Archives

Trump admin still can’t deport anti-Israel, recent Columbia graduate yet, judge decides

Trump admin still can’t deport anti-Israel, recent Columbia graduate yet, judge decides

Vita Fellig


One of Mahmoud Khalil’s lawyers said outside of the courthouse that his detention “should outrage anybody who believes that speech should be free in the United States of America.”

Ramzi Kassem, attorney for Mahmoud Khalil and founding director of Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility Project, speaks after a hearing in Manhattan, March 12, 2025. Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images.

Jesse Furman, a U.S. district judge in Manhattan, said on Wednesday that the government must allow Mahmoud Khalil’s lawyers to speak to him privately on the phone and gave prosecutors and lawyers for the anti-Israel former Columbia University graduates until Friday to tell him in writing when they plan to file written arguments, the Associated Press reported.

The initial hearing, which lasted about 30 minutes, centered on the government’s efforts to move the trial from New York to either New Jersey or Louisiana, where Khalil has been held. He is currently at the LaSalle Detention Facility in Jena, La., per the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement website.

Federal agents arrested Khalil, who was born in Syria and has ties to Algeria, on Saturday. The recent Columbia graduate holds a green card and is reportedly married to a U.S. citizen. The Trump administration has said that he led anti-Israel protests on Columbia’s campus, and the White House said that he has supported Hamas, which would be grounds for his deportation.

Hundreds of protesters gathered across the street from the federal courthouse at Foley Square in lower Manhattan, where anti-Israel demonstrators, clad in masks and keffiyehs, chanted “we will win” and “free Palestine.”

One of Khalil’s lawyers, Ramzi Kassem, told reporters and protesters gathered outside the courthouse that “what happened to Mahmoud Khalil is nothing short of extraordinary and shocking and outrageous,” per the Associated Press.

“It should outrage anybody who believes that speech should be free in the United States of America,” he said.

A U.S. State Department spokesperson told JNS that under section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, “an alien is deportable from the United States if the secretary of state determines the alien’s presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

“In such cases, the secretary of state notifies the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who has the authority to initiate removal charges,” the Foggy Bottom spokesperson said.

Police officers stand in front of a federal courthouse in lower Manhattan after an initial hearing in the case of anti-Israel, recent Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, March 12, 2025. Photo by Vita Fellig.

“When you come to the United States as a visitor—which is what a visa is, which is how this individual entered this country,” Marco Rubio, the U.S. secretary of state, told reporters on Wednesday in Shannon, Ireland. “We can deny you that, if you tell us when you apply, ‘Hi, I’m trying to get into the United States on a student visa. I am a big supporter of Hamas, a murderous, barbaric group that kidnaps children, that rapes teenage girls, that takes hostages, that allows them to die in captivity, that returns more bodies than live hostages.’”

“If you tell us that you are in favor of a group like this, and if you tell us when you apply for your visa, ‘and by the way, I intend to come to your country as a student and rile up all kinds of anti-Jewish student, antisemitic activities, I intend to shut down your universities,’” he said. “If you told us all these things when you applied for a visa, we would deny your visa. I hope we would.”

“This is about people that don’t have a right to be in the United States to begin with,” Rubio said. “No one has a right to a student visa and no one has a right to a green card.”


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Joe Rogan and the Jews

Joe Rogan and the Jews

Park MacDougald


Ricky Carioti / The Washington Post via Getty Images

October 7 put Jewish blood in the water. What we’re watching now are the sharks.

It gives us no pleasure to report this, but we figured you should hear it from us. Jeffrey Epstein—the late New York financier—was a “Jewish organization of Jewish people working on behalf of Israel and other groups,” including organized crime and elements of the Central Intelligence Agency, to collect blackmail on American politicians and businessmen. This Jewish blackmail ring is so powerful that Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, despite their promises of transparency, will never be able to produce any documents to prove its existence. Nor will President Donald Trump and his administration be able to cut U.S. support for Israel—the blackmail runs too deep.

