American Colleges’ and Universities’ Stance on the Israel-Hamas War: Will Antisemitism, Morals or Money Prevail?

Like many who have been following the Israel-Hamas War, I was both surprised and disturbed at how quickly some in the U.S. looked straight past the massacre of October 7^th to protest on behalf of the terrorists who perpetrated it. With the blood of the butchered Israelis scarcely dry, demonstrators were out in force in cities and college campuses across the U.S., praising Hamas as heroes and condemning Israel as the villain. A strong response from Israel was still in the works, but expected, given the unparalleled brutality of the massacre. Hamas certainly expected it. Indeed, forcing their fellow Gazans into the role of human shields is part of their time-tested strategy. Yet if the protestors seemed oddly untroubled by Hamas’ disregard for the lives of Gazan civilians, their attitude towards the murdered and kidnapped Israelis was far less sympathetic. According to the pro-Hamas student protestors and some of their instructors, the attack was legitimate resistance, and Israel was entirely to blame for everything. This from students and faculty at some of our most esteemed institutions of higher learning. How did we get here?

College Activism

College campuses in the United States have long been at the center of anti-war protests. Aside from outliers who simply want to sow chaos and incite violence, student protestors typically demonstrate for or against causes: issues that go with or against their political and ideological views, and engage their interest sufficiently to motivate them to some form of action. These views are influenced by multiple factors, including one’s personal experiences, political affiliations, cultural traditions and, for those who go on to a secondary education, university faculty and administration shaping their young minds. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum maintains an extensive digital archive of campus newspaper articles, letters and other correspondence from various colleges and universities throughout the 1930s-1940s. This correspondence reveals that campuses with a religious affiliation tended to be more sympathetic towards sufferers of Nazi racism and antisemitism. These include Jewish Theological Seminary in NYC, Swarthmore College, Muhlenberg College, and Morehouse College. Others showed an apparent indifference to the impact of Nazism, including University of Illinois, Harvard and Yale. Tellingly, it was the positions taken by Harvard and Yale 80-plus years ago that still resonate today.

The Ivy League’s Antisemitic Past

In 1936, Harvard’s president, James Conant sent a letter to Charles Singer, a professor at the University College of London, to justify Harvard’s participating in the 550^th anniversary of the University of Heidelberg (a historic German University). This event was widely viewed as a Nazi propaganda event staged for the international community. Professor Singer, and others, were boycotting the event. However, Dr. Conant made his position – shared by Yale and Columbia – clear. He stated: “I believe that if one allows political, racial, or religious matters to enter into a question of continuing academic and scientific relations one is headed down the path which leads to terrible prejudices and absurd actions taken by scientists and universities during the World War [i.e. WWI] . . . We shall welcome the German scholars here as scholars whether they be Nazis in their hearts or not. We shall welcome the Italians here even if they be Fascists which, from my point of view, is equally objectionable. We shall welcome the Rector of the University of Heidelberg in spite of his Nazism and as representative of an ancient university.” According to Dr. Conant, Harvard, Yale and Columbia all believed that race, religion and political ideologies should NOT be conflated with academic education and science. They welcomed everyone, including overt Nazis and Fascists. Everyone except Jews that is.

The “Undesirables”

In the early 20^th century, America’s most eminent colleges and universities, including Dartmouth, Yale and Harvard, sought a legal way to keep the “undesirables” – namely Catholics and Jews – from finding their way into the Ivy League. Up until that time, preferred applicants were predominately white Presbyterian males from very wealthy families. University administrators, many of whom had personal biases toward Jews, or at least were well-attuned to the biases of wealthy patrons and tuition-paying parents, sought to establish valid ways to limit Jewish acceptance. As a result, various obstacles were devised to “legitimately” exclude Jews; “social clubs, sports organizations, prep schools . . . letters of recommendation, in-person interviews and psychological testing” served as convenient filtering mechanisms. In 1922, Robert Corwin, Yale’s Admission Chairman wrote: “There seems to be no question that the University as a whole has about all of this race [i.e., Jews] that it can well handle . . . members of this race . . . graduate from college as alien in morals and manners as they were upon admission.” These comments were made in spite of the intellectual and academic achievements of Jewish students. Harvard, Columbia, Tufts and Rutgers soon followed suit. Some established quotas for Jewish students, while others added on additional requirements aimed at limiting Jewish enrollment. All had their foundation in antisemitism.

Yale’s Antisemitic Past

Yale’s antisemitic practices and beliefs emanated from the top down. In 1939, after Germany invaded Poland, a group of Yale students wrote Charles Lindbergh requesting that he speak at Yale to argue in favor of US neutrality in the face of Hitler’s aggression. Lindbergh, a revered national hero, was by that time an outspoken isolationist and admirer of the Nazis who opposed the US’s involvement in the war in Europe. As a proponent of eugenics who believed in the superiority of the white race, he singled out the Jews as manipulators of the media who were trying to drag the US into the war. He was also a close friend of Henry Ford, who had for years published a deeply antisemitic newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. With all this as public knowledge at the time, Lindbergh accepted the students’ invitation, and spoke at Yale later the following year. Unsurprisingly, it was Yale University where the “America First Committee” (AFC) was established in September of 1940. AFC was a political isolationist and advocacy group known for its prominent antisemitic members, that opposed aid to US allies during WWII. It amassed roughly 800,000 members from its 450 chapters prior to disbanding in 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Historical Wars

Given that the interbellum between WWI and WWII was less than 21 years, college students in the 1920’s through the early 1940’s might be excused for failing to imagine how easily nations could slide into a second world war, much less appreciate growing signs that it was already beginning to happen. Looking back, they might have argued that hindsight is 20/20, and it wasn’t so easy to recognize at the time (although many did). But even if that were true then, no such failure of imagination can serve as an excuse for the college students of today. WWI, WWII, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, along with the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, each serve as glaring historical bookends, from early rumblings to bloody conclusion, for what is possible and where things may now be headed. The genocide of Armenians (in WWI) and Jews, Romanis, Poles, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Afro-Germans and people with disabilities (in WWII) have all been thoroughly documented and preserved in newspaper archives, such as the NY Times’ TimesMachine, and libraries around the world.

I get it. We all get it. Most young men and women fear risking their lives in a war; especially for a cause they may not agree with or be fully informed about, in a conflict taking place an ocean away. Wars and the uncertainty, death, disease and famine they bring do not appear likely to end any time soon. Worse, methods used in warfare have significantly advanced in their destructive potential from WWI (human-wave infantry assaults, trenches and primitive tanks) to today (self-guided missiles, unmanned aircraft, next-generation rifles, etc.), making for more severe devastation and casualties. At the same time, we currently have one war in Eastern Europe and another in the Middle East, both of which threaten to spread, along with rising regional tensions fueled by racist hate speech and misinformation, to an extent not seen since the 1930s. The consequences and incentives for avoiding further war today are greater than they have ever been. Considering how badly the isolationist, racist-appeasing mindset of the 1930s worked out, it is far more treacherous to revert to such thinking in today’s deeply interconnected world. It turns out that things far away that you don’t know much about really can hit you badly later on, if allowed to fester long enough. We need to arm ourselves with facts over propaganda in order to win battles in the domain of ideas and information, before they metastasize into battles with guns and bombs. It is perhaps no coincidence that college campuses are one place where we have seen this battle of ideas erupt into full view with breathtaking speed. College students may be young adults, but they are still highly impressionable (i.e. “moldable”), a fact of which Hamas and other bad actors are well aware. The grown adults responsible for the education of their young charges are supposed to know better. The fact that some clearly do not know better is a rude but essential wake-up call. If our campuses are at all a barometer for how the battle of facts against propaganda is going, we ignore it at our peril.

Unabashed Support for Hamas – a Terrorist Organization

WWII was a war of ideologies; primarily democracy against genocidal authoritarianism, fueled by the singling out of people deemed subhuman (predominately Jews). It is simply unfathomable that administrators, professors and students on America’s college campuses today – intellectuals and people of learning – appear to evince not only a fundamental denial of the humanity of a group they disfavor, but also unabashed support for a terrorist organization that rapes, beheads and burns civilians alive, including women and children. This same organization is the one that launched the seminal attack that initiated the current war. Which group is this? It is not the Palestinian National Security Forces, but rather their bitter rival, Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. It is noteworthy that Hamas’ original 1988 charter includes the following: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” Although the wording has been modified in the decades since, their fundamental position and mission has not shifted. It is Hamas’ position that Jews are the world’s enemies, behind all of the world’s wars. Moreover, it is their viewpoint that, “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them.” Hamas not only wishes to destroy Israel, but also rejects any and all negotiated peace settlements or treaties, a position that they still hold today. The dangerous implications of this stance appear to be lost upon not only some of today’s college students, but more surprisingly, upon professors and administrators as well. It bears repeating: Hamas’ charter explicitly rejects any negotiated peace settlement with Israel. What meaning, then, has any call for peace with such a “partner”? Yet this is the group that is finding such a receptive audience amongst students and faculty on campuses across the US.

