anti-Zionist MP (interestingly, he was from the Right), who stormed out after 20 minutes because he couldn’t take it anymore. You can read it here in the archive (right-click “translate” in Google).
This MP actually subscribes to the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Netanyahu knew about the October 7 pogrom in advance and deliberately let it happen, sacrificing 1,200 of his own citizens—women, men, and children. The fact that such a figure sits in our parliament says everything about the state of Belgian politics.
During that interview I made remarks they deemed so offensive that they urged the Board of Directors to discipline me. As an aside: I dislike these double interviews and hesitated to agree, since the result is always an extremely condensed, truncated transcript that strips away nuance, context, and sources. You’re at the mercy of the journalist—not that he did a bad job, but such reduction is inevitable. And it’s always weak to attack a sound-bite interview rather than engage with what I’ve actually written in my book or opinion pieces, where the arguments are properly developed and sourced.
When I asked Maarten who the author of the letter below (Herman Mielants) was, Martin replied,
And when I asked why Mielants wrote the letter below, Maarten replied:
Why did Mielants write the letter? Because he’s fervently anti-zionist, like many people on the Left, and he’s so dogmatic that he cannot tolerate a colleague dissenting with his own “correct” view. In general, public opinion in Belgium on Israel is an echo chamber: many people are completely shocked to hear about Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005, or about Arabs in high positions in the Israeli parliament and in the courts. They have no idea.
Here’s Mielants’s Letter to Ghent professors about Boudry’s “impure views”, demanding some kind of punishment. (The rector is the head of the University).
From: Herman Mielants
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 9:06 PM
To: rector; Petra De Sutter
Cc: Jean Jacques AMY; Marleen Temmerman; Marc DeMeere Jan Tavernier <
Subject: FW: Double interview Jean-Marie Dedecker vs. Maarten Boudry
Importance: High
Dear Rector and dear future rector
The undersigned, professors emeritus of Ghent University (Marleen Temmerman, Jan Tavernier, Mark Demeyer, and Herman Mielants), are deeply concerned about the Zionist-tinged opinions of philosopher Prof. Maarten Boudry. While Boudry certainly has the right to freedom of expression, he coldly distorts the truth regarding the Gaza issue. He defends outspoken Zionist ideas regarding the apartheid regime since the beginning of the state of Israel, as well as the illegal occupations of the Palestinian territories and the genocide currently being committed in Gaza. In a recent publication in De Morgen, Omer Bartov, professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Brown University USA, himself a Jew and former Zionist, concludes that Israel is undoubtedly committing genocide in Gaza. The denial of this genocide is all the more cynical now that starvation, especially of children, is also being used as a weapon of war. Maarten Boudry’s ideas reflect extremely negatively on the objectivity of Ghent University. Given Maarten Boudry’s authority and charisma as Professor of Philosophy, who inherited the chair from Prof. Etienne Vermeersch, we ask the Board of Governors of Ghent University to make it clear to Prof. Maarten Boudry that Ghent University attaches importance to an objective approach to humanitarian problems and to promote this in his academic teaching and publications.
Below you will find the letter from Prof. Em. Jean-Jacques Amy, Professor Em. VUB, which he sent to Knack, following a conversation between Jean Marie DeDecker and Maarten Boudry, with the approval of JJ Amy [JAC: those letters aren’t attached here]
Kind regards
Prof. Em. Rheumatology, Herman Mielants, U Gent
More from Boudry about his job at Ghent:
About my current position: I don’t have tenure, only a part-time (50%) research position until the end of the year. Even the Etienne Vermeersch Chair which they mention, which I held for four years, was not a tenured position. By the way, it would be virtually impossible for me to get such a position in the academic climate post-7/10. Even before that I was already a controversial figure (for my views on islam & migration, climate policy, etc.), and there was an outcry about the appointment in the Flemish media. But today it would be a non-starter, and my rector would never risk it.