Now, it may horrify ordinary people to learn that a substantial portion of Jews believe their existence depends on their ability to manipulate powerful Americans into compromising positions with sexually trafficked teenagers, but we should have some sympathy. It is not their fault that Israel was founded by organized crime syndicates, sinister transnational bankers, and terrorists, who brought the methods of the Jewish underworld into the present day. Perhaps they felt they had no choice. But in the modern day, these methods have grown “cancerous on the Jewish religion” and must be excised—for the good of Jews as well as Americans. Fortunately, thanks to Oct. 7, we can finally talk about this. America is waking up. That won’t stop surviving elements of the Jewish mafia from trying to smear us truth-tellers as lunatics, conspiracy theorists, and antisemites. But they are losing. Information wants to be free, and the arc of history bends toward justice.

There, we saved you 2 hours and 41 minutes. That was the run time of Joe Rogan’s interview with Ian Carroll, a TikTok influencer whose short rise from total obscurity to Rogan’s show—one of the most coveted slots in the entertainment business, which many a content creator would kill to appear on—would normally lead us to ask questions about foreign intelligence operations and shadowy behind-the-scenes influence networks, had Carroll not already helpfully answered our questions about such things (it’s Israel). On the other hand, we did not have the heart, or the patience, to sit through Candace Owens’ simultaneous appearance on Theo Von’s show, so you’ll have to dig through that one yourself. For those interested in further research, please consult Carroll’s videos about how Yale’s Skull and Bones society blackmails elites by making them do “gay stuff.” Or just wait for Rogan’s (real) forthcoming episode with Darryl Cooper, aka Martyr Made, who we hope will clear up any lingering misconceptions about World War II, like that the Allies were the good guys. 

The attacks and their aftermath exposed that Jews cannot silence their opponents but in many cases are reduced to asking for pity, which only invites more sadism.

All kidding aside, Rogan—whatever his penchant for kooky theories about the moon landing or ancient aliens—never struck us as an antisemite, periodic hyperventilating from the Anti-Defamation League and other adjuncts of the Democratic Party notwithstanding. He is, or traditionally has been, an American everyman, and he doesn’t appear to be a resentful or damaged person, which is usually a prerequisite for going off the deep end regarding Jews. Which makes it all the more difficult to figure out what’s going on here. Does Rogan believe this stuff? Is he playing for relevance at a time when deranged talk about all-powerful “Zionist” and “neocon” influence, boosted by Elon Musk’s X algorithm, is all the rage on social media? Is there a network? Did someone—a booker, a friend, a tech baron, a political operative, a godfather—tell him that Carroll and Cooper are great guys and that he should help to get their message out?

Or maybe we’re looking at an op. The Joe Rogan Experience, after all, has 19.5 million subscribers on YouTube, and it became clear after last year’s election that many in the upper reaches of the Democratic Party saw Rogan and the wider podcast world as key to Trump’s victory. It’s obviously the sort of thing that would interest intelligence agencies, state and state-backed actors, and others with the resources to rival states. We have recent hard evidence of Chinese state actors boosting conservative-branded antisemitic content on X and of Russian state actors attempting to buy off right-wing social media influencers. Tucker Carlson, who appears to be the head (or at least the public-facing head) of the antisemitic power vertical on the American right, is financially backed by the fortune of the Iranian American businessman and (prior to 2020) lifelong Democrat Omeed Malik, who is also now Donald Trump Jr.’s business partner. In February, Carlson hosted on his show the Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, one of the largest media investors in the world and a major shareholder in X. Last Friday afternoon, he released an interview with the prime minister of Qatar, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani. 