Similarities Between Hamas and the Viet Cong

In building their operation, Hamas had copious past sources of inspiration to draw upon. Among these were the ruthless but ultimately effective Viet Cong of the Vietnam War era. In 1967, The Rand Corporation prepared a report entitled, “Some Observations of Viet Cong Operations in the Villages“ for The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense /International Security Affairs and the Advanced Research Projects Agency. The 200-plus pages are based on “examination of approximately 200 extended interviews” with villagers or those familiar with village life: defectors from the Viet Cong, and military or civilian captives or refugees. Captured documents, statements by military authorities in Saigon, and corroboration from parallel, but separate studies were also used to confirm observations.

Persuasion, social equality, and escape from personal problems were the first lines of recruitment employed by the Viet Cong. If these failed to win over a subject, they would escalate by “destroying his identity card, thus making him an ‘illegal person’ in the eyes of the government.” The Viet Cong used “assassination and other forms of terror and intimidation” against local authorities, and killed nonpolitical villagers “to demonstrate that nobody is safe unless he cooperates.” Entire villages were restructured. Village Administrative Committees were established, including those responsible for “propaganda, finance, security, military affairs, and sometimes other functions.” The goal of these committees was to control every aspect of the villagers’ lives; to keep them in the dark, while watching their every move. Propaganda was essential to the oppression imposed on the villagers. The Viet Cong’s messages were spread everywhere: through “information houses,” postings on walls and trees, and by broadcast on Viet Cong controlled radio stations. Most importantly however, the “themes most heavily stressed [were] hatred of the Americans and the Saigon government.” To enforce compliance, “the Viet Cong use a wide range of pressures and punishments, including admonition, public humiliation, ‘re-education,’ and death.” The report added that “the death penalty may be invoked against informers, government intelligence agents, recaptured defectors, ‘reactionaries,’ and exceptionally stubborn villagers.”

Sadly, the Viet Cong were not the first to implement such bloodthirsty strategies and tactics. The Nazis did it before them, and Hamas is avidly following in their footsteps today. But of all these atrocities, it is Hamas’s and the Viet Cong’s mastery of the use of human shields that the two groups have most in common. Geneva Conventions I, II, III and IV and “Additional protocols” all condemn the use of human shields. The Conventions define human shields as civilians and “protected persons” who are “used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations.” Yet Hamas, like the Viet Cong, hide amongst the very people they claim to be defending. It shows how little Hamas actually cares about the lives of the Palestinian people who are under their supposed protection.

Modern Urban Warfare

The Telegraph published an insightful article about modern urban warfare and the battlefield advantages it presents – both militarily and politically – to an unprincipled enemy. Those who study warfare (apparently with the exception of elite American colleges) recall the excruciating building-by-building bloodbaths of Stalingrad, Hue City, Fallujah, Bakhmut and Mariupol. King’s College London’s David Betz, Professor of War in the Modern World, observes that “the sight of obliterated cities is very psychologically jarring to people, and it takes very little effort to reduce a modern building into a state of shambles. The irony is that from a military point of view, a destroyed building can be more useful than an intact one.” Col Richard Kemp, a 29-year veteran of the British Army, notes that even with the use of precision weapons and drones, nothing minimizes the fact that “Fighting building to building [is] characterized by heavy casualty rates, high rates of ammunition expenditure and problems with logistics.” Elliot Ackerman, a US Marine, led a platoon of 46 Marines in the Second Battle of Fallujah in Iraq in November 2004. Ackerman notes the parallels between Gaza and the battles in Falluja. After “shutting off” Fallujah and reaching an agreement with the Iraqis to take control, Al-Qaeda took over instead. “It became clear that everything bad in the insurgency in that area was coming out of Fallujah. We had to go back in.” Like the Israelis in Gaza, the US also made a concerted effort to warn civilians to leave the city. Unlike Al-Qaeda however, Hamas actively discourages, and even prevents civilians from evacuating. Hamas’s desire, as always, is to use their own civilians – not prisoners of war, nor even kidnapped hostages, but their own people – as human shields, a violation of the Geneva Convention. Ackerman further details how their previous training in close-quarters battle was useless. The Marines quickly realized that fighting against an enemy who would deliberately “set themselves into suicidal positions [with] no avenue of escape” required a change in strategy and tactics. Capture of enemy combatants was no longer the imperative; killing them was. However, just as the Marines adapted their tactics, so too did Al Qaeda. Insurgents would quickly machine gun the first Marine to enter a house and then drag him inside, knowing full well that the Marines would not leave a comrade behind. This protected the insurgents’ position from demolition by bulldozing or heavy shelling.

Ackerman believes that as with Al-Qaeda, the brutal fighting and resulting graphic images that come out of urban warfare are “why Hamas wants to fight in the city . . . it levels the playing field and creates horrific scenarios . . . a lot of horrible images coming out of these battles, doubly so if civilians are there.” Akerman’s advice to Netanyahu and Israeli generals – “Prepare to have really harrowing images coming out of Gaza, and understand that is going to quickly erode the political capital that exists for this [war].”  Hamas is well aware and familiar with what Akerman is saying. They are relying on Israel to chip away at their own political capital as more and more images make their way around the internet. These images, first disseminated by Hamas itself, were subsequently picked up by the mainstream press and quickly spread via social media. After a few days passed, the atrocities of Oct 7 (beheadings, rapes, burnings, killings and kidnappings of civilians, including women and children) committed by Hamas no longer seemed to matter.

American University Faculty and Students’ Pro-Palestinian Protests

Annex I of this article contains a sampling of some of the university-sanctioned events that have taken place since the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack on Israel. Also included are “pearls of wisdom” extolled by faculty and administrators, along with actions that border on criminality against Jewish students. The list is by no means exhaustive. These examples clearly demonstrate that Hamas’ well-established propaganda playbook is successfully garnering the support of Americans, especially faculty and students at America’s elite universities. How is this possible? Faculty and students from these universities are supposed to be among the best and brightest that the US has to offer. Yet at best, all we are seeing is a selective recall of history, and at worst, a total disregard or utter ignorance of it. What does that say about the current educational offerings at these illustrious universities? Hamas’ propaganda machine, like Hitler’s in Nazi Germany, has been a huge success.

Indeed, like Nazi Germany, Hamas seeks their own version of a “final solution” to their Jewish problem. This is clearly outlined in their original 1988 “Covenant of the Hamas” and their updated 2017 version. With such a conspicuous acknowledged purpose, the rape, beheadings, burnings, murder and kidnapping of innocent civilians should warrant an immediate condemnation by university faculty and administrators. The reality that it hasn’t indicates that there is something terribly wrong. When pro-Palestinian protests turn antisemitic in both actions and words, and Professors express “exhilaration” at the death of Israeli citizens, and university administrators defend those actions as “free speech,” there is something terribly wrong. When students in a college dormitory are told there is no space or place for them if they support Israel, there is something terribly wrong. When Jewish college students are forced to blockade themselves in a college library, compelling a librarian to offer them refuge in an attic, only to be led out through tunnels by campus security, there is something terribly wrong. When Jewish students are physically blocked from attending class, staff are harassed in their offices for being Jewish, classes are repeatedly interrupted with pro-Palestinian chants, and a student group calls for an “intifada,” there is something terribly wrong. When free speech turns to hate speech, and the FBI needs to be called in, there is something terribly wrong. Rather than using these incidents as teachable moments, are these university administrators so devoid of leadership skills, afraid of upsetting the status quo, and the progressive liberal ideologies that they have cultivated on their campuses over the past several decades, that they are incapable of helping their students develop a moral compass, let alone character? Rather, they affirm that these elite universities have changed very little from the 1920’s-1940’s. They remain firmly complicit in racism, valuing virtue-signaling over educating their impressionable students on the realities of antisemitism.

