Category: anti-semitism

Doctors Without Borders Accused of violating its own policy of political neutrality to impugn Israel, and my cessation of donations

July 21, 2024 • 9:40 am

A while back I was a big fan of Doctors without Borders (or “MSF”, for “Médecins Sans Frontières”).  It was put in my will to get a big bequest, and when I auctioned of a copy of Why Evolution is True, autographed by many famous scientists and nonbelievers, and illustrated and illuminated by Kelly Houle, every penny of the $10,000+ we got on eBay went to MSF.

Then I heard that the organization was anti-Israel (this was well before October 7 of last year). Checking up on the Internet, I found some confirmation of that claim, including several reports that MSF refused to cooperate with Israeli medical teams working in the same location. This, from the article below, may be what I remember (Rossin is named as “secretary general of MSF in the 1970s”)

Rossin recalled his experience in 2010 on a mission to Uganda when an MSF Holland contingent refused to interact with a fellow Israeli medical NGO team dispatched to help. Rossin remembered it as an episode of “one-way empathy,” where prejudice had poisoned the MSF team’s ability to cooperate with Israel in their shared goal of helping civilians.

(See also here, though MSF denies all these allegations.)

I subsequently wrote MSF asking them if they ever used Israeli doctors in their relief efforts.  I got no reply, even though in the letter I told them I was a donor. Their ignoring me after the dosh I’d given them was, well, uncharitable.

Now I can’t really criticize MSF’s humanitarian efforts: they’ve done a great deal of wonderful medical work during crises all over the world.  No, here I’m pointing out an article in Canada’s National Post that documents a pervasive anti-Israel—a former MSF secretary calls it “antisemitic”—attitude on the part of the organization, an attitude reflected in its refusal to criticize Hamas for the terrorist’s group own blocking or hijacking medical aid and turning Gaza hospitals into terror centers.  In the piece below, quite a few former directors and employees of MSF, not to mention donors, weigh in criticizing the organization on this account.

My own decision, based on what I’ve read over the years, is to stop donating to MSF, and I’ve taken them out of my will, replacing them with other humanitarian organizations (and that is a fair amount of dosh!).  Read the article below for yourself (click on the headline) and decide if you want to support them.  The article is free, and you can also find it archived here.

I’ll simply give a number of quotes from the article. According to its charter, MSF is supposed to be politically neutral and impartial, but former executives, donors, and employees say that when it comes to Israel, that’s not the case.

Former leaders and a major Canadian donor of Doctors Without Borders are distancing themselves from the venerable aid organization after its employees celebrated the October 7 atrocities, gave aid to the Hamas-run Ministry of Health, ran a one-sided social media feed and internally circulated articles accusing Israel of creating Palestinian “death worlds.”

“To be frank, I was very, very, surprised because it’s not the MSF I knew,” Alain Destexhe, the secretary general of the organization, popularly known by its French acronym MSF, from 1991 to 1995, told National Post.

Destexhe said MSF’s messaging throughout the Israel-Hamas war is markedly different than past conflicts.

“We used to make statements, you know, in Bosnia and Rwanda, but not taking sides like this,” he said. “We always took into account the political context, but not to take sides from one group to another. In the Gaza War, I really got the feeling that MSF was totally biased.”

From a donor:

Destexhe wasn’t the only MSF loyalist to have an October 7 wake-up call. One major Canadian Jewish donor told the Post he urged his mother to support the group despite pushback from family members cautioning him against MSF’s reputation of being institutionally biased against Israel.

“I think most people know that they have a history of not being the friendliest towards Israel,” the philanthropist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told the Post.

He said he reassured his mother, following conversations with MSF Canada’s leadership, that the organization was duty-bound to be apolitical and strictly adhere to its mission of providing aid and observation. However, the inconsistencies between their initial promise and their treatment of Israel reached a boiling point in November 2023 when the patron confronted MSF Canada’s executives.

“I will be honest,” the donor told then-executive director Joe Belliveau in an email shared with the Post, “the more I review MSF public communications (Instagram, specifically), the evidence is overwhelming that the MSF stance has a pronounced bias. There is still not one single mention of the 200+ civilian hostages; not one mention of Hamas’ indiscriminate rocket fire into civilian centers, both of which are war crimes and violations of the Geneva conventions,” he wrote in late November.

. . . and a former MSF executive:

The donor’s November 2023 email rattled Byron Sonberg, who’d proudly served as MSF Canada’s treasurer for two years. He’d begun to sense the organization straying from its principle of impartiality, especially after he was copied on the donor’s email chain expressing growing frustration with the group. But the final straw came in mid-February 2024 when he, and hundreds of MSF global leaders, were forwarded an article: “Israeli necropolitics and the pursuit of health justice in Palestine.” [JAC: I found some of that article here; just read the “summary box”]

It was shared by Ruby Gill, president of MSF Canada’s board of directors, to provide “more insight” into the ongoing conflict. It argued that “framing Palestinian violence on October 7 as provocation and Israeli violence as response is ahistoric and indicates indifference to the everyday violence experienced by Palestinians.”

In other words, Israel “had it coming” on October 7. And the article was apparently sent out by MSF!  More:

Hamas receives a single passing reference in the piece, while Israel is cited nearly eighty times to bolster the claim that the Jewish State’s military response is unjustifiable. It accuses Israel of creating “death worlds” for Palestinians. The ideas expressed in the article, and the silence of MSF’s leadership, disturbed Sonberg, a self-described political moderate.

This concentration on Israel and complete neglect of Hamas is distressing in light of the fact that Hamas repeatedly impedes medical efforts in Gaza, including highjacking medical supplies, turning hospitals into terror bases, and even shooting Gazan civilians.

From another former MSM executive:

Richard Rossin, who served as secretary general of MSF in the 1970s and later co-founded Médecins du Monde (Doctors of the World), said that he perceived a tone shift within the organization several decades ago.

“I think it was perceptible around the beginning of the ‘80s,” Rossin told the Post by phone from his home in southern Israel. Antisemitism within MSF “began under the cover of anti-Zionism.”

See the quote from Rossin in the opening paragraphs.

One of the most distressing parts of this narrative is that MSF blamed Israel for the attack on the al-Ahli Hospital on October 17 of last year, an “attack” that did not involved Israel at all, but came from a misfired rocket from Palestinian Islamic Jihad that landed in the hospital’s parking lot, with the casualties greatly exaggerated by Hamas. MSF never retracted its accusation, which has been abandoned by everyone familiar with the evidence, including the Associated Press (no fan of Israel), which summarizes the evidence. (there’s also a telling conversation between two Hamas operatives saying the rocket was “from us).

By comparison, after the al-Ahli Hospital blast on Oct. 17, 2023, MSF rushed to blame Israel.

“We are horrified by the recent Israeli bombing of Ahli Arab Hospital in #Gaza City, which was treating patients and hosting displaced Gazans. Hundreds of people have reportedly been killed. This is a massacre. It is absolutely unacceptable,” MSF International wrote on X on the day of the explosion.

