JESSE ROSENBLIT'S HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION SPEECH

My explanatory statements and clarifications appear in [ ]

THE WANING SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL AMONG U.S. JEWS

There are 11 reasons why many U.S. Jews no longer openly support both Israel’s absolute right to exist and Israel’s absolute right to robustly defend itself when attacked.

First: Assimilation. Most U.S. Jews have assimilated into American culture, so much so that approximately 70% of them have married non-converting Gentiles.

Consequently, many of them, as well as many of their progeny, primarily self-identify as cultural Americans rather than as ethnic Jews, with the result that many of them are indifferent as to whether the Jewish State continues or ceases to exist.

Second: Secularism. Most U.S. Jews are either agnostics or atheists; and their knowledge of Judaism and the Hebrew Bible is nil.

Consequently, they feel no religious connection to the Land of Israel, with the result that many of them are indifferent as to whether the Jewish State continues or ceases to exist.

Moreover, many of them erroneously view Jewishness only as a religion, rather than as the unique combination of an ethnic nation and a faith community, which causes them to question the rationale for establishing a State to serve the interests of a religion that they, as agnostics and atheists, have rejected.

Third: Leftism. The vast majority of U.S. Jews vote for the Democratic Party which, over time, has moved sharply to the Left, one of the ideological pillars of which is antipathy towards the continued existence of the Jewish State; and many of these Jews want to be fully-accepted within the ascendant “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party. So, even if -- as a matter of logic, morality and fairness -- some of these Jews (and other Democrats) believe that Israel has both an absolute right to exist and an absolute right to robustly defend itself when attacked, they have chosen to conceal any open support for Israel as their price of admission to the “progressive” Left.

Contrariwise, some of these Jews (and other Democrats) have wholeheartedly accepted the fallacious Leftist dogma that Israel is a malevolent State, which unjustly oppresses the virtuous “Palestinian people”, thereby destabilizing the entire Middle East and even the entire World.

Fourth: Ignorance. Many U.S. Jews (and others) are ignorant about the historical and legal circumstances that led to Israel’s rebirth in 1948, and to Israel’s reacquisition of Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights in 1967, and to the many other Israel-related events that have transpired from the creation of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1920 (which created the internationally-recognized legal foundation for the reestablishment of the Jewish State) through the present time.

Moreover, these Jews (and others) are also ignorant about the profound historical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, as for more than 3,000 years the Jewish people have been the only ethnic nation which both populated and established domestic sovereignty in the Land of Israel.

In fact, Jewish sovereignty was established four times in the Land:

the 1^st time being via the creation of the united kingdom of Israel by King Saul circa 1040 BCE (with Jerusalem being made the capital city during the reign of Saul’s successor, King David);

the 2^nd time being via the creation of the successor kingdom of Judea by King Simon Maccabeus, founder of the Hasmonean Dynasty, in 140 BCE (with Jerusalem again being made the capital city);

the 3^rd time being via the resurrection of the independent kingdom of Judea by King Antigonus II Mattathias, the final king of the Hasmonean Dynasty, in 40 BCE (with Jerusalem again being made the capital city); and

the 4^th time being via the creation of the State of Israel by the Zionist Movement in 1948 (with that portion of Jerusalem -- i.e., the western portion -- then in Israel’s possession again being made the capital city).

Conversely, “Palestinian” Arab sovereignty in the Land of Israel has never existed. Moreover, these Jews (and others) are also ignorant about true nature of Israel’s “Palestinian” Arab adversaries and the horrific atrocities repeatedly perpetrated by them against the Land’s Jewish population -- beginning in 1920 (i.e., the four-day Arab pogrom against Jews in the Old City of Jerusalem during the Islamic “Nabi Musa” pilgrimage holiday in April 1920).

Moreover, these Jews (and others) are also ignorant about the international Laws of War (also known as International Humanitarian Law).

Finally, anyone attempting to educate themselves about the genocidal “Palestinian” Arab war against the Jewish State via mainstream media outlets is fed a continuous diet of disinformation (comprising lies, half-truths and distorted truths), which -- by design -- serves to demonize and delegitimize Israel and to thereby bestow an underserved halo of victimhood upon the “Palestinian” Arabs. Distressingly, much of the U.S. educational establishment (from elementary school to college) also participates in this disinformation campaign. All of this accumulated ignorance about the Truth causes these Jews (and others) to incorrectly view Israel as the product of European-based colonialist aggressors and to incorrectly view the “Palestinian” Arabs as the indigenous victims of land theft, genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and disproportionate force.

Fifth: Utopianism. Many U.S. Jews (and others) believe that, as Israel is stronger (both militarily and economically) than the “Palestinian” Arabs, the Jewish State is morally obligated to take risks for peace. These Jews (and others) also believe -- mistakenly -- that the genocidal “Palestinian” Arab war against Israel is rooted in a territorial dispute rather than in an existential dispute. Due to this misconception about Arab grievances and goals, these Jews (and others) believe that true and enduring peace amongst Jews and Arabs residing between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River would immediately ensue if only Israel agreed to cede portions of the Land of Israel to the Palestine Liberation Organization for the creation of a 22^nd Arab State to be known as the “State of Palestine”. Consequently, these Jews (and others) believe that continued strife between Jews and Arabs in the Land of Israel is mostly Israel’s fault.

Sixth: Strength As Vice. Some U.S. Jews (and others) accept the illogical philosophical notion that Strength embodies Vice, as well as its equally illogical corollary that Weakness embodies Virtue, meaning that, in any conflict, the weaker party -- without regard to its operational tactics, strategic goals and ideological values -- is always the virtuous party. This notion, as applied to any conflict, dictates that the party suffering the most destruction is, by definition, the weaker party, and consequently the virtuous party. Conversely, the party suffering the least destruction is, by definition, the stronger party, and consequently the evil party.

Consequently, in the “Palestinian” Arab war against the Jewish State -- despite the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization qua the “State of Palestine” and Hamas extol and employ terrorism, habitually violate the international Laws of War and aspire to annihilate the Jewish State in service to the creed of Islamic supremacism -- these Jews (and others) tend to view the weaker “Palestinian” Arabs as the virtuous party, and conversely they tend to view the stronger Israel -- despite its consistent restraint in responding to serial attempts to destroy it -- as the evil party.

Alternatively stated, due to its relative weakness, the “Palestinian” Arabs can do no Wrong, while due to its relative strength, Israel can do no Right.

Seventh: White Supremacy. Some U.S. Jews (and others) view Israel as a bastion of “White Supremacy” (despite the fact that the skin pigmentations of its Jewish population are extremely diverse, ranging from coal black to pale white), while these Jews (and others) view the “Palestinian” Arabs as an oppressed “people of color” (despite the fact that the skin pigmentations of this population are also extremely diverse, also ranging from coal black to pale white).

Alternatively stated, some U.S. Jews (and others) erroneously view Jews and Arabs as being of different races -- one of which is genetically Evil and the other of which is genetically Virtuous.

This absurd genetic formulation -- which would be just as absurd even if all Jews were pale white, and even if all Arabs were coal black -- leads these Jews (and others) to outrageously assert that (a) “Palestinian” Arab terrorist attacks (including mortar and missile barrages) against Israel are the justified cry of a people of color against White Supremacy, and (b) the “Palestinian” Arab war against the Jewish State is morally equivalent to the peaceful U.S. Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.

Eighth: Ersatz Zionism. Some U.S. Jews (and others) -- either from ignorance or from malice -- falsely label themselves as Zionists, loudly declaring their professed concern for Israel’s national soul and the purported necessity of saving Israel from itself. These Jews (and others) absurdly claim that the truest expression of Zionism is not for the Jewish people (acting through the State of Israel) to reestablish sovereignty throughout their ancient ethnic homeland, but rather for Israel to permit the creation in the Land of Israel of an Antisemitic, homophobic, misogynistic, Muslim supremacist, irredentist, revanchist, belligerent, and authoritarian Arab State, in which -- unsurprisingly -- Jews will not be permitted to reside.

Alternatively stated, these Jews (and others) claim that the truest expression of Zionism is for Israel to permit the creation of a “Palestinian” State which will repudiate all the values -- and deny to its population all of the freedoms -- that are venerated by the World’s liberal democracies, including Israel.

According to this bizarre version of Zionism, the creation of a “State of Palestine” -- which will be the 22^nd Arab State in the World -- is the only way for Israel to

(a) remain both a Jewish State and a democratic State; and

(b) purge itself from the Evil of the alleged Occupation; and

Conversely, Israel’s continued refusal to permit the creation of that hostile Arab State is condemnable as a betrayal of Zionism.

Ninth: Guilt By Association. Some U.S. Jews (and others) blame the existence and actions of the State of Israel for overt eruptions of Jew-hatred throughout the World (including in the United States), expressed via mob violence, vandalism, organizational ostracism, and social media hostility.

Despite the fact that Jew-hatred and anti-Jewish violence predate the reestablishment of the Jewish State by more than 2,000 years, these Jews (and others) nonetheless accept the existence of this modern causal link simply because many perpetrators of Jew-hatred and anti-Jewish violence implicitly assert the existence of this causal link every time they combine demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish State with their expressions of Jew-hatred and their acts of anti-Jewish violence.

Moreover, as Israel’s enemies portray the Jewish State as the epitome of Evil, against which any form of violence is justified, those same enemies lack any moral qualms about similarly portraying Jews (regardless of their relationship with the Jewish State or lack thereof) as enablers of Evil, against whom any form of violence is also justified. Naturally, these Jews resent being demonized and being otherwise punished as surrogates for Israel; but they are as likely to blame Israel as they are to blame their tormentors for the unjust guilty verdict.