Education is Replaced by Platitudes

Have any of these universities felt the need to hold seminars or discussions about world history, especially Middle-Eastern history? Has anyone reminded the pro-Palestinian protestors about the Battle of Gaza (2007), in which the Palestinian unity government violently tore itself apart amidst a brutal power struggle between Hamas and Fatah, culminating in Hamas expelling a bloodied Fatah and gaining control of the Gaza strip? Have they pointed out how Hamas lit the fuse with, among other things, their forthright rejection of the Road Map to peace, the Oslo Accords, and indeed any renunciation of violence whatsoever? Have these educators troubled to mention that in so doing, Hamas slammed the door on much-needed financial and material assistance for the Gazans from the EU, US and other parties? All supposedly, Hamas claimed, in the interest of the well-being of the Gazan people. The unspoken result? The Gazans are severed from their West Bank brethren, and have been yet again volunteered by their “protectors” as involuntary martyrs before the ready gaze of the international media. All for their own good.

Appropriate Use of Terminology

Do these university students really need to be reminded who Hamas is? Laurel Fletcher, co-director of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at the University of California Berkely, told Vox reporters, “Hamas does not follow the laws of war . . . using human shields and concealing their operations in civilian infrastructure in Gaza – blurring the lines between a legitimate military target and areas that must be protected under IHL [International Humanitarian Law] – as well as deliberately killing and kidnapping Israeli civilians.” Moreover, Fletcher, like other academics, stresses that the appropriate use of terminology, such as the phrase “colonizer” – not Hamas’ propagandized version of it – is essential when discussing Israel, Palestine and Hamas. Alan Dowty, Professor Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame and a scholar of Jewish and Israeli studies, notes that Israel does not resemble the classical model of European settler colonialism. For one thing, there was “no mother country of which the settlers were an extension.” Indeed, Dowty estimates that at least 80 percent of the settlers “first from Russia, and later from elsewhere, generally fit the accepted definition of refugees who were escaping persecution.” And rather than constructing a satellite operation from which to exploit locals and siphon plundered goods and resources back to some distant, indifferent motherland, these settlers were looking to start a country of their own in a land with which they had ancient ties going back millennia. Dowty does not seek to dismiss the long record of very real issues between the Israeli settlers and those “with their own valid historical ties, in the same territory,” but he argues that a serious conversation on the conflict cannot begin with misapplied examples. One would expect academics and students of history and society, of anyone, to appreciate the importance of this. Sadly however, it appears all too easy for cartoonishly simplistic good-guy/bad-guy labels to masquerade as the currency of intellectual discourse.

Such labels also conveniently – and not incidentally – intersect with the “otherization” of Israelis as not only territorial interlopers, but also as members of that unsavory race: the Jews. In this centuries-old trope, the Jew is eternally the “other,” the inscrutable outsider with malicious designs upon “regular” people (i.e., non-Jews). And in one stroke, Israelis are twice-othered: first as supposed foreigners, second for the purported sin of their Jewishness itself. This modernized caricature stretches from 1860’s France, through the utterly fabricated “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” of Czarist Russia, through the crazed rantings of the Third Reich, and straight through to the college campuses of today, where Hamas’s propaganda is credulously received, consumed and metabolized. This fictious portrayal of Jews fits neatly with Hamas’ attempts at the villainization of Israel. In their telling, Israel is not only the sole aggressor but the greedy, malevolent “Jew” aggressor, the perfect incendiary boost for their rhetoric. Lock up your children, for The Jew is coming to drain their blood. Never mind that Jews have never done any such thing, while Hamas did far worse on October 7. To loudly accuse their intended victims (Jews, as a group) of the crimes they themselves commit is an old, old trick of political misdirection. Yet somehow, despite it all, supposedly enlightened people on our campuses remain fooled, impervious to this irony.

That said, the label of antisemitism has often been misapplied in attempts to stifle legitimate critiques of Israel. But as Jonathan Greenblatt, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League notes, “undoubtedly, one can criticize Israel’s leaders and actions without being antisemitic.” To reflexively label all critiques of Israel – even by fellow Jews – as antisemitic is misplaced and destructive. Equally misplaced, misleading or just plain lazy is the false claim that both sides shoulder equal shares of moral blame in the conflict. Objectively, they do not. Israel’s military doctrine does not remotely resemble that of Hamas. Israel does not set out to bomb civilians, but rather military targets that Hamas purposely surrounds with civilians. Are Israelis to stand and be shot at while Hamas fires (literally) over the heads of its own people? Even the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF’s) worst errors, both alleged and acknowledged, are considered just that: errors, incompatible with their doctrine. Meanwhile, Hamas deliberately employs terroristic methods including beheading, throat-slitting, disembowelment and worse, and celebrates every instance of their use with jubilation. These are no errors, no violations of Hamas’s military doctrine, but indeed a very feature of it. And they weep for the chance to do more. None of this matters to the dead on either side, of course, and it is understandable that some in the public are susceptible to a blurring of distinctions. But those in academia are expected to know better, and not simply regurgitate Hamas’s propaganda.

Hamas – Gaza – and the Middle East

Vox’s Nicole Narea and Ellen Ioanes remind us that, “Since Hamas took power in 2007, Israel (with the help of Egypt) has imposed a blockade on the territory that some human rights groups say amounts to an ongoing occupation that carries legal responsibilities.” However, while Israel does in fact restrict Palestinian movement into their territory, understandably for security reasons, so too does Egypt, along with Hamas. And to the extent that Israel bears some culpability in the current plight of the Palestinians living in Gaza, so too do Egypt and the other Arab countries. All find it useful to keep the pressure on Israel, while wanting little to do with Palestinians for fear of compounding their own refugee woes, inflaming tensions with Iran, and compromising their security. Then again, so too is culpability shared by the Gazans themselves who, after all, elected a terrorist group to “govern” them.

Arab Countries’ Social Contract Failures

So, why is it that Israel seems like such an easy lightning rod for all the Middle East’s troubles? In 2016 Hedi Larbi, a visiting professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, organized a group of international scholars who participated in a series of discussions that culminated in the publication “Rewriting the Arab Social Contract.” The scholars discuss the historical, political, economic and social factors that have in the past, and to this very day, continue to shape the Middle East. They note that like many other regions of the world, the Middle East has experienced several periods of significant upheaval and transition (most recently the Arab Spring uprisings of 2010-2012). Unlike Western countries however, the Middle East remains largely undemocratic, with various Arab elite regimes ruling over their respective citizens. The discontent experienced by Arab citizens is the result of years of “ignored economic reforms in favor of politics and power grabbing” which has resulted in a significant deterioration in “economic and social indicators.” The scholars advocate for new social contracts, i.e., a contract between a government and its people detailing what each side agrees to provide the other.  Health, education, employment opportunities, social welfare, security, and women’s rights are examples of things governments often provide. In return, the citizens typically agree to abide by such things as taxation and obeying the authority of the state. However, the present discontent in many Arab countries stems from the fact that the social contracts in place through the 1980’s are no longer economically sustainable (free access to most public services, along with food and energy subsidies), while financial and structural reforms enacted to revive their economies have not produced a sufficient return. As a result, unemployment skyrocketed in the Arab countries; a trend that continues to this day. A lack of reforms and accountability by the ruling elites, along with a failure to develop a thriving private sector (as done in Israel and other Western countries) are often to blame. Furthermore, the high barriers to entry set by the Arab ruling elites for foreign investment limit the availability of outside capital, thereby contributing to the region’s instability.

Mustapha Kamel Nabli (Former Chief Economist and Director, World Bank Middle East and North Africa Division and Former Governor, Central Bank of Tunisia), one of the scholars participating in Harvard’s “Rewriting the Arab Social Contract,” discussed “the negative effects of Arab political transition on economic and social indicators.” Unfortunately, in conjecturing on the future, Nabli didn’t have a rosy outlook: “Elites have remained entrenched and the political power balance shows no signs of tipping toward meaningful reform . . . the old social contract has yet to be fully dismantled or changed.” Poverty and unemployment remain high, especially among women and youth. Radicalism is increasing while law enforcement is decreasing, contributing to increased insecurity. However, the Arab ruling elite and their businesses remain unimpacted.

What’s the End Goal for Palestinians?

So, given the dismal socio-economic record of Israel’s neighbors, what exactly is it that America’s pro-Palestinian protestors are protesting for? Some, like Hamas itself, would like to see Israel gone. Should that actually happen, precisely what would be left? Along with the nation of Israel itself, all its advances in medicine and technology would also cease to exist. There would no longer be the jobs for Palestinians that Israeli businesses provided. The social contract that Israel had with its citizens, and by extension those living or working in Israel, would also be gone. There is zero evidence that “Palestine from the river to the sea,” likely governed by the terrorist group Hamas, would have any better social contract with its citizens than any other Arab country. In fact, they may very well have even worse fiscal and structural growth. It is no wonder none of the surrounding Arab countries want Palestinian refugees – they simply don’t have the capacity (monetarily, structurally or socially) to accept them.