The truth is we have no idea what the real story is. But as we’ve been trying to point out at Tablet for years now (see here and here), the sorts of questions we’re now forced to ask about Rogan are, in at least one sense, similar to the sorts of questions that guys like Carroll are posing about wealthy Jewish sex traffickers collecting blackmail on behalf of Mossad. That is to say, both are downstream of the hall-of-mirrors reality we now live in, in which the cumulative effect of two decades of official lies, secrecy, propaganda, and censorship has combined with the destabilizing impact of digital media on our collective psychic health. All of us know, just as Carroll and Cooper and Carlson and Rogan do, that we have been misled by people we cannot quite name, in ways we cannot quite understand, for reasons we can’t quite put our finger on. And good luck finding the truth in the pages of The New York Times, which everyone knows is for suckers. As Jacob Siegel wrote for Tablet in 2023, “Americans who want to join in their country’s civic life now find that the main way to participate is by following the trail of clues leaked by official sources while trying to solve elaborate, rigged puzzles about the nature of reality. It’s no surprise the country is going nuts.”

Carroll did manage to say one true thing, though, which is that Oct. 7 opened the door for “interest” in his favorite subject. But the reason is not that Americans are, all of a sudden, interested in pulling back the veil on the Jewish power that secretly controlled their lives. It was that the attacks and their aftermath exposed that Jews (including the mythical Israel lobby) are not nearly as powerful as they have been made out to be; that there is a huge, potentially lucrative audience for those who could explain that the murdered, kidnapped, and raped Israelis really had it coming; and that Jews cannot silence their opponents but in many cases are reduced to asking for pity, which, as anyone with a basic understanding of human psychology will tell you, only invites more sadism.

Which is to say, the attacks put blood in the water. What we’re seeing now are the sharks.

This piece was originally published in Tablet’s daily afternoon newsletter, The Scroll. You can subscribe here to receive more commentary like this in your inbox every day.


Park MacDougald is senior writer of The Scroll, Tablet’s daily afternoon newsletter.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Przesiedlenie Palestyńczyków zakończyłoby wymianę z 1948 r.

Przesiedleni Palestyńczycy rozbijają namioty przy granicy Egiptu z miastem Rafah w południowej części Strefy Gazy, 8 marca 2024 r. Zdjęcie: Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90.


Przesiedlenie Palestyńczyków zakończyłoby wymianę z 1948

Lyn Julius
Tłumaczenie: Andrzej Koraszewski


Propozycja prezydenta Donalda Trumpa, aby 1,5 miliona Palestyńczyków ze Strefy Gazy przenieść do Egiptu i Jordanii, spotkała się z całkowitym odrzuceniem ze strony tych krajów, a także z krzykami oburzenia i oskarżeniami o „czystki etniczne”.

Problem uchodźców należy rozpatrywać w kontekście historycznym. Trump skupił uwagę na mieszkańcach Gazy, skutecznie sugerując zakończenie wymiany populacji uchodźców, która rozpoczęła się w 1948 r. pierwszą wojną arabsko-izraelską. Arabscy uchodźcy uciekli z Izraela do Gazy oraz na tereny Judei i Samarii, podczas gdy tysiące innych wyjechało do Libanu i Syrii.

Często zapomina się, że żydowscy uchodźcy — prześladowani w krajach arabskich, gdzie byli osiedleni przez tysiąclecia — uciekli w przeciwnym kierunku. Liczba uchodźców, którzy zamienili się miejscami, wyniosła 711 000 Arabów (według danych ONZ) w porównaniu do 650 000 Żydów — mniej więcej tyle samo. (Kolejnych 200 000 żydowskich uchodźców uciekło na Zachód).

Żydom przyznano obywatelstwo w Izraelu i na Zachodzie. Zostali szybko przesiedleni i nie są już uchodźcami. Ale Arabowie palestyńscy pozostali bezpaństwowcami, wielu z nich zostało przeniesionych do obozów. Nie tylko nie zostali przesiedleni, ale stali się bronią jako  narzędzie wzmacniania  stałego konfliktu z Izraelem.

Dwa czynniki skutecznie uniemożliwiały im ponowne zasiedlenie.