Consequently, due to their mistaken acceptance of this causal link, these Jews (and others) believe that the hatred and violence against them would disappear if the Jewish State disappeared -- as if there were no Jew-hatred prior to the establishment of present-day Israel.

Obviously, in arriving at this conclusion, these Jews (and others) have failed to realize that their analysis reverses Cause and Effect. For, hatred against the Jewish State is not the source of hatred against the Jewish people. Rather, hatred against the Jewish people is the source of hatred against the Jewish State. This is because hatred against the Jewish State (as a geographic subset of the Jewish people) proceeds from the malicious and false categorization of the Jewish people -- wherever they may reside in the World -- as a collective “Oppressor”.

Conversely, if a “State of Palestine”, populated and ruled by Arabs, had existed in place of Israel, and if this Arab State had perpetrated any of the horrors of which the Jewish State is consistently and falsely accused, not only would there be no international campaign to demonize and delegitimize this Arab State, but there would also be no eruptions of Arab-hatred and/or anti-Arab violence anywhere in the World. In fact, with limited exceptions, none of the existent 21 Arab States or the Palestine Liberation Organization qua the Palestinian Authority (which rules Areas A & B of Judea and Samaria) or Hamas (which rules Gaza) has ever been internationally demonized or delegitimized on account of any atrocity perpetrated by any of them against Israel or against their own populations.

Tenth: Talmudic Anti-Zionism. Some U.S. Jews who falsely label themselves as “Torah-true” Jews hate the State of Israel, because they mistakenly believe that, as the State was reestablished before the advent of the Messiah, it was reborn in defiance of the Will of God and thereby in irredeemable Sin.

Consequently, they believe that the State of Israel must vanish (either peacefully or by force) until two conditions are satisfied:

(a) the Jewish people cleanse themselves of the biblical sins which caused them to be expelled from the Land of Israel; and

(b) afterwards the Messiah arrives in order to lead the spiritually-pure Jewish people back to the Land of Israel under the Imprimatur and Protection of God.

Their belief that the State of Israel exists in defiance of the Will of God is predicated upon ignoring inconvenient verses in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Deuteronomy 30:1-5; Isaiah 54:7; Ezekiel 36:18-38 & 39:28-29; and Amos 9:14-15), and upon misinterpreting and misapplying the admonishment in the Babylonian Talmud commonly known as the “Three Oaths” (see Ketubot 111a).

Eleventh: Jewish Self-Hatred. Many Jews throughout history have loathed the ethnic nation into which they were born (e.g., philosopher Karl Marx), primarily because they believed that their Jewish identity unfavorably distinguished them from their host nation’s dominant ethnicity, thereby raising implications of dual loyalty and disloyalty.

In fact, one of them correctly opined that “… the bitterest Antisemites are to be found amongst the Jews themselves.” (excerpt from Chapter XIII (entitled “Judaism”) of the book “Sex and Character” (1903), which was authored by philosopher Otto Weininger, a Jewish convert to Christianity, who committed suicide shortly after his book was published).

In apparent confirmation of Weininger’s opinion, Jewish publisher Samuel Roth authored a book entitled “Jews Must Live: An Account Of The Persecution Of The World By Israel On All The Frontiers Of Civilization” (1934). The premise of this Antisemitic diatribe is that the Jewish people are serial underminers of the moral integrity and economic foundations of Western Civilization (especially that of the United States). Excerpts from two of the chapters of this book will suffice to illustrate this Jewish author’s malevolent view of his own people.

Chapter IX thereof (entitled “Judaism Is Not A Misfortune To The Jews Alone”) commences with the following paragraph:

"Judaism is not a religion, but a misfortune," said [Jewish-born poet Heinrich] Heine in one of his bitter moments. He was thinking of his own unhappiness, however. No one has as yet calculated the extent of its [Judaism’s] misfortune to the rest of the world. (page 127)

Chapter XVII thereof (entitled “Appendix: Do Jews Emit A Peculiar Odor?”), commences with the following two paragraphs:

I have treated the Jews in every important phase of the life of the world about them. I have traced them back to their origins as described (but how mistakenly understood!) by the author of [the biblical Book of] Genesis. I have described them as workers, or rather as a race of fortune hunters, people instinctively reluctant to submit themselves to the less glamorous labors of mankind. I have surveyed them, through dark unfriendly lenses, pursuing vain, greedy careers as lawyers, physicians, money-lenders, merchants, gangsters; as citizens of a country and of the world; as actors and theatrical managers; as conductors of brothels, licensed and unlicensed; as social climbers confusing and belittling all fine social standards; also as Zionists following a hastily dyed banner.

There is still another matter which I cannot allow to become a part of the regular body of my book. It is a matter on which I do not think I care to venture either an opinion or a guess. I refer to the peculiar bad odor which attaches to the name Jew. The word odor is here to be understood as physical, not moral. From time immemorial people have believed that, aside from religious considerations, there is in the flesh and the make-up of the Jew a mysterious odorous canker that renders association with him uncomfortable in the extreme. [The biblical Book of] Genesis records that the Egyptians shrank from physical contact with the Jews. The chronicles of other nations and other time, though not as eloquent, yield similar testimony. (page 289)

In response to the prevalence of Jewish self-loathing throughout History, psychologist Kurt Lewin authored “Self-Hatred Among Jews” (1941), professor Sander Gilman authored “Jewish Self-Hatred” (1986), and psychoanalyst Richard Alperin authored “Jewish Self-Hatred: The Internalization of Prejudice” (2016).

Unsurprisingly, those Jews who hate the notion of a Jewish people (and their involuntary inclusion therein) also hate the reestablished State that is populated and ruled by that same ethnic nation.

[Note: The mainstream media is infested with people, many of whom are Jews, who hate Israel so much that they are willing to undermine their own integrity, the integrity of their employers, and the integrity of journalism in order to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish State. Below is an anonymously-authored open letter signed by more than 500 self-described “journalists” (working for such mainstream media outlets as the Voice of America, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, the Seattle Times, Bloomberg News, the Associated Press, the Nation, TIME Magazine, the Atlantic, the Forward, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR), CNN, ABC News, and NBC News), many of whom signed the letter only with their employer’s name (e.g., “Journalist — The New York Times”) or with full anonymity (e.g., “Journalist — Freelance journalist”) in order to protect their ability to continue bashing Israel in print and online under the false veneer of objectivity. The letter is laced with lies, half-truths, and distorted truths (i.e., mixtures of truth and lie) about the events and issues discussed in the letter, for which calumnies its signatories demand acceptance as constituting the “objective truth”. Ironically, in the guise of demanding objective reportage about Israel and the “Palestinians”, the letter actually demands that journalists abandon objectivity and instead become advocates for the “Palestinians” in their War against the Jewish State. In service to that ideological goal, the signatories make the risible claim that the anti-Israel mainstream media is actually biased in favor of Israel, which is the alleged journalistic malpractice that they seek to correct by replacing it with “objective reportage”, meaning reportage which favors the “Palestinians” and disfavors Israel -- even more fanatically than at present. If anyone (including an American Jew),who is otherwise ignorant about Israel and the “Palestinians”, were to read an “objective” news account authored by any of these signatories, he would naturally come to the conclusion that Israel is Evil and that the “Palestinians” are Virtuous, thereby making it morally impossible for him to support the Jewish State -- which is the malevolent goal of the letter’s disinformation campaign. Read on!]

An open letter on U.S. media coverage of Palestine June 9, 2021

An open letter on U.S. media coverage of Palestine

From journalists, to journalists: Why reporting on Palestine has to change.

Finding truth and holding the powerful to account are core principles of journalism.

Yet for decades, our news industry has abandoned those values in coverage of Israel and Palestine. We have failed our audiences with a narrative that obscures the most fundamental aspects of the story: Israel’s military occupation and its system of apartheid.

For the sake of our readers and viewers — and the truth — we have a duty to change course immediately and end this decades-long journalistic malpractice. The evidence of Israel’s systematic oppression of Palestinians is overwhelming and must no longer be sanitized.

In April, Human Rights Watch released a 213-page report that documented Israeli authorities committing “crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.” Leading Israeli human rights group B’tselem characterized the region as governed by a regime of ethnic supremacy.

These terms — apartheid, persecution, ethnic supremacy — are increasingly gaining institutional recognition after years of Palestinian advocacy, and we, as journalists, need to examine whether our coverage reflects that reality.

Take, for example, the language used in the recent coverage of East Jerusalem neighborhood Sheikh Jarrah. Media outlets often refer to forced displacement of Palestinians living there — illegal under international law and potentially a war crime — as “evictions.”

This term misleadingly implies a real estate “dispute” between tenant and landlord, an inaccurate depiction of the state of affairs. The United Nations considers East Jerusalem occupied Palestinian territory, meaning Israel’s territorial claims there are not recognized. More importantly, using the term ignores the well-documented aim of the Israeli government to establish and maintain ethnic dominance over Palestinians.

During the last few days of Ramadan, Israeli forces violently attacked worshippers at the Al Aqsa mosque compound with tear gas and rubber-tipped bullets. Journalists didn’t call this an “attack” or “assault” on Palestinians, but rather a “clash,” as if both sides shared equal culpability and agency in the escalation.

When Israel attacked Gaza, media outlets framed it as a “conflict” between two equal entities, ignoring the total asymmetry in power. Under the guise of objectivity, rockets fired at Israel — which caused significantly less damage than Israeli airstrikes — were covered just as much as Israel attacking medical facilities and leveling entire residential buildings, clouding the nearly one-sided scale of violence and destruction.

The asymmetry in context does not just extend to the language we use; stories tend to disproportionately amplify Israeli narratives while suppressing Palestinian ones.

Too often, media outlets uncritically repeat Israeli military claims about its assault on Gaza without asking for evidence or proof, despite clear examples where Israeli officials spread false information. Journalists reported the claim from Israeli forces that they had launched a ground invasion — that was false.