How Dare Israel Normalize Relations with Neighboring Arab Countries

Equally important is the timing of Hamas’ attack. Over the last several years, Israel was beginning to “normalize” diplomatic relationships with neighboring Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia. Israel, sometimes in spite of itself, was moving forward. This was not at all well received by Hamas or its sponsor, Iran. How dare Israel succeed while other Arab countries falter?

The Return of Colonized Land – Here, There and Everywhere?

The last few weeks have shown us that advocating for the “death of Israel,” antisemitism, supporting the actions of terrorists, along with the false narrative that Hamas is a liberation movement fighting settler-colonialism, has apparently become commonplace on American campuses. University administrators and faculty, for their part, have been enabling their students’ naïve and historically ill-informed expressions in the name of free speech, rather than educating them on historic geopolitical and socioeconomic facts. Israel is an easy target. How about the US? How likely is it that the US is going to return all of its colonized land to the Native Americans? That would require everyone, including university administrators, faculty, students and their families and friends, to freely give up any land they currently “own” to the Native American tribes who were long ago forced onto reservations. The illusion of truth and moral high road that these students, faculty and administrators espouse would quickly devolve into civil unrest, because the vast majority of Americans would not be so willing to give up their homes and businesses or pay the equivalent in taxes and reparations to the Tribes. A change in political power would also be inevitable. After all, what would the current political parties be protecting and securing? The job would fall to whomever the Native Americans put in charge of the land formerly known as the United States. This scenario is just as improbable as requiring Israelis to give up land that for the most part was not acquired through some nefarious process of “colonization,” but captured in counteroffensives after Israel was invaded by five Arab states in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948.

China and Apple – Two Elephants on the World Stage

Better yet, why aren’t these same students, faculty and administrators regularly protesting against China, who has ruthlessly oppressed the people of Hong Kong, while constantly menacing Taiwan with displays of military force, and threatening them with invasion? China has also repeatedly been accused of genocide and crimes against humanity when it comes to the Uyghurs, forcing many into a vast network of “re-education” (i.e., concentration) camps, and have even gone so far as to unilaterally “claim swathes of neighboring territory?” So where is the outrage over China? Where? Is it so deeply suppressed in the collective consciousness of American academics that they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the truth? Why? Because China is so woven into the fabric of these universities’ endowments and research institutes that they dare not allow their broken Chinese moral compass to be repaired. Similarly, how many of these students, faculty and administrators use Apple Products – iPhone, iPads, Macs, and AirPods, 95% of which are manufactured in China? Lest we not forget when workers at an Apple plant in Zhengzhou, capital of the Chinese province Henan, protested over reneged promises (on pay and living conditions). The solution: have security forces disband the protestors and offer them “roughly two months of wages, to quit and leave the site altogether.” There is no negotiation in China. There is no negotiation with Apple. Despite all the egregiousness, both China’s and Apple’s behavior remains unchecked. Just ask news show host John Stewart who, rather than be censored by Apple over planned coverage of China, artificial intelligence and Israel, left Apple TV+. Where are American universities’ protestors on China? Their silence is deafening!

The Trickle-Down Effect of Antisemitism

One of the most disheartening aspects of the rise in antisemitic hate speech that has surfaced since October 7^th is how quickly it has begun to permeate the lives of students and impact their psychological state. We have seen numerous examples of emotional outbursts from college faculty and students. Such behavior has, sadly, trickled down to vulnerable middle school students. Jewish students at a public middle school in Manhattan Beach, California were subject to verbal attacks by a fellow student. Comments such as, “revenge is beautiful” and “all Israelis and Jews should be killed,” were hurled at the Jewish middle-schoolers, both in and out of class. A school investigation discovered “vicious anti-Israel/antisemitic social media posts by the student’s father.” As a result, the school concluded the child’s behavior was “politically motivated” and therefore somehow not hate speech. Even more disgraceful, however, was that the Jewish students who were subjected to the attacks, along with their parents, were asked to sign a gag order (which the school termed a “No Contact Contract”) stating that they would not talk to anyone in school, out of school, or on social media. It would appear that Manhattan Beach Unified School District (MBUSD) either missed, or has chosen to selectively implement, the national and international antibullying campaign recommendations that have been in place for the last few decades: Stopbullying.gov, Stomp Out Bullying: End the Hate – Change the Culture, Pacer’s National Bullying Prevention Center, and others. One of the core tenets that these organizations teach is “How to take action: Tell someone you trust.” They remind students that bullies rely on their victims to remain silent, so that the bullying behavior can continue free of consequences. As a result, literature from Pacer.org states, “As difficult as it might be, it’s important to connect with someone and share what you are going through.” Pacer recommends victims speak with their parents, a trusted adult, or at the very least a friend. It would appear MBUSD believes these experts’ recommendations apply to all except for Jewish students.

The Rabbi of the congregation that three of the four female students who were verbally attacked belonged to reported the following: “I have our students coming up to me saying ‘I don’t feel comfortable wearing a Jewish star at school,’ or a T-shirt they got on a trip to Israel. They’ve asked their parents to take down their mezuzah from their door post because they don’t want to be identified as a Jewish family.” The Jewish saying “Never Again” expresses the widely held conviction among Jews that they must never again allow themselves to become victims as they did in WWII. They “would fight before enduring any threat.” Maybe the other axiom, “Never say never,” is more applicable. After all, when Jewish schoolgirls in America fear for their and their families’ safety so much so that they request the mezuzah be removed from the door post, something is terribly amiss, and all too reminiscent of Nazi Germany some 80+ years ago.

The Impact Emotions Play in Our Socio-Political Lives

In an attempt to understand the apparent disregard of facts (both historical and present-day) by so many pro-Palestinian students on US college campuses with regard to Israel, it’s worth looking at the work of Arlie Hochschild, professor emerita of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. Professor Hochschild conducted a specific type of qualitative sociological research known as “participant observation,” a technique used by Richard Fenno in his shadowing of members of congress and Congressional Committees. Like Fenno, Hochschild’s research was in the political realm, but with a different purpose. Hochschild sought to understand the social impact that emotions play in the socio-political lives of people with vastly different political viewpoints than her own. Hochschild is a progressive liberal who was seeking to understand the far-Right Tea Party movement gaining prominence in the United States around 2011. Her research stressed the importance of getting to know the other side. In discussing her book Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right with Kristen Tippett as part of the Civil Conversations Project, Hochschild explains: “what we try to debate as issues in our social and political lives – are felt, not merely factual.” In other words, we don’t realize that many supposedly fact-driven debates are in reality driven by emotions and experienced as personal attacks, which leads to people walking away angrier and more dug into their positions than before, not less so. She stressed listening to the other side is not “capitulating,” rather it supports one’s emotional intelligence – a skill that bolsters one’s ability to comprehend radically different viewpoints, including those that are manipulative and misleading. She underscores that being emotional and rational can coexist.

Scaling the Empathy Wall

Hochschild left her Berkeley bubble and headed to Lake Charles, Louisiana, a firmly red constituency. She spent five years getting to know the people of Lake Charles in depth; understanding their “deep story,” a phrase she coined to represent “what you feel about a highly salient situation that’s very important to you.” Deep stories live independently of facts and moral precepts. They are simply “felt,” and often told through metaphors. However, the phrase she is most notably accredited with is “empathy wall,” which she described as, “an obstacle to deep understanding of another person, one that can make us feel indifferent or even hostile to those who hold different beliefs or whose childhood is rooted in different circumstances.” The goal is to scale the empathy wall, and in so doing appreciate the other person’s reality and point of view. One need not agree with it, they simply need to be understanding of it.

Hochschild developed a deep story for the Lake Charles Tea Party voters – older, white, predominately male Christians without college degrees – to help explain the feelings behind their political vote. They used to find themselves somewhere in the middle of America’s socioeconomic status categories. However, they now find themselves skipped over by those they once stood in front of (affirmative action recipients, women, immigrants, refugees, environmentalists, etc.). These voters feel excluded by liberals from the supposed benefits of liberal policies, which have been reserved for a few favored groups. They see “A counter-revolutionary backlash . . . [that] has rejected the displacement of traditional family values by post-industrial values.” Conversely, liberals “dismiss the rejection of orthodox progressive ‘feeling rules’ as mere prejudice and intolerance that, in itself, arguably displays a lack of empathy with those in insecure employment, low wages and little social protection. They just don’t seem able to understand the mood of communities or the existence of specific feeling. Those on the left seem (bizarrely) unable to scale the empathy wall.”