Although the blast was the result of a misfired rocket from Gaza, likely launched by a Palestinian group, MSF never corrected the record. The post, as well as several Instagram posts published by major chapters — including Spain, Canada, Brazil, and France – remain active. No apology or correction has been issued.

To a scientist, refusal to retract an accusation like this is shameful. But that’s MSF. Here’s their tweet, still up on X, but with “context corrections”:

More:

After Hamas invaded and killed over a thousand people, MSF did not release a single post addressing the worst killing of Jews since the Holocaust and it has not called for the return of kidnapped Israelis. Five days after the terrorist attack, the group issued a statement drawing a moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel. [JAC note: I think the link is meant to go to the MSF “X” feed, not to just one post.)

“We are horrified by the brutal mass killing of civilians perpetrated by Hamas, and by the massive attacks on #Gaza now being pursued by Israel,” MSF International wrote on Oct. 12. The remainder of the thread denounced Israel for “indiscriminate violence and the collective punishment of Gaza.” Two days later, the group called on Israel to “show humanity.”

The tone set by MSF International trickled down to its chapters across the globe.

By Oct. 17, MSF Canada wrote, “unconditional humanity needs to be restored in Gaza,” calling Israel’s response “unimaginable” and “inhumane.” The statement made no reference to Hamas or their invasion, which ignited hostilities.Before October 7, several nations facing humanitarian issues were highlighted in MSF Canada’s social feeds – including Malawi, Venezuela, Sudan, Haiti and Burkina Faso – but its coverage following the Hamas attack veered near-exclusively to covering Israel. At one point, in early November 2023, MSF Canada’s Instagram account was blanketed with six red-bolded calls for an immediate ceasefire, something not previously done as part of its advocacy for Sudan or Ukraine.

No calls on Hamas to “show humanity,” not just towards Israel but to civilian Gazans?

Despite the fact that the Gaza Ministry of Health, run by Hamas, is known to exaggerate death tolls, which have been revised strongly downward by even the UN, MSF continued to use them. Another comment from MSF’s former secretary-general:

MSF’s relationship with the Hamas-run Ministry of Health was another major reason why Destexhe lost faith. Their failure to admit “health facilities (are) being used by Hamas and by soldiers,” he told the Post, left him “really sad, and then I became angry.”

More:

MSF International’s Instagram page was comparatively muted in February 2022 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, calling the situation “extremely worrying.” Within a month, the organization’s focus had quickly shifted to Libyan refugees, midwives in South Sudan, and social workers in the Palestinian Territories.

The messaging inequality was studied by Gerald Steinberg, founder and leader of NGO Monitor, a watchdog organization based in Jerusalem, who combed through MSF’s X feed. He found over a hundred tweets between the Hamas invasion and late November, “not one (solely) mentions Israeli victims.” There were five instances when Israelis were mentioned, but always alongside Palestinians.

Steinberg has grown accustomed to this discrepancy. “MSF is both a humanitarian and advocacy organization, and on Israel and the Palestinians, the partisan dimension is dominant and destructive,” Steinberg told the Post by email. He recalled the group showing similar favouritism during an earlier flare-up in 2009.

Finally, there are further claims in the article that a sizable percentage (a third) of MSF staffers celebrated the October 7 massacre, that some MSF employees have been linked to terror groups, and that MSF had donated to Gaza’s Ministry of Health but refused to respond when asked how MSF ensured that medical supplies weren’t getting hijacked by Hamas.

And a final comment by another former secretary general of MSF:

Rossin, a former secretary general who predated Destexhe, remains pessimistic that MSF can take a more balanced approach to Israel and Gaza moving forward.

“It cannot be fixed,” he said, exasperated. “How can you fix antisemitism, which is not an opinion but a mental disease?”

Although I long ago decided to give no more money to MSF, but divert it to organizations that have a “more balanced approach”, readers may wish to have a look at this article.  I was angered by MSF’s failure to even respond to my email about Israel, despite Kelly Houle and I having given them a substantial lump of money. (I haven’t asked Kelly for her opinion on this article.)

If you’re looking for reputable organizations that do good humanitarian health work without constantly impugning Israel and making unretracted false claims, I’d suggest you do what I did: go to Peter Singer’s list of reputable charities called The Life You Can Save. It shows a number of charities (not all involved with health), all of which have been vetted by Singer’s uncompromising criteria of providing the most assistance for the least money. The second time Kelly and I did an eBay auction of an autographed and illustrated book, my Faith Versus Fact, we deep-sixed MSF and gave all the money to Helen Keller International, a charity that prevents blindness and death in children by giving them inexpensive vitamin A supplements. The charity provides a lot of bang for the buck.

And you can bet that in my rewritten will, the part that goes for children’s health and poverty (the other parts go for wildlife conservation and purchasing lands for reserves) isn’t directed to MSF, but to Singer’s charities.

An open letter to Noa Tishby: the persisting trauma of Jews is not in our genes

July 17, 2024 • 11:00 am

This is an open letter to Noa Tishby because, as a passionate defender of Israel, she made a rather serious mistake about biology, and I tried to contact her about it via her publicist. I don’t know if she got my email, so I’m putting it below lest any Jews (or other people) be led to that we carry genes for inherited trauma.  We almost certainly don’t!

Noa Tishby is an Israeli actress who moved to the U.S. and has largely given up acting to advocate for Israel, in which she’s done an exemplary job. She wrote, for example, a primer for the ignorant called Israel: A Simple Guide to the Most Misunderstood Country on Earth, setting out the background of the conflict between Israel and, well, the rest of the world. I read it, and although I already knew much of the material, many people don’t, as evidenced by the widespread and often willful ignorance among “anti-Zionists.” See the first video below!

Noa’s also got chutzpah, as you can tell from this video. She is not easily fazed or discombobulated, even when faced with arrogant stupidity combined with hatred:

In other words, I’m a fan and admire her resolve.

Her error: In the article below, published in the Jewish magazine Sapir, Tishby describes how nerdy she was when young, and now her “uncoolness” persists in her constant defense of Israel, an unpopular stand in much of the world.  While making this reasonable argument, though, Tishby also made a misguided claim about the “inherited” trauma of Jews. It’s a good article (click to read), but the epigenetics stuff bothered me.

Here’s the part that rankled:

What haunts us, even those of us who have lived through only the most recent pogrom, is the familiarity of even the oldest testimony. “We were awakened by a terrifying noise, we didn’t know what was happening . . . ” two millennia ago in Jerusalem. “We realized they’d broken into our neighbors’ house. . . .  We heard them screaming until silence fell. We thought of escaping into the forest, but everyone who tried to escape found it was impossible” one millennium ago in Cologne. This history has shaped us: “Deep inside I know it,” each survivor says in unison as they stand together at the close of the video. The weight of our past is in our blood.