The human toll caused by Israel’s bombardment is indisputable: Hundreds dead, more than 65 of them children. While statements made by Israeli officials and their defenders justifying the killing of civilians went unchallenged, Palestinian civilians had their humanity interrogated: Journalists asked whether they support violence or Hamas rockets.

Troubling still, reporting wanes considerably when Israel halts its airstrikes. Palestinians are ignored in so-called times of “peace” despite attacks and other hostile aspects of life under occupation continuing after the ceasefire.

Though there have been exceptions that accurately reflect the plight of many Palestinians, they are few and far between.

As journalists, we are entrusted with a profoundly important mission in a free and democratic society, the power to inform the people and guide the national conversation, from the family dinner table to Capitol Hill.

We are calling on journalists to tell the full, contextualized truth without fear or favor, to recognize that obfuscating Israel’s oppression of Palestinians fails this industry’s own objectivity standards.

We have an obligation — a sacred one — to get the story right. Every time we fail to report the truth, we fail our audiences, our purpose and, ultimately, the Palestinian people.

All signatures are verified.

If you’re a current or former journalist and would like to sign this letter, please fill out this form.

Signature count: 514

Hassan Abbas — The Arab American News

Nesima Aberra

Tarek Abu-Esber — AJ+

Spencer Ackerman — The Daily Beast

Nur B. Adam

Madeline Ackley

Meha Ahmad

Amal Ahmed — The Texas Observer

Maha Ahmed

Ahmed Ali Akbar — Freelance journalist

Tabir Akhter — BuzzFeed

Laila Al-Arian — Al Jazeera English

Laura Albast — Independent journalist

Mohsin Ali

Dalya Al Masri

Rasha Almulaiki — The Arab American News

Yasmena Al Mulla — Freelance Journalist

April Alonso — Freelance journalist

Lux Alptraum

Mohammad Alsaafin — AJ+

Yousef H. Alshammari — Independent journalist

Farah AlSharif — Freelance journalist

Daniel Alvarenga

Najib Aminy — Reveal

Arpita Aneja — TIME

Arielle Angel — Jewish Currents

Hibah Ansari

Bethany Ao

Michael Arria — Mondoweiss

Alexandra Arriaga

Yasmine Saba Askari

Shakeeb Asrar — Independent journalist

Alex Atack

Munir Atalla

Kelsey D. Atherton

Ibtisam Azem

Rubaina Azhar

Sarah Aziza — Independent journalist

Arash Azizzada

Samer Badawi

Michael Baginski — The Freelance Solidarity Project

Fatima Bahja

Peter Bailey-Wells — Boston Globe

Nicholas Bakos — Freelance journalist

Ibrahim Balkhy — Vice News

Jonathan Ballew — Independent journalist

Dana Ballout

Julia Barajas

Leila Barghouty — Freelance journalist

Vincent Barone

Bilal Baydoun

Moustafa Bayoumi

Mohamad Bazzi — New York University

Kim Bellware

Nassim Benchaabane

Noah Berlatsky — Freelance journalist

Johana Bhuiyan

Sam Biddle — The Intercept

Ariel Boone

Genevieve Bormes

Diane Bou Khalil

Assia Boundaoui — Independent journalist

Gus Bova — Texas Observer

Ari M. Brostoff — Jewish Currents

Alleen Brown — The Intercept

Kristina Bui

Dell Cameron — Gizmodo

Alma Campos — South Side Weekly

Alejandra Cancino

Jasmine Cannon

Aaron Miguel Cantú — Freelance journalist

Nora Caplan-Bricker — Jewish Currents

Cat Cardenas

Roane Carey — Former senior editor/managing editor, The Nation

Christi Carras — Los Angeles Times

Rosa Cartagena

Brandon Caruso — NowThis News

Rosalie Chan

Kathy Chaney

Bettina Chang — City Bureau

Justin Chang — Los Angeles Times

Tauhid Chappell — Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists

Manolia Charlotin — Press On

Jesse Chase-Lubitz — Freelance journalist

Aida Chavez — The Nation

Lakeidra Chavis — The Trace

Kavitha Chekuru — Al Jazeera English

Siri Chilukuri

Jennifer Chowdhury

Annia Ciezadlo

Chelsea Cirruzzo

Julia Clark-Riddell

Rachel Cohen — Freelance journalist

Mari Cohen — Jewish Currents

Ambar Colón

Sarah Conway — City Bureau

Breanna Cooper

Erin Corbett — Freelance journalist

Ethan Edward Coston

Molly Crabapple

Iris M. Crawford

Cora Currier

Jamal Dajani — Arab Talk Radio, KPOO

Jim Daley — South Side Weekly

Meg Daly

Dan Q. Dao

Anna Therese Day

Britni de la Cretaz

Sam Dean — Los Angeles Times

Frederick Deknatel — Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN)

Grace Del Vecchio

Pauly Denetclaw

Sarah Desmond

Phi Do — Los Angeles Times

Clarissa Donnelly-DeRoven — Asheville Citizen Times

Jack Doppelt

Leyla Doss — Columbia University chapter, AMEJA

Karim Doumar — ProPublica

Maya Dukmasova

Ben Ehrenreich

Kholood Eid

Dara Elasfar — ABC News

Hosam Elattar

Mariam Elba — ProPublica

Diana Elbasha

Sarah Eleazar

Hager Eldaas

Tamer El-Ghobashy

Maya Eliahou

Mike Elk — Payday Report

Melissa Bunni Elian

Bian Elkhatib

Khalid El Khatib

Adam Elmahrek

Aya Elmileik

Armand Emamdjomeh

Adeshina Oluwatoyin Emmanuel

Azad Essa — Middle East Eye

Melissa Etehad

Leila Ettachfini — Freelance

Rose Eveleth — Flash Forward

Yael Even Or

Fatima Farha

Hannah Faris

Rimal Farrukh — Freelance journalist

Abdallah Fayyad — Boston Globe

Kiera Feldman — Los Angeles Times

Cat Ferguson

Andrew Fishman

Toby Forage

Patrick Forrest — Chicago Crusader

Sam Fouad

Benjamin Freed

Paula Friedrich

Jessica Fu — The Counter

Megan Fu — City Limits

Julia Furlan

Mahita Gajanan — TIME

G. Daniela Galarza — The Washington Post

Leor Galil

Simon Galperin

Eric M. Garcia — Freelance writer

Kelly Garcia

Briana Gasorski — The Arab American News

Sarah Geis — Independent journalist

Masha Gessen

Ali Gharib

Carl Gibson — Freelance journalist

Kaitlin Gillespie

Lyndsey Gilpin — Southerly

Nathan Goldman — Jewish Currents

Melissa Gomez

Sam Gonzalez Kelly

Anand Gopal

Naomi Gordon-Loebl

Kia Gregory — Independent journalist

Ryan Grim — The Intercept

Abraham Gutman

Iliana Hagenah

Zahra Haider — NowThis News

George Hale

Abbas Haleem — Chicago Tribune

Katie Halper

Rachelle Hampton

Diane Victor Handal

Nikole Hannah-Jones

Mina Haq

Syed Haq — Intern, WBAI

Ali Harb

Devindra Hardawar

Kavish Harjai — NowThis News

Akil Harris — The Intercept

Lance Hartzler

Lila Hassan

Kelly Hayes — Truthout

Massoud Hayoun

Doug Henwood — KPFA radio

Alexandria Herr

Jack Herrera — Independent journalist

Tasbeeh Herwees — Freelance journalist

Maia Hibbett — The Intercept

Eoin Higgins

Soleil Ho

Kristie-Valerie Hoang

Arya Hodjat

Joshua Holland

Juwan J. Holmes — The #FightToWrite Initiative

Reinier Hopmans — Former president, Netherlands Association of Journalists

Michael Hudson

Brent E. Huffman

Nausheen Husain

Rummana Hussain — Chicago Sun-Times

Suhauna Hussain

Fatima Hussein — Washington Baltimore NewsGuild

Mukhtar M. Ibrahim — Sahan Journal

Nur Ibrahim

Dahlia Ibrahim

Leia Idliby

Nader Ihmoud — Palestine in America

Medha Imam

Zainab Iqbal

Shamira Ibrahim

David Bradley Isenberg

Aymann Ismail

Nader Issa

Esther Iverem — On the Ground News Productions

Michael Izquierdo — The Journal Times

Joseph Darius Jaafari

Malik Jackson — South Side Weekly

Sarah Jaffe

Maryam Jameel

Katrina Janco — Freelance Journalist

Ben Jay — Law360

Corli Jay — Freelance Reporter

Jon Jeter

Jamie Jiang — The Daily Bruin

DaLyah Jones — Press On

Sameea Kamal

Alex Kane

Sarah Kaplan — The Washington Post

Tony Karon — AJ+

Alexander Kaufman — HuffPost

Anumita Kaur

Sarah Kerson

Hana Khalyleh — Gannett

Amina Khan

Ahmer Khan

Aysha Khan

Saira Khan

Hind Khoudary

Nader Khouri — Former photojournalist, Contra Costa Times

Rami G. Khouri

Tammy Kim

Elizabeth King — Independent journalist

Evan Kleekamp — Study Hall

James Kleinfeld — Al Jazeera Investigative Unit

David Klion — Jewish Currents

John Knefel

Edo Konrad — +972 Magazine

Sharif Abdel Kouddous

Madhu Krishnamurthy

Sadef Ali Kully — Freelance journalist

Akela Lacy — The Intercept

Betsy Ladyzhets — Independent journalist

Laila Lalami — The Nation

Jamie Landers

Natan Last

Maya Lau

Sam Leeds

Natasha Lennard — The Intercept

Sarah Leonard — Lux Magazine

Aimee Levitt — The Takeout

Eric Levitz — New York Magazine

Jasper K Lo

Erin B. Logan — Los Angeles Times

Crispin Long

Katherine Anne Long

Iacopo Luzi — Voice of America

Martín Macías, Jr.