Applying Professor Hochschild’s concepts to pro-Palestinian protestors may help in better understanding the perceived social inequalities that protestors view between Palestinians and Israeli citizens. However, in order for any substantive dialogue to take place, both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli supporters need to bridge their respective empathy walls. Both sides need to recognize the other’s challenges and life inequalities if there is to be any hope for rational political discourse.  

The Failure of American Universities to Provide a True Liberal Arts Education

While Hochschild’s concepts are applicable to the average American and students, learned faculty and administration should be capable of separating fact from emotion. This is particularly important in all aspects of research, where objectivity is crucial to the veracity and reproducibility of results.  According to ThoughtCo.com, “A liberal arts education emphasizes the development of critical thinking and analytical skills, the ability to solve complex problems, and an understanding of ethics and morality, as well as a desire to continue to learn.” The examples set forth by the faculty and administration of some of America’s finest elite liberal arts colleges seem to have woefully failed in their denouncement of terrorism and antisemitism. They not only minimize the impact that the words and actions of students and faculty have on their Jewish students, but they rationalize them in the name of free speech. Worse, they have dragged their feet in investigating professors who clearly overstepped the moral and ethical line in their unwavering support of the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack on Israeli citizens (See Annex I). To the surprise of no one, the intimidation of Jews continues to surge on American college and university campuses. Detestable rhetoric has escalated to potential hate crimes, necessitating the assistance of the FBI (at Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania). How many more Jewish students at America’s prestigious colleges and universities need to endure such harassment before school administrators open their eyes to what is happening on their very own campuses? Do we really need actions similar to those committed by Hamas terrorists, to take place on one of America’s finest university campuses before administrators realize that a reckoning of the parameters of what constitutes “free speech” is warranted? Or should all American colleges and universities either unable, or unwilling to take action against reported acts of antisemitism be required to state: “This university does not consider antisemitism by students, faculty or administration to be objectionable. We consider it free speech, and will only act if a Jewish student’s life is truly threatened or they are killed.”

Upon review of the examples provided in Annex I, you may believe that some of the words and actions, while not reaching the level of hate speech, must at least have violated the colleges’ code of conduct and ethics, necessitating some sort of penalty (suspension, notation on student record, etc.). Sadly, you would be mistaken. Consequences for both students and faculty consisted largely of forced apologies, full of insincere platitudes from both students and faculty, and in some cases silence on the part of university presidents until pressed by students, donors or the media. In disbelief, various leaders of the corporate world have taken it upon themselves to take action. They are giving students a lesson in how the real world works – you know, life after college.

Universities’ Failure to Educate Requires Corporate America to Intervene

Employees in the real world (including recent and soon-to-be recent graduates) are not immune to reprimand or firing for microaggressions or toxic behavior. Why? Because toxic employees have the potential to impact employee morale and productivity, leading to high employee turnover, which ultimately impacts the company’s bottom line. Antisemitism, like other forms of harassment and discrimination that creep into a company’s culture can be devastating, and the most successful CEO’s and C-suite employees know this. It is not surprising therefore, that more than a dozen law firms were signatories to a letter sent to the deans of law schools across the US. The letter warned that antisemitism, in any form, would not be tolerated at their firms. Furthermore, they stated, “as employers who recruit from each of your law schools, we look to you to ensure your students who hope to join our firms after graduation are prepared to be an active part of workplace communities that have zero tolerance policies for any form of discrimination or harassment, much less the kind that has been taking place on some law school campuses.”

The fact that anyone (students, faculty and administration) did not have the foresight to even consider that employers from various sectors would withdraw job offers, or blacklist any student who incomprehensibly justified, or attempted to rationalize, the beheading, burning, raping, kidnapping and murdering of innocent Israeli citizens, is testament to the disconnect between the culture on today’s college campuses, and reality. Has the meaning and purpose of a “liberal arts” education changed so much that its value is on the decline? Are employers now tasked with the job of teaching new graduates civility, tolerance, respect and how to conduct themselves in the workplace? If so, associate degrees from technical and community colleges may be increasingly in demand, and would be more fiscally prudent for students and their parents. No one needs to pay tens of thousands of dollars per year to be harassed, censored, and subject to forced indoctrination of ideologies they do not subscribe to, by faculty who may have an influence on internships and employment post-graduation.

The Machiavellian Infestation on University Campuses – Antisemitism

The failure of university administrators to recognize and acknowledge the Machiavellian infestation that has been allowed to insidiously hijack college campuses in the name of free speech has had devasting effects. Protests over the Israel-Hamas War quickly transformed from peaceful, to intimidating, to eliminating the state of Israel, to advocating for the mass extinction of Jews. Campus security at a number of America’s prestigious universities have been placed on high alert, with local police departments being put on notice. Even more outrageous is the unbridled antisemitic rage erupting on some prominent university campuses that has necessitated the assistance of the FBI (at Cornell and University of Pennsylvania) This is where we are in 2023. Faculty and administrators are no longer able or willing, or are simply ineffective, in facilitating open dialogue in classrooms while simultaneously engaging and protecting students.

Donor Exodus from Elite Universities

Such ineptitude contributed to several billionaire donors informing their elite university beneficiaries that they would be “closing their checkbooks” to further school donations, and encouraged other alumni and supporters to do the same. Donors were not the only ones to protest the indifference or tepid response from university presidents. Trustees, alumni, a former Utah governor and even a former university president also joined the condemnation.

Nevertheless, given that the staggering endowments held by many of these elite universities are larger than the GDP of some countries (the top 15 ranging from 9+ BILLION to 50+ BILLION), the fallout from the mega-donor boycott is more likely to be reputational than financial, at least initially. Benefactors such as Marc Rowan (Apollo), Matt Nord (Apollo), Leon Cooperman (hedge fund), Henry Swieca (hedge fund), Ronald Lauder (Estee Lauder cosmetic company), the Huntsman family, David Magerman (hedge fund), Clifford Asness, Les Wexner (Victoria’s Secret), Idan and Batia Ofer (Quantum Pacific Group), Steve Eisman (Neuberger Berman), Bill Ackman (hedge fund manager) and others, have all withdrawn their support from various Ivy League schools. These donors are appalled that such pillar institutions are not doing more to combat the misinformation being spread on social media, especially by their own faculty and students. Following donor backlash, some Presidents released statements that were perceived to be pandering to donor requests, while others felt their statements did not go far enough. University administrators need to walk a fine line to not show tacit support for pro-Palestinian and Hamas supporters, to the detriment of Jewish students, as antisemitism continues to rise on college campuses.

Culpability

So, who is to blame for the downward spiral of tolerance, civility, open discourse, and actual free speech on college campuses? Is it the megadonors who regularly gave millions of dollars to their alma maters? Or is it the universities themselves – administrators and faculty, for indulging student activists, not reeling in hatred, intolerance and indoctrination from faculty, and the selective censorship of free speech? Given the multi-faceted role college administrators purport that college education plays in shaping students’ growth and development into productive members of society, largely to justify the enormous cost to attend, it would appear that colleges and universities warrant the most culpability. The events of the last few weeks highlight that many college and university administrators have been asleep at the wheel. They allowed vociferous students and faculty to run roughshod over anyone, including students, who disagreed with them. This resulted in bullying, shaming and censorship (sometimes self-imposed) of students. At the same time, students who agreed, or came to agree, with the vociferous few (largely left-leaning progressives) gained a voice inside the college’s “bubble.” The end result: students in neither group are well-prepared to navigate life outside of college.

These same colleges and universities appear to be doing little toward de-escalating the rising tensions on their own campuses. Rather, all we see and hear is a surge in unchecked false moral equivalence arguments, aiming to recontextualize the terrorist attacks committed by Hamas against Israel on October 7^th as not really terrorism.  Well, perhaps the protestors should try to recontextualize this: Hamas itself specifically authorizes terrorism in its own October 7^th field operations manual, listing “firearms, smoke and stun grenades, indirect threats, electric shocks, violence” and, yes, “terrorism” all as acceptable methods. Yet, some of our “finest” students and professors want you to set aside Hamas’ own words in favor of a narrative they want you to believe – one of victim-blaming. The truth no longer matters. Facts don’t matter, not even from Hamas itself. Such behavior is evidence of the geopolitical indoctrination they have tried so hard to say is non-existent on their campuses. As a result of these actions, antisemitic rumblings have roared to the surface since October 7^th, placing the safety of all Jewish students on their campuses at risk.