Perhaps literally. Recent studies suggest that these traumatic stories have become woven into our hereditary fabric through epigenetic change. Epigenetic changes are additions to our DNA that influence the way our genetic code is read by our bodies. Studies show that epigenetic change can occur from traumatic experience, and that these changes can be inherited. The idea is intuitive to us: It’s long been suggested that historical traumas can be psychologically passed down from generation to generation. Epigenetic fear is the biological manifestation of historical traumas alongside our genetic code. A review found that “there is now converging evidence supporting the idea that offspring are affected by parental trauma exposures occurring before their birth, and possibly even prior to their conception.” One study found that “in the absence of their own traumatic exposures, offspring of Holocaust survivors” were more likely to exhibit biological signs associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Other studies have suggested that epigenetic changes can be passed down for many generations.

After the pogrom of October 7 and the global reactions to it, our epigenetic inheritance may have been activated in our veins. As the researcher behind the study of offspring of Holocaust survivors observed, “Epigenetic changes often serve to biologically prepare offspring for an environment similar to that of the parents.”

In this respect, Jews have a built-in mechanism that gives acts of barbarism against us a certain familiarity and triggers an almost automatic response. Though the threats have come from different neighbors — Romans, Germans, Baghdadis — across time and place, they have always been similar enough to inoculate us against being truly surprised.

Here’s another version of it on her Facebook page.

Now if you know anything about epigenetics, a form of inheritance of acquired characteristics, you’ll know two things.  First, in nearly all organisms the acquired trait gets passed on for only a single generation, as the modifications of DNA that cause the trait (in this case trauma), is wiped out as the DNA sheds its modifications when producing gametes for the next generation.  Second, there is no evidence that I know of in mammals (including us) that even if a trauma causes something to be inherited by modifying our DNA, that “something” is not the trauma itself, but whatever developmental change happens to be wrought by environmental effects on the DNA.  In the most famous widespread case of “inherited trauma”, the Dutch case of famine during the “hunger winter” of 1944, what was inherited wasn’t the trauma of not getting enough food, but a number of developmental aberrations that lasted only a single generation:

The Dutch Hunger Winter has proved unique in unexpected ways. Because it started and ended so abruptly, it has served as an unplanned experiment in human health. Pregnant women, it turns out, were uniquely vulnerable, and the children they gave birth to have been influenced by famine throughout their lives.

When they became adults, they ended up a few pounds heavier than average. In middle age, they had higher levels of triglycerides and LDL cholesterol. They also experienced higher rates of such conditions as obesity, diabetes and schizophrenia.

By the time they reached old age, those risks had taken a measurable toll, according to the research of L.H. Lumey, an epidemiologist at Columbia University. In 2013, he and his colleagues reviewed death records of hundreds of thousands of Dutch people born in the mid-1940s.

They found that the people who had been in utero during the famine — known as the Dutch Hunger Winter cohort — died at a higher rate than people born before or afterward. “We found a 10 percent increase in mortality after 68 years,” said Dr. Lumey.

The change lasted only one generation; as far as I know, the grandchildren of survivors don’t show this syndrome. Thus, Ms. Tishby erred when implying that the trauma itself faced by Jews could presumably last for a long time, perhaps generations.  If we are indeed traumatized by centuries of antisemitism, it’s certainly because the trauma comes from the environment (i.e., antisemites), and persists because antisemitism persists. Certainly I didn’t want a famous defender of Israel to popularize misguided biology.

So I sent the letter below a while back to Ms. Tishby. Since I couldn’t find a way to contact her directly, I sent it to her public relations person with a request that it be passed on to Tishby. So far I have no reply, and though I didn’t expect one from Tishby, I have no way to know if she ever got my correction.  Ergo I’m publishing it here in hopes that she’ll see it and the “inherited trauma of antissemitism” business will stop.  Yes, call me a Pecksniff. . .

Dear Ms. Tishby,

I’m writing just to urge you to be a bit cautious about the “epigenetic” aspect of Jewish trauma that you mentioned in your otherwise admirable Sapir article. I’m only writing because I’ve long admired your advocacy of Israel in the face of huge pushback, and don’t want you to fall into the errors of others who have mischaracterized epigenetics.

I am Jewish and also an evolutionary geneticist, and know a great deal about epigenetics: environmentally-induced changes in the DNA that usually occur by attaching a methyl group to various parts of DNA. It’s been known, as you said, that this can be inherited: rarely, the effects of parental trauma can cause inherited change in their offspring, though those changes don’t usually involve a child inheriting the trauma itself of their mothers.

What’s more important is that, because DNA changes are “reset” every generation when sperm or eggs are formed, epigenetic modifications usually disappear after one generation, so they can’t be inherited beyond parent—>offspring.  Further, if they do occur (usually through trauma affecting a mother’s physiology or placenta), what is inherited via methylation is not the trauma itself, but various other effects. The famous “Dutch famine study” from the “hunger winter” during the war didn’t involve inheritance of trauma, but a degradation of the offspring’s health that led to various other diseases. In other words, trauma was not inherited, but caused other effects in the children of the traumatized. And that lasted but a single generation.  There’s simply no evidence in humans that trauma itself can be coded into the genome and passed from parent to offspring.

You also mention that ” Other studies have suggested that epigenetic changes can be passed down for many generations.” But the study you cite involved roundworms, and had nothing to do with either humans or trauma (only one study, not “studies” was linked).

In short, there are no studies showing that parental trauma itself is inherited epigenetically. Instead, the effects of trauma on the physiology or development of offspring can be inherited. But they’re inherited, at most, for only one generation. Ergo, it’s a bit misleading to suggest that “the weight of the past is in our blood—literally.” That would be true only, and only in part, for the one generation of offspring of those experiencing the Holocaust. The rest of the Jews would be unaffected, so it wouldn’t be a general phenomenon.  And it would last only for a single generation at most—and what would be inherited wouldn’t be trauma itself but whatever developmental aberrations devolved upon fetuses developing during their mother’s trauma.

It’s really not necessary to invoke dubious science in support of your cause, for we Jews have suffered environmental trauma generation after generation via antisemitism, and this is due to a continuing culture, not to genes.  I myself have been traumatized by the resurgence of antisemitism after October 7, even though I’m at best a secular Jew. But none of my relatives were in the Holocaust, though they came from Eastern Europe.  My own “trauma” comes from seeing the world buy into the big lies about Israel (genocide, apartheid, “disproportinal” killing of Gazans, etc.)

My suggestion, then, is to stay far away from epigenetics as you promulgate your message. And of course your message is vital and important. As I said, I greatly admire your courage in going out there and speaking the truth, and wanted to let you know that the “truth” about epigenetics isn’t very solid!

Best wishes,
Jerry Coyne
Emeritus professor of Ecology and Evolutino
The University of Chicago

I’ve done what I can, and we’ll see if Ms. Tishby continues to spread the fallacious notion of “trauma literally in our blood” (it would have to be in the white cells, since red blood cells lack nuclei!)