Bashirah Mack

A.Z. Madonna — The Boston Globe

Adam Mahoney

Wajeeha Malik

Barry Malone

Travis Mannon — The Intercept

Elize Manoukian

Alexis Mansanarez

Sanya Mansoor — TIME

Christopher Mathias — HuffPost

Haggai Matar — +972 Magazine

Ben Mauk

Gracie McKenzie

Jesse Mechanic

Brittny Mejia

Ellie Mejia — City Bureau

Julia Métraux

Naib Mian — Condé Nast

Jennifer Midberry

Massarah Mikati

Sebit Min

Mashaal Mir — AJ+

Jack Mirkinson — Discourse Blog

Kiran Misra — Independent

Tanvi Misra

Shereen Mo

Linah Mohammad

Steven Monacelli — Independent

Jesus J. Montero

Philip Montoro — Chicago Reader

Taylor Moore

Evan F. Moore

Benedict Moran

Sawsan Morrar

P.E. Moskowitz

Alaa Amy Mostafa — Reveal

Zainab Mudallal — The Washington Post

Maria Murriel — Pizza Shark Productions

Tom Murphy — Representative Press

Ali Mustafa — TRT World

Razzan Nakhlawi

Native American Journalists Association

Elena Neale-Sacks — Student, UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism

Arionne Nettles — City Bureau

Laura Newberry — Los Angeles Times

Abdirahman Noor — KEYDMEDIA

Dharna Noor — Earther

Jaisal Noor — Real News Network

Brooke Obie

Caitlin O’Hara — Freelance photojournalist

Indigo Olivier

Edward Ongweso Jr. — Motherboard, VICE News

Deanna Othman

Negin Owliaei

Ananya Panchal

Samuel Park

Ariel Parrella-Aureli — Block Club Chicago

Ismael Perez

Nick Pinto

Fiza Pirani

Jacob Plitman — Jewish Currents

Brandon Pope

Randy R. Potts

Jenna Prestininzi

Charles Alexander Preston

Asmahan Qarjouli

Hafsa Quraishi

Isra Rahman — AJ+

Omar Rahman

Manny Ramos

Omar Rashad — Mustang News

Lizzy Ratner

Hamzah Raza

Mohammad Raza — MuslimARC

Jacob Resneck

Gideon Resnick

Adam M. Rhodes — Chicago Reader

Sam Richards

Alex Riggins — The San Diego Union-Tribune

Irene Romulo — Independent journalist

Isabella Rosario

Sarah Ruiz-Grossman — HuffPost

Sam Russek — Freelance journalist

Jordan S.

Sana Saeed — AJ+

Andrea Sahouri

H. Said

Michael Sainato

Richard Salame

Miguel Salazar

Maryam Saleh

Javeria Salman

Sara Salman — AJ+

Mythili Sampathkumar

Tara Santora

Madhuri Sathish — Freelance journalist

Nour Saudi

Patricia Sauthoff

Jaya Saxena

Jeremy Scahill

Benjamin Schneider

Gabe Schneider — The Objective

Mai Schotz

Jessica Schulberg — HuffPost

Liliana Segura — The Intercept

Marybeth Seitz-Brown

Jackie Serrato — South Side Weekly

Salifu Sesay — Gimlet

Abby Sewell

Jashvina Shah

Sana Shah

Fuad Y. Shalhout

Najma Sharif

Sanskriti Sharma — Other Collective

Christopher Shay — The Nation

Ellie Shechet

Annie Shields — The Nation

Ahmed Shihab-Eldin

Destry Maria Sibley — Freelance journalist

Zachary Siegel — Independent journalist

Malak Silmi

Charlotte Silver

Nicholas Slayton — Freelance journalist

Brandon Soderberg

Marie Solis

Zumrut Sonmez — TRT World

Alice Speri — The Intercept

Anna Sterling

Peter Sterne — Independent journalist

Olivia Stovicek

Silma Suba

Kori Suzuki

Rennie Svirnovskiy

Elise Swain — The Intercept

Saleema Syed — Chicago Tribune

Zayna Syed

Nadia Taha

Dena Takruri — AJ+

Sally Tamarkin

Alex Tatusian

Saidu Tejan-Thomas Jr.

Rekha Tenjarla — The New Yorker

Josh Terry

Prem Thakker

Priyanka Tilve

Rebecca Traister

Avery Trufelman

Esther Tseng

Irene Vázquez

Aria Velasquez

Robyn Vincent

Travis Waldron — HuffPost

Harron Walker — Freelance

John Washington — Freelance journalist

Noor Wazwaz

Philip Weiss — Mondoweiss

CJ Werleman — Byline Times

Emily Wilder

Nona Willis Aronowitz

Ali Winston

Rawan Yaghi — Freelance journalist

Kareem Yasin — AJ+

Jaime Omar Yassin

Nic Yeager — Texas Observer

Alex Yoon-Hendricks

Ata Younan — Freelance journalist

Ehab Zahriyeh

María Inés Zamudio

Margaret Zukin

Journalist — ABC News

Journalist — Al Jazeera

Journalist — Al Jazeera English

Journalist — Al Jazeera Media Network

Journalist — Block Club Chicago

Journalist — Bloomberg News

Journalist — CNN

Journalist — Colorado NPR member station

Journalist — Condé Nast

Journalist — Freelance journalist

Journalist — HuffPost

Journalist — Independent journalist

Journalist — Insider

Journalist — KERA

Journalist — KUOW Public Radio

Journalist — Los Angeles Times

Journalist — NPR

Journalist — NBC News

Journalist — NowThis News

Journalist — PBS

Journalist — POLITICO

Journalist — ProPublica

Journalist — Slate

Journalist — The Associated Press

Journalist — The Atlantic

Journalist — The Boston Globe

Journalist — The Forward

Journalist — The New York Times

Journalist — The Seattle Times

Journalist — USA Today Network

Journalist — The Wall Street Journal

Journalist — The Washington Post

Journalist — The World

Journalist — VICE

Journalist — WNYC

[Note: Below is the same open letter with my comments included therein. Read on!]

An open letter on U.S. media coverage of Palestine June 9, 2021

An open letter on U.S. media coverage of Palestine

From journalists, to journalists: Why reporting on Palestine has to change.

Finding truth and holding the powerful to account are core principles of journalism.

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: Others believe that the most fundamental aspect of the story is the more than 100-year effort by the “Palestinian” Arabs and their allies (a) initially, to prevent (via the employment of terrorism and war) the Jewish people from resurrecting their ancient Jewish Commonwealth in the Land of Israel, and (b) then, after failing to prevent that resurrection, to annihilate (again via the employment of terrorism and war) the Jewish State -- which attempted genocide resulted in the alleged “Occupation”. Moreover, if any aspect of the story is obscured by lack of adequate journalistic coverage, it is this aspect rather than the widely-publicized “Palestinian” narrative. However, in order to restore “abandoned values”, the anonymous authors of the open letter demand that only the “Palestinian” narrative be included in what purports to be an objective news article.]

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: The authors dishonestly ignore the fact that 98% of the “Palestinians” residing in Judea & Samaria are ruled by a “Palestinian” government (i.e., the Palestine Liberation Organization qua the Palestinian Authority), and that 100% of the “Palestinians” residing in Gaza are also ruled by a “Palestinian” government (i.e., Hamas). Why are the authors so concerned about the alleged “oppression” of the 60,000 “Palestinians” ruled by Israel in Judea & Samaria, and so unconcerned about the demonstrated oppression of the almost 5 million “Palestinians” ruled by those two “Palestinian” governments? Shouldn’t objective reportage require that all governmental oppression of “Palestinians” be investigated -- whether such oppression be inflicted by Israel or Hamas or the P.L.O. or Lebanon or Syria or Jordan? Why do the authors seem to care about the oppression of “Palestinians” only when Israel is accused of such oppression? It is obvious that the authors’ professed concern for the “Palestinians” has nothing to do with protecting the “Palestinians” from oppression, and everything to do with demonizing and delegitimizing the Jewish State.]

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: Cleverly, the authors do not directly assert as an objective fact that Israel is an Apartheid State. Instead, they recycle assertions from politicized “human rights” organizations that Israel is an Apartheid State in order to convert those assertions into an objective fact. Both Human Rights Watch (which has received funding from such “human rights luminaries” as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as well as from the anti-Israel Ford Foundation) and B’tselem (which has received funding from foreign governments, many of them hostile to Israel (e.g., Ireland), as well as the anti-Israel Ford Foundation) have demonstrated a longstanding antipathy towards Israel. Both organizations have weaponized the cause of human rights in order to demonize Israel and thereby delegitimize it as the nation-state of the Jewish people.]

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: In an exhortation that journalistic coverage of the Jewish State must be adjusted in order to elucidate the “reality” that Israel is an Apartheid State, the authors claim that journalists must accept “that reality” due to “years of Palestinian advocacy” insisting that it is one, coupled with “institutional recognition” (i.e., components of the U.N. system, many anti-Israel member States, and “human rights” organizations) that it is one. Such an adjustment in journalistic coverage means that any objective fact which contradicts “that reality” should be omitted from such coverage.]

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: Actually, as the “Palestinians” residing in those apartments were tenants who refused to pay rent to their Jewish landlords, their forced displacements were properly denominated as “evictions”. The authors fail to explain how an eviction for nonpayment of rent constitutes a war crime under international law.]