Donors, fed up with witnessing their beneficiaries’ unwillingness to speak out against antisemitism (a cause near and dear to many of them) for fear of upsetting a minority of vociferous students and faculty, decided it was imperative that they become more involved in how and where their generous contributions will be spent. While these megadonors carefully consider their next steps, a couple of options have come to mind: A) Take a page out of Microsoft’s and Google’s playbook and establish credentialling programs for professions of their choosing. In so doing they could teach students not only the real-world technical skills required to succeed in theirs and similar workplaces, but also the soft skills (communication, behavior and social skills) that employers value. B) For those professions that require more advanced training (physicians and surgeons, lawyers, etc.), a careful examination of not only a potential beneficiary’s mission and goals, but actually researching whether the implementation of those goals align with one’s own value system, may be warranted.

The very first post published on InsideoutOdyssey.com was a poem titled “Past, Present Future.” The subject matter of the poem is pertinent to the events discussed in this post. As a result, I recommend it to anyone that was able to make it through this necessarily lengthy article.

Please continue to educate yourself. Don’t allow elitists to spread false moral equivalencies. And most importantly, don’t allow partisan factions to manipulate the truth. Remember, if it looks like duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

Annex I

Columbia University

• Joseph Massad, a Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History professor, praised Hamas as “awesome,” “astounding,” and “incredible” for its acts of terror on Israel in an article published in the anti-Israel online publication “The Electronic Intifada. The 2004 documentary film “Columbia Unbecoming” accused Massad of “antagonizing Jewish and Israeli students in class.” Given the apparent lack of any meaningful effort to address the issue in the years since, Columbia obviously took the matter seriously. Similar to Yale, Maya Platek, a student at Columbia, initiated a Change.org petition calling for Massad’s “immediate removal.” The petition garnered over 35,000 signatures (its goal).
• Following the aforementioned petition, over 100 professors at Columbia University penned their name to a letter in defense of pro-Palestinian protestors who seek to “recontextualize” Hamas’ October 7^th attack on Israel. They are concerned about the impact public shaming, doxxing, and retaliation from prospective employers has on these students. Once again, educators have chosen this route rather than teaching students that although the First Amendment affords them the ability to exercise free speech, there may be consequences when you do so. These professors continue to give students the false impression that their words and actions are impervious to consequences. Do they dream of somehow changing the world from inside a bubble that shields them from real-world repercussions? What world are they living in? Better yet, what world are these professors preparing their students to become productive members of society in?
• More than 300 Columbia University and Barnard College faculty members authored a letter expressing their condemnation of the rise in antisemitism (both words and actions) on campus. In direct contrast to the 100 plus Columbia University faculty who signed the letter in defense of the pro-Palestinian protestors, these faculty members stated, “We are horrified that anyone would celebrate these monstrous attacks or, as some members of the Columbia faculty have done in a recent letter, try to ‘recontextualize’ them as a ‘salvo,’ as the ‘exercise of a right to resist’ occupation, or as ‘military action’.”

Cornell University

• Russell Rickford: Rickford, an Associate Professor of History, made the following comments at a pro-Palestinian rally in Ithaca, NY, “It was exhilarating …  It was energizing. And if they weren’t exhilarated by this challenge to the monopoly of violence, by this shifting of the balance of power, then they would not be human. I was exhilarated.” Following his speech, those in attendance chanted, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
• Following significant backlash, and likely discussions with university faculty and administration, Rickford apologized for his “horrible choice of words.” He claimed that he came to realize that “the language I used was reprehensible and did not reflect my values . . . As a scholar, a teacher, an activist and a father, I strive to uphold the values of human dignity, peace and justice.”
• Cornell placed Rickford on a leave of absence that will last at least through the end of the semester.
• Subsequent to Rickford’s apology, antisemitic graffiti was spray-painted on university buildings.
• Antisemitism is escalating at Cornell – The following virulent antisemitic threats were posted on a Cornell message board:
  • “If you see a Jewish ‘person’ on campus follow them home and slit their throats. Rats need to be eliminated from Cornell.”
  • “The genocidal fascist Zionist regime will be destroyed. Rape and kill all the Jew women,before they birth more Jewish Hitlers. Jews are excrement on the face of the Earth. No Jew civilian is innocent of genocide.”
  • “If I see another Jew on campus…if I see a pig male Jew I will stab you and slit your throat. If I see another pig female Jew I will drag you away and rape you and throw you off a cliff. If I see another pig baby Jew I will behead you in front of your parents.”
  • Another post called for “jew genocide . . . eliminate Jewish living from Cornell campus.”
    • Given how abhorrent, hostile and intimidating these messages are, campus police had no other option than to label the messages as hate crimes and notify the FBI. Cornell Hillel (the campus Jewish Center) advised students to “avoid the building out of an abundance of caution.” Take note: we have been informally notified what it takes for the Cornell administration to consider something a hate crime. It is when its own students’ antisemitism escalates to the point that their words are indistinguishable from the language of the terrorists themselves, and even the lethargic administration is motivated to caution Jewish students of a credible threat to their physical safety.  
    • The FBI arrested and charged Patrick Dai, a 21-year-old junior computer science major at Cornell in connection with the above-mentioned threats. The events at Cornell, and other colleges and universities in New York prompted the following from New York Governor Kathy Hochul, “The problem didn’t begin in the weeks following October 7 attacks [by Hamas against Israel] . . . It’s been growing on a number of campusesand seen most acutely in the City University of New York.“ As a result, she appointed retired Judge Jonathan Lippman to lead an investigation into The City University of New York’s (CUNY) policies and procedures pertaining to antisemitism and discrimination.

George Washington University

• George Washington University Students for Justice in Palestine held a pro-Palestinian vigil on October 10, 2023, attended by roughly 50 people. Students in attendance chanted, “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free,” an ode to the elimination of the Jewish state of Israel. The unnamed speaker at this event glorified the terrorists who committed International War Crime atrocities against Israeli civilians stating, “Glory to our martyrs, each and every one. . .. May they attain the highest level of paradise.”
• The organization “Students for Justice in Palestine” projected pro-Hamas and antisemitic messages on the university’s library building (“Glory to our martyrs,” “Divestment from Zionist genocide now,” and “Free Palestine from the river to the sea”). The university’s response: “We are reviewing this incident and will take any appropriate steps with respect to the individuals involved in accordance with university policies.”
• Lara Sheehi: Professor Sheehi, a clinical psychologist, wrote, “How dare you slander the names of our martyrs as terrorists . . . I sleep well every night knowing I’m not some little bitch who supports apartheid.” When approached by the Free Beacon, George Washington University declined to comment about Sheehi’s posts.

