Jonathan S. Tobin – JNS
Ideas that reduce complex problems into simple mantras are always popular. But those

that cloak a political ideology in the sort of language and symbolism in sync with the cultural fashions of the movement and allow people to imagine themselves on the right side of history can spawn world-changing movements. When young people especially are indoctrinated with such notions—the idea of correcting a historical wrong—the results can produce the shocking surge that’s unfolding right now on U.S. college campuses.

The spectacle of a critical mass of this current generation of American college students—egged on by many of their professors and even administrators—chanting slogans about erasing the State of Israel from the map (“from the river to the sea”), cheering on Islamist terror against Jews everywhere (“intifada revolution” and “globalize the intifada”) and speaking openly about banning the presence of “Zionists” from their midst, if not condoning violence against them, has shaken many Americans. That is especially true for liberal Jews and others who believe that antisemitism is primarily if not solely a problem on the political right.

Yet the most important part of this story is what hasn’t happened. Instead of a united nation responding to these expressions of hate and bigotry with one voice, many declarations are being heard in defense of what are, for all intents and purposes, a burgeoning mass movement supporting the Hamas terrorist movement that carried out the manifold atrocities in southern Israel on Oct. 7.

Toxic leftist idea

\
How is it possible for what is supposed to be the best and the brightest of American students—those who attend Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell and many other elite universities where the “pro-Palestine” protests have sprung up—to embrace such a profoundly evil cause?

The simple answer for what should be seen as responsible points to the intellectual fashion of the day, which, for lack of a better term, we are forced to call “woke” ideologies. The toxic ideas of critical race theory and intersectionality, which teach that the world is permanently divided between “white” oppressors and people of color who are their victims, have decided that Israel and the Jews belong to the former, and Hamas and its mass of Palestinian supporters are among the latter.

These ideas have been mainstreamed of late in America’s educational system and culture. Since the moral panic about race that occurred in the Black Lives Matter summer after a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd in May 2020, they have become the new orthodoxy against which dissent is not permitted in U.S. leading institutions.

While some of us have been pointing out for years that the BLM movement and the ideas behind it grant a permission slip for antisemitism, this has only become obvious to most people in the last six months. To the horror of many Jews, the largest mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust didn’t engender sympathy for Israel or the Jews. Instead, it provided the spark for a surge in antisemitism around the world almost immediately after Oct. 7.

Many Jews believed they could always count on enlightened liberal opinion in this country not only to condemn expressions of right-wing Jew-hatred in the strongest terms but to also isolate it. Instead, they have watched with amazement and concern as the mobs engaging in antisemitic invective have been defended or rationalized in mainstream liberal media like The New York Times and MSNBC as idealists or, at worst, emotional kids whose actions are an understandable reaction to Israeli atrocities. In doing so, those who are taking this line aren’t just repeating and spreading Hamas propaganda and blatant falsehoods. They are accepting the premise that opposition to the existence of the one Jewish state on the planet is somehow the natural political position of those who call themselves progressives.

‘Very fine people’

Indeed, much like the BLM riots that wreaked havoc in American cities in the summer of 2020, the campus protests are being described as “mostly peaceful.” The narrative about the campus mobs in much of the corporate media is that they are merely “pro-Palestine” and that any antisemitism is merely the excessive behavior of a few marginal people who don’t represent the true spirit of the protests.

Almost as troubling is the fact that even when the antisemitic nature of the protests is recognized, the core problem is ignored. It’s not just that those taking part are engaging in demonstrations where Israel and its supporters are demonized, Jewish rights erased and Jews are being threatened. It’s that the people doing this don’t think they are wrong. They are convinced that they are speaking up for a righteous cause. Not only is that false premise being reinforced by mainstream press coverage, but it is also being upheld by leaders of the political left.

Indeed, the most outrageous example of that didn’t come from Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who is notorious for her own antisemitic statements and who showed up on the Columbia campus this week to show solidarity with the “pro-Palestine” mob in the company of her daughter, a student at Barnard College who had been suspended for her role in violating the school’s rules.

The best encouragement the students received was from President Joe Biden, who, when asked about antisemitism on college campuses, condemned it but then added that he was just as concerned about “those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians.” It was, as Alan Dershowitz and Andrew Stein wrote in The Wall Street Journal, a “very fine people” moment for the president.

That referenced the infamous claim that former President Donald Trump had said that there were some “very fine people” among those who gathered in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017 for the neo-Nazi “Unite the Right” rally. Of course, Trump didn’t say that since he was referencing those who opposed the taking down of Confederate statues, and not Nazis or members of the Ku Klux Klan.