Liga Arabska uchwaliła w 1959 r. rezolucję nr 1457, która zabrania państwom arabskim przyznawania obywatelstwa palestyńskim uchodźcom, „aby zapobiec ich asymilacji w krajach przyjmujących”.

Innym strażnikiem bezpaństwowości była Agencja Narodów Zjednoczonych ds. Pomocy Uchodźcom Palestyńskim (UNRWA), utworzona wyłącznie dla Palestyńczyków. Agencja nie tylko zapewnia opiekę zdrowotną, żywność i edukację w obozach dla uchodźców, ale także pozwala Palestyńczykom przekazywać swój status uchodźcy kolejnym pokoleniom  w nieskończoność.

Wymiana ludności stała się normą po większości konfliktów w XX wieku. Rzeczywiście, zasada wymiany ludności, a zatem i przesiedlenia, została zaakceptowana w prawie międzynarodowym, zarówno w Traktacie z Neuilly (1919) jak i Konwencji Lozańskiej (1923). Ponad milion Greków z Azji Mniejszej i Kaukazu zamieniło się miejscami z 400 000 muzułmanów z Grecji.

Po podziale subkontynentu indyjskiego na Indie i Pakistan nastąpiła ogromna wymiana ludności. W tym przypadku 8,5 miliona Hindusów opuściło Pakistan i wyjechało do Indii, a 6,5 miliona muzułmanów uciekło z Pakistanu. Miliony Niemców i Rosjan zostało zmuszonych do opuszczenia swoich domów podczas II wojny światowej i nigdy nie powróciło. 

Jak na ironię, to strona arabska jako pierwsza zaproponowała wymianę ludności na Bliskim Wschodzie. W 1949 r. Nuri Said, który pełnił przez kilka kadencji funkcję premiera Iraku, wysunął pomysł, aby 160 000 Żydów z Iraku zostało wymienionych na arabskich uchodźców, którzy opuścili tereny Izraela  w wyniku wojny. Ówczesny minister spraw zagranicznych Izraela, Mosze Szarrett, początkowo odrzucił wszelkie możliwe powiązania między tymi dwoma grupami uchodźców. Rząd Izraela uważał, że przejęcie porzuconej własności irackich Żydów było cynicznym podstępem. Ówczesny brytyjski ambasador poinformował, że zasada wymiany ludności była w zasadzie akceptowalna dla Izraela, ale pomysł wymiany 100 000 bezdomnych (palestyńskich) uchodźców na 100 000 (żydowskich) uchodźców, którzy zostawiliby swój majątek, został odczytany w Izraelu jako zwykłe wymuszenie.

Jak się okazało, Irak miał zalegalizować wywłaszczenie niemal całej społeczności żydowskiej w marcu 1951 r. Około 140 000 Żydów uciekło do Izraela. Tylko 14 000 palestyńskich uchodźców przybyło do Iraku. Do tego czasu Szarrett zaakceptował, że istniało powiązanie populacji uchodźców. Do 1970 r. kraje arabskie pozbyły się swoich Żydów — z których większość przybyła do Izraela w nędzy — jako ludzie pozbawieni obywatelstwa i majątku.

Dobrą rzeczą w planie Trumpa jest to, że przełamuje on trwające od dziesięcioleci tabu dotyczące przesiedleń Palestyńczyków i oferuje humanitarne rozwiązanie problemu uchodźców. Zmusza również państwa takie jak Egipt i Jordania do wzięcia części odpowiedzialności za konflikt, w którym uczestniczyły. Kraje takie jak Zjednoczone Emiraty Arabskie mogą pomóc udźwignąć ciężar finansowy. Ostatecznie „wymiana ludności” jest jedynym sprawiedliwym rozwiązaniem.


Lyn Julius jest autorką książki „Uprooted: How 3,000 Years of Jewish Civilization in the Arab World Vanished Overnight” (Vallentine Mitchell, 2018).