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: The term “eviction” is, in fact, an accurate depiction of a dispute between a landlord and a tenant who refuses to pay rent. As the U.N. has no jurisdiction over disputes between landlords and tenants, its opinion regarding the legal status of Jerusalem is irrelevant to such private disputes. As these “Palestinians” evictees retained the right to rent other apartments in Jerusalem (including in the eastern portion thereof), the authors fail to explain how these small number of evictions in the eastern portion of Jerusalem contribute to establishing and maintaining “ethnic dominance over Palestinians”.]

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: The authors are lying about almost every aspect of this incident. The many thousands of “Palestinians” participating in this incident on the Temple Mount, which took place during the period May 7, 2021 - May 10, 2021, were not innocent “worshippers”; and referring to them as such is highly dishonest and emotively manipulative. Rather, they were rioters who had stockpiled stone slabs, iron bars, rocks, and fireworks for use against Jews worshipping at the Western Wall below, as well as against Israeli security forces on the Mount. The security forces responded to their attacks with tear gas and rubber bullets (which constitutes the only accurate statement made by the authors about this incident), which caused 8,000 of the rioters to flee into al-Aksa Mosque. After attempting and failing to negotiate the surrender of the rioters, the security forces eventually entered the mosque in order to arrest them. In light of the actual facts, it is obvious that the mainstream media labeled this incident as a “clash”, not in order to obscure Israeli culpability (of which there was none), but in order to obscure “Palestinian” culpability. If Israel had actually attacked “Palestinians” -- whether worshippers or bystanders -- on the Temple Mount without provocation, then the media would have clearly disclosed that fact instead of employing obscurative terminology. Consequently, the authors are risibly criticizing journalists (who -- like the authors -- habitually portray Israel as an “Oppressor” and the “Palestinians” as a Victim) for their attempt to conceal “Palestinian” culpability for this incident.]

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: Contrary to the authors’ claims, mainstream media outlets have never portrayed Israel and Gaza as possessing equal military capabilities. The media have always downplayed the destructiveness of Gazan missiles and mortars, because overly focusing on “Palestinian” aggression against Israel would contradict the prevailing narrative whereby the “Palestinians” -- regardless of the frequency or severity of their atrocities against Israel -- are always the innocent Victims of Israeli “Oppression”. The authors are implying that, because Israel has a military advantage over the “Palestinians”, news articles should omit any mention of “Palestinian” projectiles raining down upon Jewish population centers -- even if those projectiles are the precipitating cause of the Israeli response that the authors condemn as a “nearly one-sided scale of violence and destruction”. However, in referencing the “violence and destruction” caused by Israel, the authors omit the very important fact that, under the Laws of War (alternatively known as International Humanitarian Law), civilian objects (such as hospitals, mosque, schools, residential buildings, and even U.N. buildings) lose their status as protected sites, and are thereby converted into military targets if they are utilized for military purposes -- as is habitually the circumstance in Hamas-ruled Gaza. It is clear from that significant omission that the authors do not believe that journalists should investigate whether any of the “violence and destruction” was legally inflicted under the Laws of War.]

The asymmetry in context does not just extend to the language we use; stories tend to disproportionately amplify Israeli narratives while suppressing Palestinian ones.

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: Contrary to the authors’ claims, in most news articles, the “Palestinian” narrative is highlighted and treated as if it constituted an objective fact, while any objective fact contradicting that narrative is habitually omitted or obscured. I wonder whether the authors have actually read any of the “news articles” written by the letter’s signatories.]

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: It is telling that the authors, in the guise of objectivity, believe (based upon their failure to mention Hamas as a co-purveyor of information to the mainstream media) that wartime information provided by Hamas should be uncritically accepted, while wartime information provided by Israel should be regarded with skepticism until indisputably proven to be accurate. Yet, it is true that, in order to mislead Hamas, Israel did trick the media into believing that it had begun a ground invasion of Gaza. This allowed Israel to more easily target terrorist militias who were expecting a ground invasion rather than an aerial attack. The authors are angry with Israel over this tactical ruse, because it made the “Palestinians” falsely view the mainstream media, which are traditionally pro-“Palestinian”, as instead being complicit in Israel’s successful aerial attack. However, despite the authors’ anger over that ruse, its employment by Israel does not logically support a general conclusion that Israel habitually lies to the media about everything. Moreover, it is ironic that the authors, in criticizing Israel for lying to the media about invading Gaza, are implicitly criticizing Israel for not invading Gaza. However, if Israel had actually invaded Gaza, thereby confirming the truth of its statement to the media, it is highly unlikely that the authors would have praised Israel for being truthful. On the contrary, the authors would have ignored Israel’s truthfulness, and instead they would have condemned Israel for that invasion.]

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: Contrary to the authors’ claims, mainstream media outlets have never ignored Gazan casualties inflicted by Israel. On the contrary, Israel’s defensive campaigns in the wake of attacks from Gaza have always been critically scrutinized by the media. It is telling that the authors omit any reference to combatant casualties in Gaza, as if 100% of the casualties in Gaza were civilians. Asking a Gazan whether he supports Hamas’ attacks against Israel is not a journalistic assault on the interviewee’s humanity. Rather, it is a legitimate -- even necessary -- question that may be utilized to determine whether the interviewee’s statements to the interviewer might have been influenced by the interviewee’s ideological view of Hamas and its attacks against Israel. However, the authors criticize such a question, because the interviewee’s answer thereto might correctly portray the interviewee as a supporter of Hamas’ war against Israel rather than as innocent pacifist. For this reason, a Gazan must never be asked that question.]

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: Contrary to the authors’ claims, life in Gaza has received abundant attention from mainstream media outlets whether or not Hamas is then firing missiles and mortars at Israel. And most of this coverage tends to blame Israel as the “Occupying Power” for the alleged substandard living conditions in Gaza. However, as Gaza has been a de facto State ruled by Hamas since June 2007, it is not “occupied” by anyone other than Hamas. Unsurprisingly, the authors seem to have no interest in the “hostile aspects of life” in Gaza that are being inflicted by Hamas.]

Though there have been exceptions that accurately reflect the plight of many Palestinians, they are few and far between.

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: This is risible nonsense. For many decades, mainstream media outlets have disproportionately focused on the alleged “plight” of the “Palestinians”.]

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: The authors are suggesting that, instead of providing objective facts to the public, which would enable the latter to form their own opinions on any newsworthy issue, journalists should instead “guide the national conversation”. Alternatively stated, the authors are suggesting that journalists should propagandize the public.]

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: On the contrary, the authors are demanding that journalists ignore the “full, contextualized truth without fear or favor”, and that instead they shape their reportage in order to advance the “Palestinian Cause”. That is the opposite of objective reportage.]

We have an obligation — a sacred one — to get the story right. Every time we fail to report the truth, we fail our audiences, our purpose and, ultimately, the Palestinian people.

[Note from Mark Rosenblit: For these authors, “get[ting] the story right” means shaping the reportage in order to serve the “Palestinian Cause” -- even if that means employing lies, half-truths, and distorted truths.]

[Note: As the below author points out, the Associated Press, a major international news service, is already heeding the open letter’s call to replace objectivity with pro-“Palestinian” advocacy in its reportage by editorializing in the final paragraph of a news article -- although a cogent argument can be made that the AP has already been replacing objectivity with pro-“Palestinian” advocacy for many decades. Read on!]

AP ANSWERS CALL OF “PALESTINE COVERAGE” CRUSADERS

BY: TAMAR STERNTHAL JUNE 29, 2021

The Associated Press, a leading news agency whose stated mission is “advancing the power of facts” with “world-class journalism,” yesterday appeared to take a page out of the open letter signed this month by hundreds of journalists against ethical journalism. The letter signatories seek to replace factual reporting with a partisan, anti-Israel agenda falsely painting Israel as a criminal, apartheid state and Palestinians as blameless victims of Israeli oppression (“From journalists to journalists: Why reporting on Palestine has to change“).

“We have failed our audiences with a narrative that obscures the most fundamental aspects of the story: Israel’s military occupation and its system of apartheid,” charge the media crusaders. “We are calling on journalists to tell the full, contextualized truth without fear or favor, to recognize that obfuscating Israel’s oppression of Palestinians fails this industry’s own objectivity standards.” The “contextualized truth,” of course, is Israel’s alleged apartheid nature and military occupation.

AP heeded the call, yesterday funneling information through the prism of military occupation, discarding inconvenient facts that failed to serve the cause of “the Palestinian people,” as the letter puts it.

The closing paragraph of an otherwise fair and objective report yesterday by Laurie Kellman, Matthew Lee and Ellen Knickmeyer (“Blinken, Lapid meet in Rome amid reset US-Israel relations”) editorializes:

Biden has moved to reverse Netanyahu-backed Trump policies that alienated the Palestinians, and the administration has said Israelis and Palestinians should enjoy equal measures of security and prosperity.

But the U.S. has yet to explain how it intends to bring that about without ending Israel’s half-century military occupation of the West Bank, its blockade on Hamas-ruled Gaza and discriminatory policies in Jerusalem that fueled a spring of unrest.

The last paragraph is an extremely partisan formulation. It completely ignores the following obstacles to security: Palestinian demands for a so-called “right of return” of refugees and their millions of descendants, which fair observers understand as an existential threat to the only Jewish state; Palestinian rejectionism of Israel as a Jewish state and the consistent Palestinians rejection of offer after offer of a Palestinian state alongside Israel; Palestinian denial of any historic Jewish connection to the land, including its most holy site in Jerusalem; [Palestinian Authority] government-backed incitement calling for attacks on Israeli civilians; Palestinian Authority payments to terrorists and their families; Palestinian investment in terror infrastructure such as rockets and tunnels at the expense of investment in its civilians; Palestinian rocket-firing on Israeli civilians and arson attacks on southern Israel; Hamas camps that brainwash a generation of kids to admire suicide bombers and other terrorists; and so on.