Natasha Hausdorff on the legality of everything about the war

July 16, 2024 • 12:30 pm

One of the biggest lacunae on Wikipedia is its lack of an entry on Natasha Hausdorff, a London barrister and expert on international law who happens to work with the UK Lawyers for Israel. She has a sterling background:

She holds law degrees from Oxford and Tel Aviv Universities and was a Fellow in the National Security Law Programme at Columbia Law School. Natasha previously worked for Skadden Arps, in London and Brussels and clerked for the President of the Israeli Supreme Court, Chief Justice Miriam Naor, in Jerusalem. She regularly briefs politicians and international organisations and has spoken at Parliaments across Europe and at the United Nations.

Hausdorff is, along with Douglas Murray, one of the most eloquent and articulate spokespeople for Israel.  In this Triggernometry interview, highlighted by a reader today, and which I watched during lunch, Hausdorff debunks several of the Big Lies that propel opposition to Israel: Genocide, Apartheid, and Occupation—all at bottom expressions of antisemitism and, according to Hausdorff, expressions of modern “blood libel.”

I have watched so much Hausdorff that her arguments here aren’t that new to me, but I love to hear her speak. Like Pinker, she speaks in complete sentences and paragraphs. For those of you who don’t know how international law applies to Hamas vs. Israel, you could do worse than watch this one-hour interview of Hausdorff with hosts Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster . The hosts don’t ask softball questions, but they do allow the interviewee to express her views.  Don’t miss the Jew-hating Palestinian propaganda clips interpolated in the interview!

As for me, I’m sick to death today of the endless hatred and bickering about politics, hatred that doesn’t seem to be diminishing despite everybody’s calls for comity after the assassination attempt on Trump. Rather than express my own malaise and grumpiness, I’ll just ask readers to read and follow the posting Roolz if they haven’t. Please pay attention to the rules about civility towards other commenters and the host, as well as the rule about dominating threads.

And now, I give you someone who’s always civil. I’ll be back tomorrow with, I hope, a better disposition, as well as a science post and who knows what else.

The Munk debate: Is anti-Zionism the same thing as antisemitism? A video well worth watching!

June 19, 2024 • 11:15 am

UPDATE: Go here for Melanie Phillips’s take on the debate (she had been a “yes” in an earlier debate (2019) on the same question in London).

_____________

Normally you’d have to pay to watch this Munk Debate (they’re all in Toronto),  but it recently appeared on FIRE’s YouTube site.  And normally I wouldn’t watch it as it’s nearly two hours long, but it’s a holiday and I get to do something besides writing.

In my view, this is a “good” debate for two reasons. First, and less important, the opponents of the motion show themselves up to be zealots: both fanatical, purveyors of lies, and swallowers of Hamas propaganda. They both want Israel eliminated in favor of a “one-state” solution, which only a fool would think wouldn’t lead to the elimination and/or dispersal of its Jews. In that sense, the debate shows the opponents of the motion up for who they are, both anti-Zionists and antisemites.

But mainly it’s good because both Murray and Hausdorff show their typical debating skill, eloquence, and adherence to the truth. (As I note below, I’ve already said in previous posts that I agree that modern anti-Zionism (i.e., calls for the elimination of Israel) is also anti-Semitism, so I came to this debate with my own strong pro-proposition opinion. That said, I think I was open to having my mind changed, but I can’t envision what arguments would do it. In the same way, I’m open to see evolution proven as false, but I can’t imagine what arguments (or data) would do it.

Here’s the motion under debate:

Motion: Be it Resolved, anti-Zionism is antisemitism

And here are the relevant definitions given by the moderator:

antisemitism: “Hate directed at Jewish people, or cruel and unfair treatment of people because they are Jewish”

anti-Zionism: being against Zionism, defined as “the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel.”

We have four people participating. As the Munk site notes (I’ve added the links to the people):

Arguing for the resolution is award winning journalist, best-selling author, and former Munk Debater Douglas Murray. His debate partner will be Natasha Hausdorff, an international law expert and legal commentator on antisemitism.

Hausdorff is director of the UK Lawyers for Israel, and, like Murray, is whip-smart, eloquent, and passionately pro-Israel. If I had to choose a pair to defend the motion, it would be these two. (Look up some of Hausdorff’s interviews and debates on YouTube.)  Hausdorff is the only one of the four without a Wikpedia page, and that needs to be fixed.

Opposing the resolution is Mehdi Hasan. Mehdi is a best-selling author, former MSNBC anchor, and the CEO and editor-in-chief of the new media company Zeteo. He will be joined by the award winning Israeli broadcaster and Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy.

Hasan had an MSNBC show but left the network when his show was canceled.  Levy, who writes for Haaretz, seems to hate the idea of a Jewish state, for he, like Hasan, favors a “one-state solution” and he also supports boycotts of Israel.  As Malgorzata says, “he believes that Jews can live happily and peacefully alongside Palestinians in a single state.”   She added, “Levy is either a fanatic or stupid—and he’s not stupid.”

There are four six-minute presentations, four three-minute rebuttals, and then the moderator asks the debaters questions, which leads to a back-and-forth that got quite heated, especially on the “no” side. There were lots of interruptions. (Hausdorff, however, seems incapable of shows of anger, but she’s nevertheless passionate.) Finally, the debate ends with four 4-minute closing statements by the debaters and then the final vote (spoiler: Murray and Hausdorff win).

But enough palaver.  Watch for yourself. The debate preliminaries start at 4:00, while the debate proper starts at 14:02 with Douglas Murray’s 6-minute statement.

My notes as I watched:

Hausdorff’s opening speech, giving what she sees as the four “blood libels” of anti-Zionism, is magnificent. These are, she avers, libels used by anti-semites to justify their ant-Zionism. She denies that (at least now) Zionism is not a political movement.

Levy, on the other hand, sees Zionism as “Jewish supremacy.” By that I don’t think he means Jews are superior to all other people or to the Arab citizens of Israel. Rather, he sees Zionism as the view that Jews are superior to Palestinians.  This is likely connected with his preferred “one-state” solution. Levy thus sees Zionism as an ideology: the doctrine of Jewish supremacy that has to be leveled by creating one Jewish + Palestinian state. He also argues that Israel is “more Jewish than democratic” as sees Israel as “occupiers”.

In his own rebuttal, Hasan agrees that Zionism is the doctrine of “Jewish supremacy”.

In her rebuttal, Hausdorff argues that the use of double standards against Jewish state omstantiates both anti-Zionism AND anti-Semitism. She scores a huge debate point when she catches Hasan lying about the Balfour declaratin, and happens to have his out-of-context quote on hand, which she corrects.