While that distinction was ignored in the media scramble to condemn Trump, Biden is largely getting a pass for his own effort to treat the cause that the antisemitic agitators are supporting as valid. The point being is that much of the media and leftist opinion are treating those yelling slurs at Jews as “very fine people” who are just going a little too far in their advocacy.

In the wake of Columbia University president Minouche Shafik’s ambivalence about enforcing the school’s rules against illegal demonstrations and hate speech, the narrative in the liberal media has again flipped with The New York Times concentrating on what they see as a wrongheaded decision to call in the New York City Police Department to remove the pro-Hamas encampment (though the tents returned the next day). Indeed, the paper’s urban affairs columnist Ginia Bellafante wrote that the main problem isn’t campus antisemitism but the willingness of administrators to punish the antisemites, who she and those reporting in the news section analogized to the anti-Vietnam war and anti-South African apartheid demonstrators of the past.

A movement steeped in ignorance

What is lacking in the coverage and most of the discourse is that—as interviews with them show—most of the students even at a school like Columbia can’t really explain why they are against Israel except by mindlessly repeating slogans about racism and oppression that have nothing to do with the facts on the ground in the Middle East or patent falsehoods about “genocide” in Gaza. They don’t know the history of the conflict and seem to think that Israelis and Jews are, as Palestinian propagandists claim, settler/colonialists in the one country in the world where Jews are, in fact, the indigenous people. Their demands for university divestment from Israel are based on intersectional ideology in which the century-old Arab war to deny Jewish rights is falsely depicted as analogous to the civil-rights movement in the United States.

The ignorance of these young adults is pathetic, as is their absurd cosplaying in which the wearing of keffiyehs has become campus terrorist chic. Lacking their own strong identity, they are adopting one that they perceive will give them some cachet as supporters of an embattled though fashionable cause. But having been spoon-fed the same lies that spawned the BLM movement throughout their educational experience, in which antisemitism has been redefined as progressivism, no one should be surprised by any of this.

Nor should we accept the claim that they are merely demonstrating sympathy for Palestinians or shock at human-rights violations. Far greater losses of life in wars in the Congo or Sudan—and an actual genocide in Western China where Beijing has put an estimated 1 million Muslim Uyghurs in concentration camps—haven’t moved them to utter a single word. If they really were for peace or the theoretical cause of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they would be in favor of eradicating Hamas, which is opposed to any peace that doesn’t involve the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its people.

The sad truth is that massive numbers of students at elite schools and elsewhere have been taught to adopt the Hamas Charter, whether they understand what they are supporting or not. If you think that Zionism—the national liberation movement of the Jewish people—is racism, you are denying rights to Jews that no one would think to deny to anyone else. That is antisemitism. If you are advocating for a ceasefire that would allow Hamas to get away with mass murder, you are supporting Hamas. And if you think Israel is illegitimate and should be destroyed, you are also supporting Hamas terrorists, and their genocidal plans and actions.

Tolerating the intolerable

People who advocate for hateful ideologies—whether they are directed at African-Americans, Jews or anyone else—have a First Amendment right to express their views. But they don’t have a right to be tolerated in educational institutions or treated as principled dissenters in the Times. We all know that there is zero tolerance for neo-Nazis or other right-wing extremist Jew-haters at American universities or in the liberal media. But because these institutions have been captured by woke ideologues and mainstream politicians like Biden fear their wrath, their moral equivalents on the left demonstrating on college campuses to “free Palestine” are tolerated, rationalized, excused and even lauded as heroes. In doing so, we are being asked to tolerate the intolerable.

To be “pro-Palestine” today is not to stand up for oppressed people. To the contrary, it is an expression of solidarity with latter-day Nazis and a willingness to mainstream hatred of the Jewish people, not just Israeli policies. But to condemn them is not enough. The only way to explain what has happened and to do something about it is to roll back the woke tide and purge schools, cultural institutions and the mainstream media of those spreading racialist ideas that foment this toxic hatred. Until the “progressive” ideas at the heart of the problem are dismantled, all the hand-wringing and expressions of concern about campus antisemitism will be meaningless.

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

Columbia U’s President Minouche Shafik Must Resign!

In recent events at Columbia University, a disturbing scenario has unfolded, demonstrating a severe lack of leadership and a troubling indulgence of extremist positions that threaten the very fabric of a respected academic institution. President Minouche Shafik, who initially showed resolve by involving the NYPD to address the occupation by “pro-Palestine” protestors, has since displayed an alarming reversal in stance that raises serious concerns about the administration’s priorities and its commitment to the entire university community.