And, as he notes, “Here is my reply to the miscreants.” It is bold and unapologetic:
From: Maarten Boudry
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 at 19:15
Subject: Re: Dubbelinterview Jean-Marie Dedecker vs. Maarten Boudry
To: Jean Jacques AMY
Cc: Rik Van de Walle, rector, Petra De Sutter, Marc De Meyere, Marleen Temmerman, Jan Tavernier, M.Galand Pierre, Maarten Boudry
It is disheartening that some academics, even after decades-long careers at universities, still fail to grasp the meaning and value of academic freedom. The debate over the war in Gaza is still raging among scholars and experts. I have never denied that the Israeli army has committed war crimes in Gaza—such crimes occur in nearly every war—and I have myself often voiced sharp criticism of Netanyahu and his far-right allies (see my book and previous articles, which are naturally more detailed and substantiated than a condensed interview transcript).
What I emphatically deny is that a “genocide” is taking place in Gaza, and I am far from alone in this view. Holocaust scholars such as Norman Goda and Jeffrey Herf, historians like Benny Morris, legal experts including Julia Sebutinde of the ICJ, and specialists in urban warfare like John Spencer share this position.
Your letter, by contrast, contains almost no argumentation; it simply repeats, in indignant tones, the familiar accusations of “genocide,” “apartheid,” and “open-air prison.” Anyone who seeks to prematurely shut down scholarly debate, even calling for sanctions against dissenting voices before the ICJ has issued a ruling, betrays a complete lack of understanding of academic freedom and of the UGent motto Dare to Think. Even Omar Bartov’s article in The New York Times, which you cite, acknowledges the intense debate among experts over whether genocide is the right term. What is particularly cowardly is that you demand disciplinary measures behind the back of the person targeted.
Most troubling, however, is your repeated pejorative use of the term “Zionist.” That I supposedly hold “Zionist-tinged views” is, in your eyes, sufficient reason to urge the Board of Directors to sanction me. Yet “Zionism,” at its core, is simply the pursuit of self-determination of the Jewish people. Unless you deny that same right to every other people in the world, your argument is therefore guilty of antisemitism.
But by all means, feel free to engage in antisemitism—that, too, is part of the academic freedom I cherish. I can recommend it highly to all of you.
Cheers
M.
I fear that Maarten’s day as a scholar at Ghent University—or any university—are numbered. Yes, we have our haters and antisemites in American universities, but it is much, much worse in Belgium and the Netherlands. I should add that he is not Jewish.
Reader Enrico sent me a link to this video called “Blind Spot“, a 2024 movie that’s 95 minutes long. The topic is antisemitism on American college campuses.
The YouTube notes:
“Blind Spot” is the only current film focused exclusively on campus antisemitism. Featuring never-before-seen interviews with students before and after October 7th, along with testimony before Congress and insights from officials, journalists, and university staff, it reveals how antisemitism on campus didn’t appear overnight—and what can be done about it. Described as “like nothing I’ve ever seen” and “a fire alarm ringing,” the film highlights the resilience of Jewish students and the urgent need for change.
It begins with the infamous conflict between Rep. Elise Stefanik and the Presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT. The Presidents’ answers about the rules were correct, but the Presidents of Penn and Harvard later resigned, largely because of the hypocrisy of their answers: free speech is indeed within the colleges’ ambit, but they enforced it erratically and hypocritically.
The rest of the video consists of short interviews and statements and scenes of anti-Israel demonstrations from many schools, including the University of Chicago. As we already know, anti-Semitism is pervasive at many of these schools. What impresses me is the resilience and determination of the Jewish students. Compared to the angry, shouty, ace-covered advocates of Palestine, they seem eminently rational. I found it both depressing and heartening.
This film was made last year, but I can’t say things have gotten palpably better in the last year. As Hamas continues to lose in Gaza, the intensity of Jew hatred has only grown.
BTW, my Belgian colleague Maarten Boudry, a philosopher with whom I’ve published (and an atheist), just published an article in Quillette detailing his impressions of his first trip to Israel.