In his rebuttal, Levy argues that to create a real democracy in Israel, you more or less have to get rid of Israel, creating a single state in which there is a single regime promoting equality of Palestinians and Israels. Levy, an Israeli Jew, apparently believes that Israel is not a democracy because citizens of the Palestinian territories can’t vote in Israeli elections. Murray calls both of his opponents out for argui9ng Israel is not a “democracy.” Indeed, that argument is not even stupid.

One of the best parts of the debate is Murray’s description of how anti-Israel students in America (and other countries, I suppose) as falling in two classes: the “sinister and the silly” That starts at 1:10:16.

To my mind, the most sagacious statement of the debate was Hausdorff’s analogy that, to her, explains why antisemitism is the same thing as anti-Zionism.  She says that a couple can argue about whether or not to have a child, and that there could be good arguments on both sides. But she adds this: “Once a child is born, to suggest that that child be got rid of is murder.”  What she means, of course, is that before 1948 there was a debate, even among Jews, about whether a Jewish state should be created. But once it came into being in that year, it was a fait accompli, Jews flocked there to find refuge, and it is a nation like other nations, with the right to defend itself against aggression.

That is why to Hausdorff, and to me, it is murder to call for the elimination of a Jewish state that already exists. Whether it be through war or the one-state “solution”, that elimination, an “anti-Zionist” endeavor, shows “cruel and unfair treatment of people because they are Jewish”—the given definition of anti-Semitism.

In the end, the “one-state solution” will lead not only to dissolution of Israel, but the targeting of Jews.  Since both Levy and Hasan favor that “one-state solution”, they are in effect calling for either the destruction of the Jews through murder or through dispersion of them throughout the world, for those are the two fates of the Jews under a one-state “solution.” Antisemitism, as Murray maintains, has taken the form of anti-Zionism.

You may ask yourself, as I did, whether a Jew like Levy can be antisemitic if they are anti-Zionist. How can a Jew be antisemitic? The answer is this: for the same reason that an American can be anti-American. In the end it’s not your own identity that determines whether or not you like or hate that identity, but how you feel about those who share your identity.

Douglas Murray speaks in Amsterdam about antisemitism

June 13, 2024 • 12:30 pm

How can Douglas Murray lecture on antisemitism in Amsterdam, the very city that deplatformed several of us simply for having sympathy for Israel, which wasn’t a topic of our scheduled discussion? Maarten Boudry tells me that for the video below “he was invited by a right-wing party, so the rabid anti-Israel activists have no clout there.”

Yes, Murray is a conservative, but on the topic of Israel he’s on both the money and on the morality. That’s why many dislike him, though he’s been demonized for other reasons, like his distaste for immigrants coming to the West. I won’t discuss that here, as the video below doesn’t deal with that.  If you’ve heard Murray on this topic before, there’s not much new, but I listened anyway.

If you click on “notes” at the youTube site after expanding the details, you’ll  get a link to a transcript that goes along with the video. I actually listened to this rather than read it, as I like Murray’s eloquence. The lecture itself ends at 36:15, and then there are 24 minutes of audience questions, which Murray writes down and then answers. Here’s a near-comprehensive list:

Is it possible to defeat Hamas?
How do we get the ball rolling to get rid of antisemitism?
What are the psychological sources of antisemitism?
Should we stop using the word “Palestine” or “Palestinian” or “pro-Palestinian” given that there is not really a Palestinian people or country?
Given that the people of Iran are pro-Israel but its regime is the biggest source of anti-Israel weapons and support, what do we do?”
Why are the countries of Spain and Ireland vehemently anti-Israel while other European countries are more sympathetic to the country?
What can we do to make the silent majority about Israel “rise up”?
What do you think about Europe defending Western values?
What about Russia and China and other countries attacking Western values?

I can’t resist calling attention to his barb about Greta Thunberg, and why she’s the Nordic equivalent of a rōnin, a samurai without a master. The analogy starts at 47:14.

h/t: Bat

“This dog smells some rats”: The Encampment, Day 2, post 1: Destruction of Jewish signs and banners, statements by President and Dean of Students

April 30, 2024 • 8:15 am

We have a couple of days of readers’ wildlife photos left, but I’m holding off until the encampment here ends so I can document it (more photos and videos later today).

Yesterday the protestors removed a lot of small Jewish flags that had been strung up by the Jewish students a few days ago, and also tore down some of the big (and expensive) banners that the Jewish students had put up over the weekend. The installation of all the flags and banners were, of course, approved by the University. Here are (or were) two of the large ones. Note that they are peaceful, referring only to the hostages and giving a QR code to read about Hamas.

The Chicago Maroon reports this vandalism of Jewish signage, as well as someone calling the Jewish students trying to replace the banners “rats”, and shows a photo of the torn-down small Jewish flags. Bolding in the main text is mine:

April 29, 10:32 p.m.:

Maroons for Israel set up their Israeli flags again. Someone with a dog watching them said, “The dog smells some rats.” This incident was caught on video and confirmed by the Maroon.

Noting that the Israeli flags were going up again, encampment organizers made an announcement telling protestors not to engage with “Zionists” or “counter-protestors,” stressing that confrontations were a threat to the entire encampment.

— Eva McCord and Kayla Rubenstein, Co-Editors-in-Chief, Emma Janssen, Deputy News Editor

April 29, 9:50 p.m.:

The string of Israeli flags hung earlier in the day were taken down. The flags, along with the poster on a nearby lamppost, were approved by the University.

This marks 12 hours of the encampment.

— Eva McCord and Kayla Rubenstein, Co-Editors-Chief and Zachary Leiter, Deputy Managing Editor

The calling of the Jewish students “rats” is part of the anti-Semitism fomented by the demonstration. And since the Maroon has video of this, it can be confirmed.

How much longer will the administration tolerate this kind of divisive behavior. Tearing down banners and calling Jewish students “rats” (something not unknown during the Third Reich) is not bringing the campus together, but fracturing it. Does the administration care? How long will they let this charade persist, a performative demonstration that both the President and Dean admit is against university regulations.  Are we becoming Harvard, treating different groups differently, even when they violate University rules?

The Maroon’s photo:

Caption from the Maroon: Israeli flags hung earlier in the day were taken down and found on the ground. (photo by Nathaniel Rodwell-Simon)

Here’s the official statement of our President:

The last three paragraphs implicitly threaten the demonstrators because the encampment is “a way of using force of a kind.”  But it does not affirm that the encampment will be dismantled, nor give a time limit for how long it will be allowed to stand. It’s clear that the encampment is already disrupting scholarship, not only by alienating the Jewish students by vandalizing their signs, but by obstructing the quad, and, especially, by allow signs to stand that block the main sidewalks accessing the quads from north and south, like this one.

My prediction, which I hope will not come true, is that the administration will continue to tolerate the encampment despite the threats of reprisal for violating University regulations.  It won’t look good if they bring in the cops to remove protestors: I was once told by an administrator that the thing that would make the University look bad was “laying hands on students.” But without forcible removal of protestors and dismantling the encampment, it will stay.  Since many of the protestors, I think, are not part of the University community, they won’t feel threatened by warnings about suspension.