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Super Bowl antisemitism ad is no way to tackle Jew-hatred

Super Bowl antisemitism ad is no way to tackle Jew-hatred

Jonathan S. Tobin


Robert Kraft’s Foundation to Combat Antisemitism wasted $8 million on something that never mentioned Jews or antisemitism, while also failing to explain the real reason for its rapid spread.

Former NFL player Tom Brady and rapper Snoop Dogg. Photo by Lori Levine/Getty Images.

New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft is an exemplary member of the American Jewish community. Over the years, he has donated a great deal of money to Jewish causes, locally in his hometown of Boston and in the State of Israel, even building a football stadium in Jerusalem. The National Football League magnate’s philanthropy testifies to his own strong sense of Jewish peoplehood, in addition to a decent concern for others less fortunate than himself, as shown by his family’s support of a variety of educational and health-care causes.

Among the efforts he has supported is the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism (FCAS), which he founded with money he pledged as a result of his winning the Genesis Prize in 2019. The idea behind the foundation was to fight the movement to boycott, divest and sanction Israel, as well as other efforts to battle Jew-hatred. The campaign itself was marked by a bright blue square with a moniker called “The Blue Box Campaign” that urges standing up to hate.

But for all of his various efforts on behalf of that important cause, probably none gained as much attention as the FCAS advertisement that appeared during the Super Bowl this past Sunday. It featured two mega-celebrities—rapper and actor Snoop Dogg, and NFL great Tom Brady, who won seven Super Bowls, including six for Kraft’s Patriots. In it, they spout various reasons why people hate each other before concluding that “things are so bad that we have to do a commercial about it,” before the two walk off together in a gesture of amity.

.

A missed opportunity

That’s a colossal mistake, as well as a missed opportunity that Kraft and anyone else who cares about the issue should deeply regret.

While no one should doubt the good intentions of Kraft, the 30-second blurb sums up everything that is wrong with the mindset and the efforts of liberal American Jewish efforts to deal with the problem.

Indeed, if that’s the best that the FCAS can manage, then Kraft would be well advised to close it up and transfer the money he’s currently wasting on it to those interested in fighting antisemitism in a way that will make a difference.

What’s wrong with the ad?

Part of the problem was the employment of Snoop Dogg. While he may be famous and a ubiquitous figure in pop culture and ads for all sorts of products, he’s also a well-known antisemite. As the Americans for Peace and Tolerance group noted in its criticism of the ad, he is an avowed supporter of the antisemitic Nation of Islam group and its 91-year-old leader, Louis Farrakhan, who has done more than anyone to spread Jew-hatred among American blacks and Muslims. Using him in a spot sponsored by a group that cares about antisemitism wasn’t mere negligence but a betrayal of the values Kraft has always exemplified.

There was more that was wrong about it other than Snoop Dogg.

The underlying premise was a decision to try to universalize the problem rather than one that would specifically focus on the issue of antisemitism. That’s based on an assumption that talking about antisemitism and Jews is a turnoff to a broad audience like the one that tunes into the Super Bowl. The NFL championship game is the most watched television program every year—an event that has assumed the status of a secular holiday. This year’s show reportedly attracted an average audience of 126 million viewers throughout the contest with a peak of 135.7 million watching, with the halftime show featuring rapper Kendrick Lamar being a major draw.

The universalizing impulse

With that in mind, the FCAS produced an ad that it supposed would appeal to the widest possible audience and therefore went all-in on universalizing the problem.

This is the same premise of most Holocaust education programs that have been employed in the United States in the past few decades. They are rooted in the belief that the only way anyone can be deterred from hating Jews is to depict the Holocaust and antisemitism as essentially no different than any other form of prejudice. In this way, as the FCAS ad seemed to be telling us, Jew-hatred is no different from disliking any group or people other than the majority. The solution, then, is for everyone to play nicely with each other the way Snoop and Brady—a black celebrity and a white one—appear willing to do.