Georgetown University

• In an indignant letter to Georgetown University president John DeGioria, Law Students for Justice in Palestine (LSJP) took exception to his factually correct description of Hamas’s attack as a “terrorist act.” They denounced this as a “racist, anti-Arab, Islamophobic trope” and insisted, in blatant denial of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that it was simply “Palestinians exercising their legal right to resist.” In essence, they claim that the massacre was completely excusable because Israelis are settler-colonial Jew oppressors, and Israel bears 100% responsibility for everything bad since 1948. Therefore, they conclude, all forms of Palestinian resistance are legitimate, and endorsed under the terms of Protocol I of the Geneva convention, among other international laws. No, they are not.
• Lest one need further proof that the offending term “terrorist act” is entirely appropriate, we direct your attention to the field manuals found on the bodies of dead Oct 7 terrorists which contain, yes, the actual word “terrorism” (in Arabic), instructing the terrorists to employ terrorism as needed to further their objectives.
• The group’s claim that Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions actually endorses Hama’s attack (i.e. terrorism), if done in the cause of “national liberation,” is absurd. To see the Conventions contorted into any endorsement of conflict whatsoever, much less terrorism, would surely horrify their authors. Rather, the Conventions merely categorize types of conflict in order to address their degree of violation. Would these students of law – to repeat: students of law – similarly argue that because we have classifications for 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd degree murder, our legal system therefore “endorses” murder?
• The Geneva Conventions reserve a special designation for such acts as the killing, raping, burning, beheading and kidnapping of random civilians including infants. These are among the worst of crimes, and are referred to as “grave breaches.” The students engage in stupendous feats of selective omission and inclusion to overlook the hugely inconvenient fact that Hamas’s so-called “legal resistance” would violate multiple provisions in the Conventions.
• Further, the students picked the wrong protocol, as Protocol I applies to international conflict. To get around this – and it’s been tried elsewhere – their interpretation hinges on the argument that Israel is an invading “settler-colonial” power; a highly specific term that is lifted straight from the age-old antisemitic playbook, recycled in modern terrorist literature. Protocol II is more applicable, as it deals with internal armed conflict between a state and “one or more armed factions within its territory.” However, since going with Protocol II would dampen the punch of the “settler-colonial” rhetoric, they did everything they could to stick with Protocol I.
• But since they went there, how could the students miss Hamas’s further grave breaches of Protocol I with their shameless and repeated treatment of Palestinian civilians as a human shields?  The terrorists’ reliance on this tactic is too well-known and well-documented to overlook. It is true that Israel has run afoul of the international community more than once over legitimate questions regarding its military activities in civilian areas. But let’s remember that it is Hamas who not only places their own people in harm’s way to begin with, but orders them to stay and shoots at those who try to leave. It takes incredible powers of willful denial to not trip over these contradictions, but you can do it if you try hard enough.
• The above are just a few of the many problems with this letter. For such a serious issue, its unvarnished bigotry, mashup of sloppy logic and denial of basic facts, dressed up with legalspeak and faux bonafides (“trust us, we’re law students”) is not a serious rebuttal. Rather, it does a disservice to the Palestinian people, and prolongs their suffering, by filling the airspace with rage and misdirection, thus squeezing out legitimate discussion. If this letter represents the best “A-game” legal thinking that our law schools have to offer, one fears for the future of the profession.

Harvard University

• Joint Statement by Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups on the Situation in Palestine which began with the following: “We, the undersigned student organizations, hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.” The letter was signed by 31 [34] of Harvard’s student organizations, including the school’s Amnesty International affiliate, African American Resistance Organization, Islamic Society and Jews for Liberation.
• Following significant public, political, corporate, and donor backlash, The Harvard Crimson reported that, “at least 5 of the 34 signatories – including Amnesty International at Harvard, Harvard College Act on a Dream, the Harvard Undergraduate Nepali Student Association, the Harvard Islamic Society, and Harvard Undergraduate Ghungroo — had withdrawn their endorsements.”
• Amidst the backlash, Harvard’s President, Claudine Gay, was also criticized for her tepid response to the statement put out by the school’s students, “while our students have the right to speak for themselves, no student group – not even 30 student groups – speaks for Harvard University or its leadership.” Subsequently, Gay further defended Harvard students’ free speech in a video address entitled, “Our choices.” Gay stated, “That commitment extends even to views that many of us find objectionable, even outrageous . . . We do not punish or sanction people for expressing such views, but that is a far cry from endorsing them.”
• Campus Reforms’ Zachary Marschall challenged Gay’s apparent hypocritical freedom of expression speech, given her (and Harvard’s) recent position on the penalties associated with rejecting the use of preferred pronouns, microaggressions by professors, and a Harvard Law Professor’s edict to publicly harass the “6 justices who overturned Roe” in perpetuity. Marschall’s position was supported by Ethics Alarms’ Jack Marshall.
• Unhappy with President Gay’s and Dean Khurana’s handling, or lack thereof, of the rise in antisemitism on Harvard’s campus, the Harvard College Jewish Alumni Association (HCJAA) amassed over 1,600 signatures on an open letter from former students asking Harvard to do more to protect its Jewish students from antisemitism and “the dissemination of hate speech.” The letter stresses that Harvard’s continued failure to protect its Jewish students will result in a pause of all signatories’ donations to the university. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

• Jewish students at MIT were blocked from attending class by a group of “hostile anti-Israel students” belonging to the pro-Palestinian group, Coalition Against Apartheid (CAA). The CAA didn’t limit their abhorrent behavior to Jewish students, they also “harassed MIT staff members in their offices for being Jewish and interrupted classes in the past few weeks.” Worse, “the CAA proceeded to invite more students and non-MIT protestors to join them in calling for a violent uprising (“Intifada”) and justifying the terror attacks of Hamas on Israeli civilians.”  MIT’s response – they informed Jewish students to avoid the area, noting that they “officially [recognize] the danger present to students as a result of this violent protest.”
• Given the seriousness of the aforementioned events on MIT’s campus, you would think the administration would be quick to intervene, so as to limit the spread of antisemitism and toxic culture on their campus. Initially, MIT’s President, Sally Kornbluth, appeared to have a backbone. She “threatened to expel any students who acted in violation of its guidance and policies.” However, any moral fiber or strength of character Kornbluth appeared to possess, quickly evaporated, as she “later heard serious concerns about collateral consequences for the students, such as visa issues.” So, the violent, disruptive, antisemitic students would not be expelled or suspended from academic classes, rather they would be suspended from “non-academic campus activities.” How dare these students be held accountable for their egregious behavior. We wouldn’t want to deport such stellar individuals.
• As we have repeatedly seen from University leaders, MIT administrators’ apparent lack of real world C-suite skills prompted actual real world leaders to state the obvious:
  • Israel War Room: “Who is in charge, MIT?”
  • Marina Medvin, lawyer: “So MIT chose to help the antisemites instead of punishing them. Morality run amok.”
  • Simon Rosenberg, Democratic strategist: “This is not an easy time for University leaders but holy cow how is that okay?”
  • Senator Tom Cotton: “‘Visa issues’ are not only a reason to suspend these pro-Hamas foreigners from school, but also to deport them immediately.”

New York City College

• New York City College Jewish students were forced to lock themselves inside the school’s library as pro-Palestinian protestors moved their protest from outside the library to inside. The protestors stormed the Cooper Union building and banged on the library doors yelling “free Palestine” and “globalize the intifada from New York to Gaza.” The NYPD was called, but according to  New York City Councilwoman Inna Vernikov, were unable to intercede because “the college would not allow officers onto school grounds to protect the besieged Jewish students.” Thankfully, the school’s librarians interceded and offered the students refuge in the attic. Later, “campus security led the students out of the library through tunnels.” Shades of Anne Frank, anyone?
• The school’s shockingly disingenuous response: “the library was closed for approximately 20 minutes late this afternoon while student protestors moved through our building. Some students who were previously in the library remained there during this time.”

New York University (NYU)

• Three NYU students were filmed tearing down all the posters of missing Israeli children along a Manhattan wall near NYU, a predominately Jewish area of New York. One of the students, Yazmeen Deyhimi, was identified by classmates, and later apologized, claiming the action was done in a moment of anger and, she would have us believe, does not represent who she is as a person.
• NYU School of Law
  • Ryna Workman, the president of the NYU student bar association, wrote on X: “This week, I want to express, first and foremost, my unwavering and absolute solidarity with Palestinians in their resistance against oppression toward liberation and self-determination.” In a newsletter she further noted “Israel bears full responsibility for this tremendous loss of life.”
  • Ryna Workman is one of the few to actually suffer the consequences of her actions, as Winston & Strawn law firm rescinded a job offer they had previously extended to her.
  • The loss of a prestigious job offer apparently was insufficient to elicit a moment of pause from Ms. Workman, as she was subsequently filmed defacing posters of Israelis taken hostage by Hamas terrorists.

Stanford University

Banners hung on campus buildings: “The illusion of Israel is Burning” and “The Land Remembers Her People.” The banners were removed in short order. Susie Brubaker-Cole, Vice Provost of Student Affairs and Tiffany Steinwart, Dean of Religious and Spiritual Life noted that the banners “do not appear to cross that legal boundary” to constitute hate speech, “but they do run afoul of the university’s viewpoint-neutral time, place and manner rules.”

Tulane University (more accurately, Loyola University pro-Palestinian activists demonstrating near Tulane University)

Pro-Palestinian activists from Loyola University-New Orleans, strategically protesting just feet from the edge of Tulane University campus grounds, clashed with pro-Israeli protestors as the Loyola activists attempted to burn an Israeli flag in the back of a pickup truck. A physical altercation ensued when pro-Palestinian protestors swung a flagpole at Israeli counter protestors, and later assaulted pro-Israeli protestors from Tulane University. Two arrests were made.