All of these points feature Palestinian actions as obstacles to conflict resolution. Every single one of them counters the “full, contextualized truth” as the media crusaders, including one anonymous AP journalist, see it, and thus, they believe, have no place in reporting on behalf of the Palestinian narrative.

“Expand the reach of factual reporting,” promises the AP even as it suppresses information contradicting the favored anti-Israel narrative.

“The free exchange of information has been replaced with the free expungement of inconvenient information,” wrote this media critic last week in The New York Daily News, weighing [in] on the open letter’s heavily partisan agenda as anathema to ethical journalism.

“Label advocacy and commentary,” exhorts the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. Turn news into advocacy, counter the unethical practitioners. And the Associated Press, quietly laying aside its longstanding commitment to factual reporting, obliged.

COMMITTEE FOR ACCURACY IN MIDDLE EAST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS

[Note: From the Jewish News Syndicate, here is a small sample of the many articles discussing how the U.S. educational system participates in the disinformation campaign against the Jewish State. Read on!]

‘Liberated’ ethnic studies curriculum fails to liberate California schools from anti-Semitism

By: Tammi-Rossman Benjamin

The governor promised that California’s original ethnic studies curriculum “would never see the light of day,” but Hayward Unified School District has approved a new model that sparks similar concerns.

(July 1, 2021 / JNS) Last week, California’s Hayward Unified School District (HUSD) Board of Trustees voted unanimously to approve a new $40 million ethnic studies policy. In its press release, the district noted, “The policy and efforts to develop an Ethnic Studies framework are informed by and will include Critical Race Theory and the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum.” This is exactly what the Jewish community feared and fought tirelessly for nearly two years to prevent, as the state wrote, and rewrote, its Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC). Now, however, the Jewish community finds itself back at square one.

A little background is in order.

During the summer of 2019, California’s State Board of Education released a proposed ethnic studies curriculum, intended to be used in all California public high schools, that was blatantly anti-Semitic. It omitted information on American Jews and anti-Semitism, used classic anti-Semitic stereotypes and tropes, and was blatantly anti-Zionist.

And the reaction was fierce. Twenty-thousand Californians, all 16 members of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus and dozens of organizations, including the Jewish Community Relations Council, Anti-Defamation League, Simon Wiesenthal Center, StandWithUs, American Jewish Committee and Israeli-American Council, raised serious alarms over the proposed curriculum. The Jewish Caucus stated the curriculum would “marginalize Jewish students and fuel hatred and discrimination against the Jewish community,” and Governor Gavin Newsom promised the original curriculum “would never see the light of day.”

Bottom of Form

The State Board of Education (SBE) went back to the drawing board and, a year and a half and numerous revisions later, a fourth iteration that included lessons on Jewish Americans and eliminated overt anti-Semitic content was approved by the SBE. However, there was still one very big problem – individual school districts are autonomous and can use any ethnic studies curriculum they choose, including the original rejected version. And for the last two years the original dethroned drafters have been hard at work lobbying individual school districts to do just that.

Which brings us back to the present. The “Liberated” curriculum adopted by Hayward is the brainchild of the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Institute (LESMC), a for-profit educational consulting firm established by the authors of the rejected first-draft of the ESMC as a lucrative means of peddling a version of their rejected draft — including its anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist lessons — in school districts throughout the state. The anti-Zionist tenets of the “Liberated” curriculum were on display at a May 26 ethnic studies teacher training workshop for HUSD teachers, where they learned, “In Palestine…the people who are seeking to maintain systems of oppression and racial domination are sharing ideologies, strategies and weapons. For example, police strategies have been transnationalized, with the US and Israeli police departments exchanging tactics… Let’s continue to share ideas and resources and hold brave conversations [in classrooms]…We continue to see the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians due to settler colonialism.”

Although HUSD may be the first school district to publicly commit to adopting and implementing the anti-Semitic “Liberated” curriculum, other school districts in California may not be far behind.

Salinas Unified School District recently approved an LESMC member and former co-chair of the first-draft ESMC advisory committee to design its ethnic studies course and provide consulting services (at $1,500 an hour). Not surprisingly, several parents in the Salinas District have expressed outrage over the highly politicized and divisive nature of the curriculum. San Diego Unified School District is expected to approve a $77 million spending plan to emphasize ethnic studies in all K-12 subjects that will be overseen by an Ethnic Studies Team chaired by a member of the LESMC and former Department of Education-hired writer of the first draft of the ESMC. And Jefferson Elementary School Board approved a $40,000 contract with the consulting services of an LESMC member and co-chair of the first-draft ESMC advisory committee, to develop a curriculum for 8th grade ethnic studies classes.

LESMC founders and members have also provided their ethnic studies consulting and teacher training services to the California Department of Education, California State University and Stanford University’s Instructional Leadership Corps established by Linda Darling-Hammond, President of California’s SBE. In addition, the two largest teachers’ unions in the state — the California Teachers Unions and United Teachers Los Angeles — have both expressed support for LESMC and will undoubtedly encourage their members to adopt the Liberated Ethnic Studies curriculum and utilize the teacher training services of the LESMC group.

Although the LESMC’s success in bringing the “Liberated” curriculum and ethnic studies expertise to school districts is cause for alarm, it’s not the Jewish community’s biggest problem by a long shot. AB 101 is. That’s the bill currently making its way through the state legislature that would make ethnic studies a high school graduation requirement. If it becomes law, hundreds of school districts that do not currently offer ethnic studies courses will be scrambling to adopt a curriculum and find professional help implementing it, and LESMC and its “Liberated” curriculum will be there to oblige.

The Jewish community simply does not have the bandwidth to oppose LESMC and its anti-Semitic curriculum in each of the hundreds of school districts where it is likely to be considered. That’s why it is crucial for members of the Legislative Jewish Caucus, who led the way in opposing the anti-Semitic first draft of the ESMC, to speak up about the clear danger that AB 101 poses for Jewish students.

Although Jewish Caucus members in the State Assembly voted to support AB 101 despite calls from nearly 70 rabbis, more than 1,000 Californians and hundreds of other supporters of the California Jewish community nationwide, there is still time for Jewish Caucus senators to stand up for Jewish students and oppose this bill when it comes for a vote on the Senate floor this summer.

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin is the director of AMCHA Initiative, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to combating anti-Semitism at colleges and universities in the United States. She was a faculty member at the University of California for 20 years.

‘Harvard Crimson’ provides platform for lying about Israel

By: Tehilla Katz

Opinion writer Lucas Koerner demands that Harvard University severs all economic and academic ties with the state of Israel and support the notoriously anti-Semitic BDS movement.

(July 1, 2021 / JNS) To equate Israel, a country that grants full rights to all citizens, both Jewish and Arab, to apartheid-era South Africa, is the epitome of fake news. It’s sensationalistic, sparks outrage and is unequivocally false. At The Harvard Crimson, contributing opinion writer Lucas Koerner succumbs to and indeed promotes this cheap fiction in his recent article, entitled “Boycott Israeli Apartheid: If Not Now, When?”

In his piece, Koerner demands that Harvard University sever all economic and academic ties with the state of Israel and support the notoriously anti-Semitic BDS movement. He uses his status “as a Jew” to falsely accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing and settler-colonialism, and advocates for Harvard to pressure the new presidential administration to cut military aid to the state. Koerner’s article, which is riddled with inaccuracies, is emblematic of the anti-Israel culture on college campuses today and is especially worrying due to his position as a Ph.D. candidate at the university.

First, let us take note that, despite the globally recognized genocide of Uyghur Muslims perpetrated by the Chinese government, Koerner does not advocate that Harvard sever ties with China. Instead, it is Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, that he wishes to hold accountable. He makes no mention of the Harvard University-China Scholarship Council Exchange program, which sends Harvard students to study in Chinese universities.

Does Koerner believe that only Israel should be boycotted? Apparently so, because he urges Harvard to cut off the Wexner Foundation scholarship to Israeli students, as if these Israeli academics are single-minded, two-dimensional caricatures who are all guilty of war crimes. Such general characterization based on ethnicity would be characterized as nothing short of racism if it were leveled against any other country in the Middle East.

Bottom of Form

In a similar display of ignorance and a presupposed double standard, Koerner recklessly frames Israeli military action as violations of international law on the basis that there have been tragic civilian casualties in the most recent conflict between Israel and Hamas.

What Koerner fails to mention is that the 4,300 rockets fired into Israel during the 11-day conflict were not aimed at military targets. Instead, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad launched rockets into the heart of Tel Aviv, into the nation’s capital of Jerusalem and into the seaside cities of Ashkelon and Ashdod.

Hamas’s indiscriminate attacks on civilians are not new, nor is the widespread apathy towards such assaults. But rather than acknowledging the clear and present war crimes committed by Hamas and the riots on the Temple Mount actively endorsed by the Palestinian Authority, Koerner prefers to blame America’s closest Middle Eastern ally. While any loss of civilian life in a conflict is deeply unfortunate, it is not, as Koerner asserts, necessarily a violation of international law. In fact, Israel has gone to great lengths to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza, and by available metrics, has been highly successful in that regard. The Israeli government has made clear its targets and has sought to destroy Hamas military strongholds, intelligence bases and missile-launching pads. These locations are, in violation of international law, placed by Hamas under hospitals, in mosques and in schools.

Yet these reprehensible acts are not enough to raise Koerner’s ire. Rather, he claims that Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz requested $1 billion in “weapons reveals” from the U.S. government and urges the administration to deny that appeal. In reality, the money was not intended for weapons but for the funding of the Israeli Iron Dome, an aerial defense system used for the interception of rocket fire from Gaza. With this fallacy, Koerner is purposely playing word games to paint funding for purely defensive, lifesaving technology as aggressive militarism. This is deceitful on every level. Furthermore, rather than alleviating the plight of the Palestinians, following through on such a proposition would merely increase Israeli casualties, thereby necessitating a more forceful Israeli response, which would simply cause more Palestinian suffering. With his proposal, Koerner shows he is unaware of the lifesaving properties the Iron Dome offers to both sides of the conflict, or that he simply doesn’t care.