President Shafik, despite an impressive resume that spans top positions in global institutions such as the Gates Foundation, the London School of Economics, the Bank of England, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, appears ill-equipped to handle the escalating tensions on campus. Her approach to the current crisis—marked by a deference to protestor demands to the detriment of the broader university community—suggests a leadership style that is overly conciliatory and lacking in the decisiveness required in times of institutional crisis.

The rhetoric used by President Shafik in her public statements—expressing sorrow and calling for dialogue and compromise—while noble sounding, fails to address the immediate needs of the university to maintain order and protect its values. It is clear that the protesters are not interested in dialogue; their refusal to engage with the administration’s calls for conversation shows a disregard for compromise. The current administration’s inability to enact more robust measures has only emboldened this faction at the expense of the entire Columbia community.

The escalation of the protest into a more permanent encampment, with participants reportedly adopting openly pro-Hamas rhetoric and issuing dire warnings to Jewish students, represents not just a failure of university policy but an affront to the principles of safety, inclusion, and academic freedom. Such developments are not only unacceptable but deeply troubling in an institution that prides itself on a diverse and open academic environment.

It is particularly concerning that these protestors are being seemingly privileged over other students. The university’s decision to shift entirely to remote learning as a response to the protests unjustly penalizes students who have paid for, and rightly expect, an in-person educational experience. This decision, while perhaps intended as a measure to maintain safety and order, effectively rewards disruptive behavior and sets a dangerous precedent.

Furthermore, the decision to transition to remote classes as a response to the protesters’ threats rather than addressing the root cause of the disruption is a classic example of enforcing what is known as the “heckler’s veto.” This term describes a situation where a speaker’s right to freedom of expression is curtailed to prevent reactions from the heckler. In the context of Columbia, it translates to prioritizing the demands of a loud minority over the rights and needs of the majority of students and faculty who wish to continue their educational and professional activities without interruption.

Moreover, the sidelining of voices like that of Shai Davidai, an Israel-born assistant professor at Columbia’s business school, is emblematic of a larger issue. Reports that his keycard was deactivated under the guise of safety concerns suggest a selective silencing of dissenting views. This is not only a breach of the academic duty to foster dialogue and debate but also a potential violation of individual rights within the university. Every member of the Columbia community should have the right to free movement and free expression within the campus, conditions that are foundational to the academic mission and critical to personal development and intellectual exchange.

For years, Columbia has been at the forefront of academic freedom, a principle that has allowed diverse and often controversial viewpoints to be explored and debated. This freedom is foundational to any institution dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. However, the presence of faculty members who espouse radically anti-Israel sentiments, such as the late Edward Said and, more recently, Professor Joseph Massad and lecturer Kayum Ahmed, raises serious questions about where the line is drawn between academic freedom and the fostering of a hostile environment.

The recent comments by Professor Massad, celebrating violent attacks, and the teachings of lecturer Ahmed, labeling Israel a “colonial settler state,” go beyond the bounds of academic debate and venture into the realm of incitement. These statements do not contribute to understanding or solving the complex issues of the Middle East but rather polarize and radicalize opinions without offering a constructive path forward.

The role of the university is not to serve as an echo chamber for extremist views but to encourage a broad spectrum of opinions where scholarly debate can thrive. This means promoting an environment where differing views are expressed within a framework of respect and understanding, not through the lens of bias and discrimination.

The behavior of students who adopt violent methods of protest and the faculty who support such actions must also be addressed decisively. Academic freedom should not be confused with a license to intimidate or suppress the free speech of others. When the academic environment turns hostile, it not only undermines the principles of free speech and free thought but also betrays the academic mission itself.

This situation at Columbia requires immediate and decisive action. President Shafik and the Columbia administration need to reaffirm their commitment to the entire university community, not just a vocal faction that seems to espouse increasingly radical views. The university should be a beacon of learning and leadership, standing firm against any form of extremism, including anti-Semitism, which has no place in an institution of higher learning or anywhere else in society.

What Columbia needs now is not a leader who stands by as essential values are trampled upon but one who can assert authority and restore order. The role of a university president is not just to promote dialogue but also to uphold the law and ensure the safety and well-being of all students and staff. This includes making difficult decisions, such as involving law enforcement to clear unlawful encampments and taking disciplinary actions against those who disrupt the academic and social order, be they students or faculty.

The call for President Shafik’s resignation is a stark indication of the need for new leadership—a leadership that understands the profound responsibility of managing one of the world’s leading universities and upholding the principles of justice and equality unequivocally. This change, however drastic, may be necessary to restore trust and ensure the safety and academic integrity of Columbia University. It is time for Columbia to reclaim its place as an institution not only of learning but of moral courage and inclusive values.