Of course the Jewish students were extremely upset that their banners, which cost a lot of money to make, were ripped down by the protestors (notice that the vandalism is all by one side), and the protest itself (look at the map of Israel above) smacks of Israel hatred. The tearing down of the signs, however, smacks of Jew hatred, as the signs are not about Israel, but about the hostages and Hamas.

To provide some solace for the distressed Jewish students, Rabbi Yossi of Chabad and Rabbi Anna of Hillel stood for hours yesterday in the center of the quad, just outside the encampment, acting as a magnet for about 25-30 of the students. The students did not shout and they did not chant; they just stood in a group that was at once upset and defiant. I admire Yossi and Anna for going to the demonstration to show the Jewish students that someone cared.

Here’s the emailed letter we got from the Dean of Students:

Dean Rasmussen’s letter is stronger, affirming that the encampment is violating University policy, and implying that the signs blocking the sidewalks are, too. She notes that the camping protestors have been put “on notice”, but I don’t know how.  The Deans on Call are empowered to ask for student IDs, which must be shown upon demand, but they have not done this. This is a nonviolent way of identifying which protestors are students, and getting their names should they be punished. Note that the email does not give any specific time limit for the encampment, nor a firm assurance that violators of University policy will be disciplined.

Although there are high-minded words about free speech in both letters—and, indeed, protests against what’s happening in Gaza are free speech—the encampment is not about free speech.  In fact, the protestors prohibit any interaction with university officials, the press, or “Zionists”.  It is about whether protestors can violate university policies for the time, place, and manner of such speech, and do so with impunity.  The encampment is there to test the mettle and resolve of the University of Chicago to defend freedom of speech by preventing its disruption, and to ensure that the University is not impeded from carrying out its mission. So far, the University is failing the test.

So far, the University’s “threats” seem toothless, and are fracturing the campus, allowing Jewish students to have their banners vandalized and to be characterized as “rats”. I hope with all my heart that my University recognizes that an important part of free speech is allowing it to be exercised without disrupting the academic mission of the University. So far, the University have recognized that only in words, not in deeds.

And, of course, tearing down the banners of Jewish students is an explicit violation of free speech.  Will those who did it be identified and punished? I wouldn’t count on it.

As my Polish friend Malgorzata said (she lost most of her relatives in the Holocaust), “I don’t understand how this can happen in America.”

I’ll be back later with photos and video of the encampment. So far the protestors seem to be there for the long haul, as they’re well equipped with food, tents (including a medical tent) and other supplies.

Finally, as all the readers know here, I’m an atheist, and reject the tenets of Judaism as I reject the tenets of all faiths. But that doesn’t extend to a group of students who are being attacked and terrorized by the campers, and their pro-Israel signs and flags ripped apart and thrown on the ground.  The head of one Jewish organization in Chicago posted this mantra on her Facebook page, which also appeared on Twitter:

And, yes, I’m getting Jewisher (culturally, not religiously) and I call on the administration to not only prevent vandalism of the Jewish students’ own free expression, but to dismantle the illegal encampment before it tears the University apart.  SJP and UCUP can march and holler as much as it wants, but it cannot be allowed to violate University rules.

Oh, and President Alivisatos, you know that although the administration would rather do anything than call the police to dismantle the encampment you recognize as illegal, Title VI lawsuits against the University will surely follow, as the night the day.

McWhorter et al.: some new articles on Columbia University and similar college protests

April 24, 2024 • 10:00 am

I’ve collected several articles on the troubles at Columbia and other American campuses; two of these I found in Tom Gross’s newsletter. If you click on the headlines, you can access them all for free, as I’ve used archived links. I also give a brief excerpt from each article below the headline.

In my view, this is a far more troublesome time for colleges than the period of civil rights and anti-Vietnam-war protests of 1968 and after, for the protestors are not only bigoted and calling for the extermination of Israel, but seem opposed to all Western values—almost as if they would be delighted to live under Hamas. They’re certainly extolling Hama and Iran, both purveyors of terrorism.

And, if I don’t miss my guess, this trouble will spread off campus, for campus is where what is ideologically “cool” begins. (As Andrew Sullivan said, “We’re all on campus now.”)  Arresting or expelling the protestors won’t solve the problem, for arrested protestors are energized protestors.

The solution? I don’t know, but I put the blame on universities themselves, which, by buying into and selling DEI to campuses throughout America, have promoted the divisive idea that Jews are settler-colonialists who don’t deserve a state.

I’m not afraid that concentration camps will come to America, but these protests have exposed not only the ugly underbelly of anti-Semitism among many Americans, but also the hatred of Western values of young people, probably instilled in them by colleges themselves or adopted as the au courant ideology. As you’ll see in the second article, the protests are of course applauded by foreign terrorists and extremists Muslims, for the college students camped out across America are playing precisely by the Islamist rulebook.

The points that in common among these articles are that the student protests of today are not similar to the civil-rights and antiwar protests of the Sixties, as the ones going on now are pervaded by bigotry, hatred, and a wish to destroy a people. Further, several articles argue that preventing the disruption of society and academia in this way, or refusing to even call out the hatred, will ultimately redound to a weakening of American—and therefore Enlightenment—values. This is not going to end soon.

First, in the NYT, John McWhorter is appalled by the demonstrations, but lays them at the door not of antisemitism but of DEI:

Excerpts:

I thought about what would have happened if protesters were instead chanting anti-Black slogans, or even something like “D.E.I. has got to die,” to the same “Sound Off” tune that “From the river to the sea” has been adapted to. They would have lasted roughly five minutes before masses of students shouted them down and drove them off the campus. Chants like that would have been condemned as a grave rupture of civilized exchange, heralded as threatening resegregation and branded as a form of violence. I’d wager that most of the student protesters against the Gaza War would view them that way, in fact. Why do so many people think that weekslong campus protests against not just the war in Gaza but Israel’s very existence are nevertheless permissible?

Although I know many Jewish people will disagree with me, I don’t think that Jew-hatred is as much the reason for this sentiment as opposition to Zionism and the war on Gaza. I know some of the protesters, including a couple who were taken to jail last week, and I find it very hard to imagine that they are antisemitic. Yes, there can be a fine line between questioning Israel’s right to exist and questioning Jewish people’s right to exist. And yes, some of the rhetoric amid the protests crosses it.

Conversations I have had with people heatedly opposed to the war in Gaza, signage and writings on social media and elsewhere, and anti-Israel and generally hard-leftist comments that I have heard for decades on campuses place these confrontations within a larger battle against power structures — here in the form of what they call colonialism and genocide — and against whiteness. The idea is that Jewish students and faculty should be able to tolerate all of this because they are white.

. . .On Monday night, Columbia announced that classes would be hybrid until the end of the semester, in the interest of student safety. I presume that the protesters will continue throughout the two main days of graduation, besmirching one of the most special days of thousands of graduates’ lives in the name of calling down the “imperialist” war abroad.