Koerner obviously believes that his position “as a Jew” qualifies him to engage in heinous acts of racism and misrepresentation that perpetuate the lie that Israel is an apartheid state. Ultimately, it is not the job of the Israeli government to allow more Israelis to die in order to pander to the double standards commentators like Koerner endorse. Rather, it is the obligation of all pro-Palestinian supporters to recognize that supporting the Palestinians should not mean demonizing Israel and that no cause justifies anti-Semitism, even if the advocate is Jewish himself.

Lastly, we cannot ignore that Koerner, at the very least, sympathizes with terrorists. For example, in 2014, he tweeted a quote from an article that expressed unconditional support for Hamas. In 2009, he went so far as to state that “Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but rather the only democratically elected government of the entire Arab world.” This, compounded with his position as a PhD student, affords him the ability to potentially poison the minds of young students through his radicalism. As Harvard produces the leaders of tomorrow, this is something to which we cannot turn a blind eye and should condemn in the strongest of terms.

Tehilla Katz is a CAMERA on Campus Fellow at Bar-Ilan University.

Washington State’s ‘Native Education’ curriculum attacks Israel in grade school lessons

By: Jonathan Cohen

The bizarre inclusion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to be at odds with the curriculum’s self-described “place-based approach,” in which teachers and students are supposedly encouraged to focus on “the context of tribes in their own communities.”

(July 2, 2021 / JNS) Public school officials in the state of Washington have inserted the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into mandatory 5th-grade lessons on Native American history.

Children as young as 10 are being taught to associate the Native American experience with the Palestinians’ “fight to be free from Israeli dominance.”

The lesson is part of an otherwise informative Native American curriculum called Since Time Immemorial: Tribal Sovereignty in Washington State, which was developed by the Tribal Leaders Congress on Education, the Washington State School Directors Association and the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Subsequently, the curriculum was approved by all 29 federally recognized tribes in Washington State. It has since been widely used in K-12 public schools after state legislation in 2015 required the teaching of Native American history.

Bottom of Form

“Unfortunately, we’re finding this sort of politicization of Israel in public schools across the United States,” said my colleague Steven Stotsky, who investigates bias in K-12 education for the CAMERA International Student Leadership Institute.

“In this case, I find it particularly troubling that the curriculum is being used by anti-Israel activists to divert attention away from Native American history,” Stotsky said. “It’s as unfair to Native Americans as it is to Jews. And ultimately, it’ll damage the credibility of the entire curriculum, as people figure out what’s going on.”

Troubled as well, I contacted the organizations behind the curriculum.

In response to my questions, a school official from the Washington State’s Office of Native Education wrote in an email, “To clarify, the focus of the Since Time Immemorial curriculum lesson you are inquiring about centers student learning around the understanding of the struggles Indian Nations experienced with the founding of the US Colonies.”

“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the focus of the lesson,” she stated.

But, although it is not the main focus, an assignment about Native American revolts against European encroachment tells students that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a useful “contemporary connection” for understanding the Indian Wars for Independence.

The assignment uses leading questions to teach that, like Native Americans, the Palestinians are struggling to have “their sacred homelands returned to them.”

While it is true that most Palestinian Arabs likely view their uprisings in that way, the ancient and unbroken Jewish residence in these same sacred lands is omitted from the lesson.

There is no mention of the evidence of Jewish indigeneity or the need for a sovereign Jewish homeland in the often violently intolerant Middle East.

The assignment’s language indicates that students will never hear anything about the archaeological and textual discoveries that place the Jewish people in the land more than a millennium before the Arab Islamic colonial incursions.

Nor will students learn about the Jewish majority in Jerusalem dating back to the 1800s, or the genetic evidence indicating that most of the world’s Jewish population can be traced to the Levant.

Perhaps most disturbingly, the centuries-old oppression of Mizrahi Jewish communities in the Arab world, culminating in their brutal ethnic cleansing in the 20th century, is also left out. Nearly 1 million refugees were compelled by these anti-Semitic atrocities to find refuge in Israel.

Since students do not receive the above information in the Since Time Immemorial curriculum, those who complete the assignment will likely come away from it with two notions: first, that Israelis are analogous to Europeans who overran another people’s territory; and second, that the ethical position is to side with the indigenous Palestinians in their fight to reclaim their sacred homeland from Jewish usurpers.

True, the lesson does not explicitly assert either of those two propositions. The children are left to make the obvious inferences for themselves. But no schoolchild will be able to avoid the curriculum’s suggestion that Israelis are the intruder and Palestinians, the victim.

Those conclusions might not be a conscious deduction on the part of the child. The scandal behind the lesson is that it plays on the innocence of grade schoolers: all those boys and girls who think that they are “just doing” their required Native American assignment, but have no clue of the controversial ethics, history and politics of the Middle East that are being smuggled into it — and into their subconscious.

Any intellectually honest adult can see that this assignment is not an actual lesson on Jewish-Arab history. It is the exploitation of Native American suffering in order to plant in the schoolchild’s mind an assumption about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

It is, in short, not a good education but a form of political conditioning.

Jonah Cohen is communications director for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA.org)

J Street’s atheist rabbi named Harvard’s chief chaplain

Where Greg Epstein’s influence may well be felt, I fear, is on Jewish students’ perceptions of Israel, the Holocaust and anti-Semitism.

By: Moshe Phillips

(September 6, 2021 / JNS) The news media has been full of stories recently about the man-bites-dog story of the self-proclaimed atheist who was recently named chief chaplain at Harvard University. This matters not because more members of Congress attended Harvard Law School than any other law school and more American presidents were educated at Harvard than at any other university. This chaplain, Greg Epstein, will have an outsized role in life on campus. He has repeatedly illustrated radical ideas regarding not just G-d, Judaism and Torah, but also related to Israel, terrorism and the Holocaust. For example, Epstein has referred to Israelis as “Jewish supremacists,” a slur cribbed from white-supremacist leader David Duke.

Greg Epstein is Jewish and a graduate of the rabbinical ordination program at something called the “International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism.” This minuscule and little-known school shows just a dozen alumni on its website other than Epstein.

Whether he will influence Jewish students’ religious beliefs remains to be seen.

But where Epstein’s influence may well be felt even more strongly, I fear, is on Jewish students’ perceptions of Israel, the Holocaust and anti-Semitism.

Bottom of Form

Because he is Jewish, often uses the title rabbi and because of the power of his new position, Epstein will have significant new platforms from which to share his views on Jewish issues—at campus events, in the news media and well beyond. And his views on Jewish issues are disturbingly extreme.

A Tweet from Epstein on April 28 employed the ugly term “Jewish supremacists” to demean Zionist activists who were marching in Jerusalem. That slur was coined by neo-Nazis and then more recently adopted by the radical left. Writing in Newsweek on June 25, Gil Troy explained, “In 2003, on his way to becoming America’s leading white supremacist, David Duke also adopted this theme [in the book] Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question.”

One indication of Epstein’s shallow understanding of the Holocaust was his 2019 tweet calling American detention facilities for illegal migrants “concentration camps.”

If you think I am exaggerating—and that Epstein could not possibly have meant literally that those facilities are similar to concentration camps—note that he wrote they “can LITERALLY [his caps], in a historically accurate way, be called concentration camps.”

No, they can’t be, which is why the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and other scholarly Holocaust institutions have strongly denounced such comparisons.

As for Israel—when Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, Epstein was part of a group of left-wing rabbis who rushed to urge former President Barack Obama to refrain from rejecting the terrorist victors. “We urge you to maintain a cautious approach” towards Hamas, in order to advance the goal of a Palestinian state, they wrote to the president.

Epstein is a longtime member of the J Street Rabbinic Cabinet. J Street—the controversial Jewish pressure group that was created to lobby for a Palestinian state and consistently supports Palestinian Arab demands against Israel. The leaders of J Street always seem to blame Israel for what goes wrong, no matter how extreme or violent the Palestinians are.

The problem is not that Epstein is an atheist; that’s his business. The problem is more than just that he presents himself as a rabbi, even though his core belief system is rejected by every Jewish religious denomination of note: Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist.

The power of the “rabbi” title is that it confers Jewish legitimacy and respectability on whatever the rabbi, even a self-proclaimed one, says. Jewish students at Harvard who don’t know any better will hear that “the rabbi” said something and assume that what he said represents Judaism, not just a tiny fringe element on the Jewish spectrum. The Association of Humanistic Rabbis has just 14 members in the United States besides Epstein.

Those American Jews who are concerned about anti-Israel bias on college campuses must endeavor to monitor not just the actions of extremist student groups and hostile professors, but campus clergy as well. As alumni, donors and parents of students, we can do much to show we care.

Moshe Phillips is national director of Herut North America’s U.S. division. Herut is an international movement for Zionist pride and education and its U.S. website is https://herutna.org/.

[Below are analyses of the anti-Israel atmosphere at two U.S. colleges. Read on!]

SEPTEMBER 6, 2021

On the UNC College Campus, Antisemitism Marches On

by Peter Reitzes

As I previously reported, graduate student Kylie Broderick is currently teaching “The Conflict Over Israel/Palestine” at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) – despite her history of attacking Israel and recently promoting the view that Israel should not exist.

According to her syllabus, Broderick also scheduled a quiz on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year. Shouldn’t the instructor teaching about Israel know better?

Earlier this year, Broderick signed an “Open Letter and Call to Action” affirming her commitment to promote the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel “in the classroom.” Her advisor, Cemil Aydin, also signed and promoted the letter on social media.