University of California, Berkeley

• Professor Victoria Huynh, a PHD student in the Department of Ethnic Studies, offered students  two options to earn either a field trip or extra credit points in her class:  1.) Students could attend the National Students for Justice in Palestine walkout against the “settler-colonial occupation of Gaza.” or 2.) Students could “watch a short documentary on Palestine and call/email your local California representative.”
• Berkeley’s response was to “remedy” the assignment by providing students with multiple options. More specifically, “Students can now attend any local event they wish — such as a book talk or a panel discussion — related to the course’s subject, including the protest . . . or they can watch any documentary they wish about the Middle East.”

University of California, Davis

• Jemma DeCristo, an assistant professor of American Studies at UC Davis, wrote on X, “one group of ppl we have easy access to in the US is all these zionist journalists who spread propaganda & misinformation they have houses w addresses, kids in school they can fear their bosses, but they should fear us more.” This comment was followed by a series of “innocent” emojis – a knife, an ax and droplets of blood.
• UC Davis reportedly is reviewing complaints lodged against this professor, and investigating whether her reprehensible comments violated the university’s code of conduct.

University of California (UC) Ethnic Studies Faculty Council

• UC Ethnic Studies Professors called on the UC administrative leadership to stop referring to Hamas’ actions on October 7^th as “acts of terrorism.” Specifically, they stated, “We call on the UC administrative leadership to retract its charges of terrorism, to uplift the Palestinian freedom struggle, and to stand against Israel’s war crimes against and ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinian people.” This is yet another example of faculty at some of America’s “finest” institutes of higher education choosing to selectively ignore the definition of terrorism to placate a group of increasingly violent pro-Palestinian activists around the US. Regardless of one’s opinion on the plight of Palestinians living in the Gaza strip under Hamas’ governance, or the historical background of the conflict, Hamas’ actions on Oct 7^th fully meet the definition of terrorism. According to the FBI, “International terrorism is the violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored)”. The raping, beheading, burning, killing and kidnapping of Israeli civilians by a designated terrorist group falls squarely within this definition.
•  Moreover, Hamas’ hostage-taking operations manual, retrieved from the bodies of dead terrorists, refer to their planned actions as “terrorism.” Specifically, “firearms, smoke and stun grenades, indirect threats, electric shocks, violence and terrorism” were to be used to maintain order. Further directives include, “kill anyone that may pose a threat or cause a distraction or disturbance,” and “Gather some of the hostages in the area and use them as cannon fodder, ensuring they are clearly visible.” Hamas’ own hostage-taking manual refers to themselves as terrorists. Their actions meet the definition of terrorism. These UC faculty members are intentionally trying to deflect and rewrite history in an attempt to minimize any culpability and accountability of Hamas. Facts be damned!

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

A University of Massachusetts, Amherst student “punched a Jewish student holding an Israeli flag and took the flag and spit on it,”  at a vigil for the 240 individuals taken hostage by Hamas. The assailant was arrested, released on bail, and prohibited from returning to campus. Officials condemned the student’s behavior and indicated that, “The student will be subject to the legal consequences of their actions as well as the Student Code of Conduct.”

University of North Carolina (UNC), Chapel Hill

A UNC-Chapel Hill Students for Justice in Palestine “resistance rally” was held on October 10, 2023. Pro-Israel counter-protestors soon opposed them and the event became contentious. Pro-Palestine signage included “Free Palestine,” “Zionism Will Not Win”, “Colonization is Violence,” and “From the River To The Sea.” In contrast, Pro-Israel signage read “Rape Is Not Resistance,” “Existence Is Not Occupation,” and “Hamas is ISIS” (while the two groups are in fact rivals, the comparison is valid in many ways).

University of Pennsylvania

• University of Pennsylvania held a “Palestine Writes” literary conference which featured prominent antisemitic speakers in September 2023. Following this event, and the lack of strong condemnation of Hamas’ attacks on Israel, several wealthy Penn donors have called for the resignation of both Penn’s president, Liz Magill, and its chairman, Scott Bok. Several donors including Marc Rowan (CEO of Apollo Global Management), Dick Wolf (producer of the “Law and Order” franchise), Jonathon Jacobson (HighSage Ventures LLC), David Magerman (venture capitalist), Ronald Lauder (heir to Estee’ Lauder), Jon Huntsman Jr. (Huntsman Foundation), Clifford Asness (co-founder of AQR Capital Management and hedge fund manager), and Vahan Gureghian (founder of CMSI consulting company), have all pulled their mega-funds or resigned from the school’s board of trustees.
• A “light show” projecting antisemitic messages was projected onto campus buildings. Penn president Liz Magill acknowledged this and other antisemitic acts including, “swastikas and hateful graffiti, [along with] chants at rallies, captured on video and widely circulated, that glorify the terrorist atrocities of Hamas, that celebrate and praise the slaughter and kidnapping of innocent people, and that question Israel’s very right to exist.”  Subsequent to these events, a civil rights complaint has been filed against the school charging that it is “a magnet for antisemites.”
• Virulent antiemetic emails that “threatened violence against members of our Jewish community,” and “targeting the personal identities of the recipients” were sent to University of Pennsylvania staff. The university notified the FBI and indicated that those responsible for sending the emails would be “punished to the fullest extent of the law.”

Wellesley College

• The house president and four resident advisors at Wellesley College, a prominent all-women’s school in Massachusetts, sent an email to all residents under their guidance that stated the following: “Munger Hall stands in strong condemnation of Israel’s actions and those who have supported their actions against Palestinians. We firmly believe that there should be no space, no consideration, and no support for Zionism within the Wellesley College community.” After discussion with Wellesley administrators, a second follow-up email was sent to residents of the impacted dormitory. The email was at best an empty apology.
• Wellesley’s president, to her credit, took action immediately. However, her comment “that these young leaders were able to learn from this episode gives me hope,” is very likely wishful thinking.

Yale University

• Zareena Grewal, Associate Professor of American Studies, Ethnicity, Race and Migration, and Religious Studies, wrote on X: “Israel is a murderous, genocidal settler state and Palestinians have every right to resist through armed struggle. Solidarity #Free Palestine” In a separate post she wrote, “Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard,” implying that the atrocities committed against Israelis were somehow acceptable.
• Netanel Crispe, Yale student class of 2025, started a Change.org petition demanding the immediate firing of Professor Grewal. It quickly amassed tens of thousands of signatures. Crispe, showing a greater moral fortitude than Yale administrators wrote: “Freedom of speech cannot be abused . . . And when one is in a position of authority and power, they must be held responsible for that speech. Speech that promotes, advocates, or supports violence, murder, or terrorism cannot and should never be tolerated.” Crispe further submits “She [Grewal] has unequivocally proven that she has no right being in her current role or in the field of education if she considers war crimes against civilians to be acts of resistance . . . Please share this message that anyone with any moral compass will not stand for such blatant hatred and promotion of violence from a professor at one of the world’s top academic institutions.”
• In contrast to Crispe, Yale provided the following equivocating statement to NBC Connecticut when questioned about Grewal’s comments, “[Yale] is committed to freedom of expression, and the comments posted on Professor Grewal’s personal accounts represent her own views.” Neither Yale nor Grewal apparently responded to Business Insider’s request for comment.
• Yale’s campus newspaper, “The Yale Daily News” censored pro-Israeli writer Sahar Tartak’s column, “Is Yalies4Palestine a hate group?” Tartak’s piece countered some of Yalies4Palestine’s pro-Hamas and pro-Palestinian comments. Apparently, the editor of the Yale Daily News is skeptical that Hamas committed the atrocities reported by the media and cited by Tartak. Accordingly, the editor notated Tartak’s column with the following: “This column has been edited to remove unsubstantiated claims that Hamas raped women and beheaded men.” One Yale professor, Nicholas Christakis, took exception to the censoring stating, “Are the hostage-taking, murder of children in their beds, burning of people alive, and parading of semi-nude captive women in the street also ‘unsubstantiated’?” Apparently, the editor of the Yale Daily News has chosen to willfully deny any and all media content that does not support her preconceived notions, including authenticated video footage, and content created by Hamas terrorists themselves.
  • A terrorist bragging to his parents for killing so many Jews.
  • Video footage and photos of Hamas’ attacks.
• The editor of “The Yale Daily News,” Anika Seth issued a retraction to the “correction” made to Tartak’s column, “Is Yalies4Palestine a hate group?” (See above). However, the veracity of Seth’s explanation for the “correction,” “At the time of the columns’ initial publication, those specific forms of violence during Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack were not independently confirmed by the cited source,” has been called into question by those who have been closely following the media coverage post Hamas’ terrorist attack on Israel on October 7^th.