Today’s protesters don’t hate Israel’s government any more than yesterday’s hated South Africa’s. But they have pursued their goals with a markedly different tenor — in part because of the single-mindedness of antiracist academic culture and in part because of the influence of iPhones and social media, which inherently encourage a more heightened degree of performance. It is part of the warp and woof of today’s protests that they are being recorded from many angles for the world to see. One speaks up.

But these changes in moral history and technology can hardly be expected to comfort Jewish students in the here and now. What began as intelligent protest has become, in its uncompromising fury and its ceaselessness, a form of abuse.

This Wall Street Journal column is important, for it’s by Steven Stalinsky, the executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), an organization that translates articles, speeches, and sermons from Arabic into Hebrew, English, and other languages. MEMRI thus has its finger on the pulse of Middle Eastern Muslim society. Stalinsky notes that those who promote terror in the Middle East are also promoting these college protests (I suggest that they’re funding them, too), and certainly approve of them, for the protests will move worldwide Islamism forward. Globalize the intifada!

Excerpts:

What is most discouraging is the lack of attention to what the protesters are demanding, which goes far beyond a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war.

Take the March 28 re-election fundraiser for President Biden in New York featuring Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, which was disrupted by shouting in the auditorium. That made headlines, yet the protesters’ chants, including “Down with the USA” and the “Al-Qassam are on their way,” a reference to Hamas’s miliary wing, received no coverage. Neither did their physical threats to attendees outside, a common tactic. Also ignored are the flags and posters of designated terrorist organizations—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—displayed at protests in the U.S., Canada and the U.K.

Major terror organizations have expressed support for these protests and disruptive actions, which have long been a key part of Hamas’s plan to win hearts and minds in the West. As early as a decade ago, during the July-August 2014 Israel-Gaza war, Hamas’s Interior Ministry issued guidelines to social-media activists on framing events for a Western audience.

. . . Every senior Hamas leader has also acknowledged the importance of the protests and said that influencing U.S. and Western policy is part of the organization’s strategy for destroying Israel. Khaled Mashal, the Hamas leader abroad, on Oct. 10 urged supporters to protest “in cities everywhere.” On Oct. 31, he said that the organization’s friends “on the global left” were responding to its appeal. On March 27, he called for millions to take to the streets in protest, saying there had been an unprecedented shift in global public opinion.

. . . Six months after the attack on Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others aren’t merely cheering those protesting in the streets. They are working with and grooming activists in the U.S. and the West, through meetings, online interviews and podcasts.

. . . On March 25, the Columbia University Apartheid Divest student group hosted an event called “Resistance 101” on campus. It featured leaders of the PFLP-affiliated Samidoun, Within Our Lifetime and other extremist organizations. At the event, former PFLP official Khaled Barakat referred to his “friends and brothers in Hamas, Islamic Jihad [and] the PFLP in Gaza,” saying that particularly after Oct. 7, “when they see students organizing outside Palestine, they really feel that they are being backed as a resistance and they’re being supported.” On March 30 on Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV, Mr. Barakat said “the vast majority” of young Americans and Canadians now “support armed resistance” because of “the introduction of colonialism, racism, and slavery studies into history curricula.”

. . . The collaboration between senior terrorists and their growing list of friends in the U.S. and the West has real-world consequences. These groups are designated terrorist for a reason. They don’t plan marches and rallies—they carry out terrorist attacks. And when the U.S. and Western activists, including college students, see that their marches and protests aren’t achieving their goals, they may consider their next steps—which will be influenced by the company they have been keeping.

From Bret Stephens in the NYT, who begins his story with the visit of two Jewish Yale undergraduates, one visibly Hasidic, to the center of campus protests, where they were “yelled at, harassed, and pushed”.  Like McWhorter and others. Stephens notes that Jews are treated much worse in these demonstrations than other minorities would be, for DEI considers Jews as “white adjacent”.  Stephens not only sees administrators’ lack of action as a form of “bigotry,” but also argues that history will show the demonstrators ineffectual and wrong. And donors will speak with their wallets:

Excerpts:

Yale and other universities have been sites of almost continual demonstrations since Hamas massacred and kidnapped Israelis on Oct. 7. That’s just fine, insofar as students have a right to express their views about the war in Gaza — whatever one thinks about those views. It’s fine, too, to be willing to defy campus rules they believe are unjust — provided they are willing to accept the price of their civil disobedience, including arrest, jail time or suspension.

But as the experiences of scores of other Jewish students on American campuses testify, we are well past the fine stage.

At the University of California, Berkeley, students were spat on and grabbed by the neck by anti-Israel demonstrators. When a small group of students held Israeli flags in front of the Columbia protest, a young demonstrator, her face mostly masked by a kaffiyeh, stood in front of them with a sign that read, “Al-Qasam’s Next Targets,” a reference to the wing of Hamas that led the Oct. 7 attacks. At Yale, according to a video shared by Crispe, a demonstrator read a “poem” threatening those who “finance, encourage and facilitate this mass killing against us: May death follow you, wherever you go, and when it does I hope you will not be prepared.”

. . .The sad fact of campus life today is that speech and behavior that would be considered scandalous if aimed at other minorities are treated as understandable or even commendable when directed at Jews. The calling card of antisemitism has always been the double standard. How would the Yale administration have reacted if Crispe and Tartak had been Black students who said they were taunted, harassed and assaulted (whatever the ostensible political motive) by a mob of their white peers?

From the Harvard Crimson, published at a university where protests are muted, but a student organization was expelled for illegal demonstrations:

An excerpt from the above:

The Crimson reported on Monday that the Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee was suspended for “violating student organization rules”— but that doesn’t mean that student organizing efforts will suddenly cease. It’s likely that, like on campuses across the country, the opposite will occur.

While inflated accusations of antisemitism on college campuses may undermine the ability to call it out where it actually exists in the pro-Palestine movement, the antisemitic scenes unfolding at Columbia University — and now other campuses, too — are as blatant as ever.

The ongoing demonstrations are led by Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine (whose post-Oct. 7 statement makes the PSC’s words seem benign) and conducted in partnership with an organization called Within Our Lifetime and a few other campus groups.

WOL’s demonstrations at Columbia this weekend were advertised as “Flood Columbia For Gaza,” seemingly referencing Hamas’s name for the Oct. 7 massacre: “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.”

. . .Pro-Palestine groups must acknowledge that proud extremist antisemites are joining campus protests at universities much like ours, and confront the fact that their hateful and violent theories of change are seeping into on-campus advocacy.

These extremists do not care about promoting peaceful coexistence and ending the onslaught on innocent civilians in Gaza. They are there because these protest spaces have opened a conduit that is permissive of violent extremism and overt eliminationist antisemitism. It seems student organizations have allowed it, or at the very least, turned a blind eye in the name of coalition-building.