In fact, 27 UNC “scholars” signed the letter, using their UNC credentials from departments of History, Religious Studies, English, Art, Musicology, and others.

The ADL explains: “Many of the founding goals of the BDS movement, including denying the Jewish people the universal right of self-determination — along with many of the strategies employed in BDS campaigns, are anti-Semitic.”

Another signatory to the letter is Elyse Crystall from UNC’s English and Comparative Literature Department. In 2018, Crystall shocked the Jewish community when she wrote an antisemitic email opposing a candidate for city council because the candidate attends a local synagogue.

UNC geography professor Altha Cravey, another signatory, taught many courses at UNC and is still listed as an active professor, though she recently retired. Cravey promoted an antisemitic initiative on social medial asking the public to boycott “Jewish Products made in Israel or made outside of Israel that directly or indirectly support Israel.”

Imagine the outcry if a UNC professor encouraged boycotting “Muslim Products.”

Cravey also felt the need to tweet, “Apparently a Jewish person can learn to speak a hateful slur as fluently as others.”

Prominent UNC faculty members in two of the departments offering Broderick’s course signed a “Statement on Palestine from North Carolina Academics,” stating, “We acknowledge our complicity in Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians…[and we] reject the prevalent ‘two-sides’ narrative.”

A number of the signatories — either directly or indirectly — are Broderick’s supervisors or mentors. One is Morgan Pitelka, a member of the History Department, who heads UNC’s Asian and Middle Eastern Studies program. Three department officers also signed: Department Chair Lisa Lindsay; Diversity Liaison/Director of Equity and Inclusion Miguel La Serna; and Director of Graduate Studies Sarah Shields, who is a BDS activist. She taught the Israel/Palestine course up until this year, and is now supervising Broderick’s course.

Even if Kylie Broderick relents on her promise to use her UNC classroom to endorse BDS, her recent public comments — such as tweeting “Zionist dirtbags” and demanding “Everyone at UNC…Boycott Israeli products” — have already stopped some Jewish students from enrolling in the class and contributed to an anti-Jewish and anti-Israel atmosphere on campus.

Abigail Adams, one such student, reported that dozens of Jewish students are frustrated with the administration. “Jewish students would just love to have a seat at the table and to be listened to by the administration.. … The administration hasn’t listened to us at all.” Adams told ABC News, “It’s [not] fair for any student to worry about getting a lower grade because of their opinion.”

A 2020 UNC graduate told me about enrolling in and attending Shields’ course, “The Modern Middle East.” The student reported that Shields spent the first 30 minutes of the first class attacking Israel with a photo presentation showing “the worst pictures she [Shields] could find of Israel.” The student left after those first 30 minutes, never to return.

UNC has nurtured and created a hostile academic environment, preventing some Jewish and pro-Israel students from enrolling in courses on Israel and related topics — and also skewing the perception of Israel in the minds of uniformed and under-informed students. Chancellor Kevin M. Guskiewicz and other senior UNC administrators are to blame.

Peter Reitzes is a board member of Voice4Israel of North Carolina and writes about issues related to antisemitism and Israel.

The answer to campus radicalism and antisemitism? Defunding

A CUNY Law School graduation speech drew attention to the brazen Jew-hatred that has gone mainstream in academia on the public’s dime. There must be accountability.

By: Jonathan Tobin (May 31, 2023 / JNS)

It took the City University of New York (CUNY) nearly three weeks to do it, but the public university’s chancellor and board of trustees eventually got around to condemning an antisemitic speech made at the CUNY Law School graduation ceremony on May 12.

The oration was delivered by graduating student Fatima Mousa Mohammed of Queens, N.Y., a member of Students for Justice in Palestine, the activist wing of the antisemitic BDS movement. In it, she uttered egregious lies about Israel and Zionists but anchored her attacks on the Jewish state in far-left talking points about the evils of capitalism, imperialism, colonialism and “white supremacy.” She railed against the police as well as the federal prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation, which served as fundraisers for the Hamas terrorist group. She spoke of the mission of the future lawyers getting their degrees that day as waging an ongoing battle against the rule of law.

Mohammed received a rousing ovation from the graduating students that was reportedly joined in by school officials. But once the video of the 12-minute speech went viral, it generated angry pushback from Jewish organizations and politicians.

The criticism was appropriate. Mohammed claimed that: “Israel continues to indiscriminately rain bullets and bombs on worshippers, murdering the old, the young, attacking even funerals and graveyards, as it encourages lynch mobs to target Palestinian homes and businesses, as it imprisons its children, as it continues its project of settler colonialism, expelling Palestinians from their homes, carrying the ongoing nakba, that our silence is no longer acceptable.”

Her claims would better describe the actions of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad than that of Israel. But this does illustrate just how antisemitic canards and calls for the destruction of the only Jewish state on the planet have become mainstream discourse in academia.

The school initially pulled the video from its website but then restored it when left-wing activists condemned it for bowing to pressure from Zionists and conservatives. But as the story gained momentum, the CUNY board realized that it had to distance itself from the incident. Likely, they are hoping that will be the end of it as far as they are concerned.

It shouldn’t be. The speech was just the most recent in a string of stories that pointed to the way CUNY has become a stronghold of far-left ideology and antisemitism. But for all of the criticisms that the event caused to be aimed at the school, the remedies that have been proposed in response to it are utterly inadequate.

The Jewish Community Relations Council of New York (JCRC-NY) called for CUNY to “revise its guidelines” for graduation speeches. The Anti-Defamation League agreed. But given that the speech was reportedly submitted in advance in both written and verbal form—and approved by the Law School officials who clearly thought there was nothing amiss with a speech filled with antisemitic tropes—the problem goes deeper than guidelines.

Closer to the mark was the Rabbinic Alliance of America, which called for changes at the school that would be decided by a fact-finding commission. Such a body, however, would be bogged down in a protracted procedure that would be controlled by the ideologues and their enablers and accomplish nothing.

CUNY may be an extreme example of how the hard left has captured academia. Yet the content of Mohammed’s speech is directly connected to the way these radicals have imposed their secular religion of “anti-racism” on so many institutions and made their woke catechism of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) the creed from which none may dissent. Her smears are the product of that ideology. Seen in context, rather than as an outlier, she is a not untypical product of American higher education in 2023. And the educational establishment is content to let things stay that way.

Accountability then must involve more than superficial gestures. What is needed is a response that is, on the surface, just as radical as the problem it is seeking to address. And for that, we have an excellent example in Florida.

Earlier this month, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill that would defund all DEI programs at Florida public colleges. Unlike most of those who have noted the dismal state of affairs in academia, DeSantis wasn’t content to snipe away from the sidelines. Instead, he cut straight to the heart of the problem.

It must be understood that a school like CUNY Law, which is widely acknowledged to be completely captured by the extremists who approved and cheered Mohammed’s speech, is a product of the DEI mindset and the related toxic concepts of intersectionality and critical race theory. Antisemitism isn’t a bug of the modern university that has been taken over by DEI indoctrination; it’s a feature.

The academic establishment is so compromised by this ideological agenda that talk of reform that doesn’t involve sweeping measures that force them to change is meaningless. If schools like CUNY are to change, then their funding must be cut off. That isn’t possible at large private institutions with massive endowments like Ivy League schools supported by left-wing alumni. Private philanthropic foundations are also now so thoroughly woke that those who are dependent on them for donations must bow to their dictates, which now means adopting DEI measures.

But public universities and colleges are dependent on state funding. And that is the only way ordinary citizens can apply the leverage needed to ensure that hatemongers like Mohammed are no longer treated as campus darlings.

Though some New York politicians condemned Mohammed’s hate speech, such defunding is, alas, impossible in deep-blue New York. Notwithstanding this controversy, the political and media establishment in New York doesn’t really have a problem with continuing to subsidize a bastion of antisemitism like CUNY.

The irony was that initially, it was not Mohammed’s slander-filled ideological rant that drew attention to this ceremony. At first, it was the reaction of students to the appearance of New York City Mayor Eric Adams at the graduation ceremony. Students booed and raised their middle figures at Adams, while most of the graduating class turned their backs when he spoke. That was a reaction to his so-far inadequate attempts to rein in the crime wave started by his predecessor Bill de Blasio’s policies and exacerbated by the Black Lives Matter riots that undermined the police.

That incident generated an article in The New York Times that didn’t even mention Mohammed’s antisemitic speech, though it also noted that such leftist dogmatism was to be expected at CUNY. Indeed, as of this writing, the Times has not printed a single word about Mohammed’s speech. Though it made the front page of the tabloid New York Post (the Post’s typically witty headline about Mohammed read “Stark Raving Grad”), it was apparently not considered newsworthy by the liberal “newspaper of record.”

Mohammed was not without her defenders. Anti-Zionist Times contributor and CUNY journalism professor Peter Beinart claimed that her lies about Israel were true, illustrating once again that some Jews are supporters of antisemitism. He was joined in this by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was founded as a political front for the same Holy Land Foundation Mohammed defended, who described the anger her antisemitism generated as an attempt to suppress “free speech.” (And, yes, that’s the same CAIR that was consulted by the Biden administration while preparing its strategy for combating antisemitism.)

The time has passed for Jewish groups to content themselves with statements complaining about such incidents. If they are to be taken seriously as opponents of antisemitism, then they must demand the defunding of all schools that engage in DEI indoctrination that helps generate this sort of open hatred. DeSantis and those who support his much-needed counterattack on the forces seeking to impose radicalism on students are accused of fighting a “culture war,” though it is the left that started the war on Western culture. But anyone who is interested in combating antisemitism must join this war. The only way to make a difference is to insist on defunding institutions that foster hatred.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate). Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

Return to main page