That said, the students who were arrested for their specific encampment protest within Columbia’s gates — while their words and choices may be objectionable to some — were largely non-violent. Even the police said so.

But non-violent is not the same as non-hateful, and a peaceful act does not negate overt antisemitism and intimidation of students on Columbia’s campus.

. . .The chaos at Columbia — which blurred the lines between student and non-student protestors and unleashed a whirlwind of antisemitism reminiscent in tone to the “Unite The Right” rally in Charlottesville, V.A. — is a prime example.

If they are dedicated to peacebuilding, pro-Palestinian campus organizations — as they determine the goals of their movements, how to frame their rhetoric, and with whom to build coalitions — must reckon with an irrefutable fact: Over seven million Jews live between the river and the sea, too, and they sure as hell aren’t going “back to Poland,” where over 85 percent of the Jewish population was murdered in death camps.

Simplify their existence to settler-colonialism all you want, and the fact still stands.

A lasting ceasefire, Palestinian liberation, and any positive future in the region will not come from demonizing and attacking Jews and Israelis. It will not happen through eliminationist slogans and events where “Zionists are not welcome.” Boycotting Starbucks probably won’t do it either.

Until that reality is fully recognized in the ethos of pro-Palestine student organizations, their voices and demands will fall on deaf ears. They will be co-opted by violent and hateful extremists, making administrators all the more emboldened to repress their non-violent demonstrations.

Author Nekritz says that pro-Palestinian demonstrators will attain their goals only when they “treat other people with respect, afford our opponents dignity, and foster conversations across deep disagreement.” Good luck with that!

Below: Brendan O’Neill at Spiked is not known for gentle persuasion, and his anger is on view in this article. He sees the Columbia protests, as do others here (as well as I) as a harbinger of the dismantling of Enlightenment values after the entitled, propagandized, and antisemitic college students of our era grow up. (Note: that is of course not all college students, or even a majority, but does include the most vociferous and activist ones.)

Excerpts:

Hands down the worst take on the ‘Gaza Solidarity Encampment’ that has taken over Columbia University in New York City for the past week is that students have always done things like this. Students have forever occupied buildings and quads to make a political point. Students have long agitated against war. Students often find themselves in the grip of passionate radical intensity. Look at the Vietnam era, says every columnist in Christendom, as if the Gaza camp were just another explosion of youthful anti-imperialism.

The wilful naivety of this take is unforgivable at this point. To liken Columbia’s strange, seething ‘pro-Palestine’ camp to earlier campus uprisings against militarism is to gloss over what is new here. It is to whitewash the profoundly unsettling nature of this rage of the privileged against the world’s only Jewish nation. Until someone can point me to instances of those Sixties anti-war kids hurling racist invective at minority groups and demanding the wholesale destruction of a small state overseas, I’ll be giving their Gaza camp commentary a wide berth.

The camp might look and sound like student politics as normal, with its juvenile bluster, megaphoned virtue and the occasional appearance of pitiable university officials warning campers of suspension. But scratch the radical surface and you’ll swiftly find an ugly underbelly of reactionary cries and even outright racism. No sooner had the students erected their tent city ‘for Palestine’ last Wednesday than it became a magnet for genocidal dreaming about the erasure of Israel and plain old bigotry against Jews.

Columbia has rang out with cries of ‘We don’t want no two states / We want all of it!’. You don’t need to be an expert in Middle East affairs to decipher this demand. It’s a sick call to seize the entirety of Israel – all of it – and create a new state more in keeping with the Israelophobic yearnings of both privileged Westerners and radical Islamists. Their longing for Israel’s erasure was made even clearer in a follow-up chant: ‘We don’t want no two states / We want ‘48!’ That is, 1948, a time when the modern state of Israel didn’t yet exist. They want a world without Israel. They want to lay waste to the national home of the Jews.

. . .We need to be honest about what is happening at Columbia. This is solidarity with a pogrom. It is sympathy for fascism. It is privileged leftists getting a cheap moral kick from a mass act of racist violence against Jews that they catastrophically mistake for a blow against imperialism. It is the Socialism of Fools.

More than that, it is a howl of rage against civilisation. This rancid camp with its flashes of outright Jew hate is not an extension of the anti-war activism of old – it’s an extension of the loathing for civilisation that the young have been inculcated with these past few years. To these protesters, the Jewish State, and Jews themselves, represent Western values and Western modernity, and thus they must be raged against. Israel has become a moral punchbag for the sons and daughters of privilege whose hatred for their own societies has driven them over the cliff edge of reason and decency.

How foolish we were to think that education might deliver the young from the benighted ignorances of the past. For today, it is the most educated, the dwellers of the academy, who have allowed the world’s oldest hatred to wash over them. We can now see the consequences of teaching the young to be wary of Western civilisation and to treat everything ‘Western’ as suspect and wicked. All they’re left with is the lure of barbarism, the demented belief that even savagery can become praiseworthy if its target is ‘the West’. If events at Columbia do not wake us up to the crisis of civilisation, nothing will.

From the Wall Street Journal, where author Jason Riley is an opinion columnist. And as he’s African-American, he adds a civil-rights perspective to his piece, and calls for authority to curb illegal demonstrations:

Excerpts:

In 1957, white mobs in Little Rock, Ark., in defiance of the Brown ruling, were preventing black students from safely attending school. President Dwight Eisenhower decided to do something about it. In a prime-time television address, the president explained that “demagogic extremists” and “disorderly mobs” were thwarting the law and that he had an “inescapable” responsibility to respond if Arkansas officials refused to protect black students. “Mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of our courts,” he said. Then Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne Division.

The particulars then and now may differ, but the same principle is at stake. The federal government was obligated to come to the aid of an ethnic minority group being threatened by mob violence. Jews in 2024 deserve no less protection than blacks in 1957. And if university officials can’t handle the situation, or won’t let police deal properly with the unrest, Mr. Biden needs to step up.

. . .Mr. Biden’s response to antisemitism is also tempered by political expediency. The young people acting out on campuses are a crucial voting bloc that Democrats worry about losing to independent candidates such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West. “I condemn the antisemitic protests,” the president said on Monday, before quickly adding: “I also condemn those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians.” That sounds like someone who knows how badly he needs Michigan, a state with a large Arab-American population that has soured on him for supporting Israel.

Contrary to what Mr. Biden suggested, the outrage over what is happening to Jews isn’t the result of ignorance or a misunderstanding. Rather, it stems from yet another viewing of a movie Jews have seen too many times. It’s the one where those in a position to do something choose to do nothing.

Biden’s statement was craven: an attempt to placate everyone. The man is incapable of condemning attacks on one side without offering a bouquet to the other.  He’s certainly desperate to get as many votes as possible, but I’m tired of his waffling.  The fact is that the demonstrators at Columbia are worthy of condemnation for their act alone. It’s as if he said, “I condemn the attack of ships in the Red Sea, but I also condemn those who don’t have empathy for the Houthis.”