But if history, as well as the present-day surge in Jew-hatred teaches, it is that antisemitism is not like other varieties of prejudice, be they major or minor. It is a specific virus of hate that targets Jews not merely as a function of bad behavior or a lack of awareness of our common humanity, but as a means of acquiring and holding onto political power.

To antisemites of every variety—be they left-wing, right-wing, Islamists, and yes, blacks—Jews aren’t merely the “other.” They are in the crosshairs to be despised and subjected to singular prejudice and discrimination, no matter their age, background, what they do or where they reside. They are, instead, an almost superhuman force for evil that must be eradicated. They alone are to be denied rights that even other discriminated minorities are given. And in so doing, various groups can wield power and pretend to be forces for good.

Why antisemitism spreads

That is why antisemitism is such a contagious and adaptable virus. It is, as scholar Ruth Wisse has noted, the most successful ideology of modern times since it has attached itself to a variety of movements, including fascism, communism, socialism, Islamists, and in our own day in contemporary America, woke ideologues who pretend to be “anti-racists.” The latter claims to be defending minorities against Jews who are “white” oppressors, as part of a struggle against racism that can never end. And, just as was true of the German Nazis and their collaborators, anything can be justified if it constitutes “resistance” to the Jews or the Jewish state, even the atrocities of Oct. 7, 2023, committed by the Hamas terrorist group and other Palestinian Arabs.

That is why rather than provoking sympathy for the Jewish state and Jews around the world, the Oct. 7 spree of mass murder, torture, rape and kidnapping in southern communities in Israel inspired an unprecedented surge in antisemitism.

In the face of such ideological fanaticism, merely telling people to be nice—as that Super Bowl ad did—does nothing. Such universalization trivializes the Holocaust. The same can be said for efforts that treat the widespread rationalization and even defense of antisemitic acts of intimidation and violence on American college campuses.

The collapse of the black-Jewish alliance

What makes this particularly disappointing is that last year’s FCAS Super Bowl ad was not quite so wrongheaded. Their 2024 featured Clarence B. Jones, a former speechwriter for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. speaking against generic hate. The images that appeared on the screen while he spoke were specific in that they showed swastika graffiti on Jewish institutions and signs that spoke of the need to fight antisemitism. Though it bowed to liberal orthodoxy by also including an image that smoke of the largely mythical threat of prejudice against Muslims, it also left no doubt of the particular problem that, only a few months after Oct. 7, as Jew-hatred spread on campuses and in the streets of major U.S. cities, the country was facing.

Interestingly, since then Jones has broken with Kraft and the FCAS over what he depicts as insufferable Jewish “demands for loyalty.” Sadly, like many in the African-American community, he seems to think that a request to support the struggle of the Jewish people against the genocidal Islamists of Hamas is a bridge too far. In a USA TODAY op-ed in which Jones vented his resentment against his former allies, he blamed the refusal of Israelis and their American Jewish supporters for the collapse of the alliance between blacks and Jews that flowered during Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s time. In doing so, he not only embraces classic tropes of antisemitism like dual loyalty but also seems to think that Hamas’s efforts to accomplish the mass murder of Jews and destroy the one Jewish state on the planet is the sort of thing that friends should be willing to agree to disagree over rather than a patently evil cause.

As depressing as it is for a civil-rights-era veteran to write such things, it’s equally true that he—and those who might agree with him—is an ally not worth having.

But we’ve also seen why the timid universalizers of the FACs are dead wrong about the American people.

Libeling the American people

Contrary to the stereotypes spread by the political left, the American people as a whole are not antisemitic. Nor are they irredeemably racist against blacks, Hispanics or other minorities. And, as the election results last November showed, they don’t much appreciate the lectures of sermonizing liberals who talk down to them, and think that their patriotism and most cherished values and beliefs are racist or expressions of prejudice.

The universalizing of the battle against antisemitism plays right into the lies of the most prevalent form of American bigotry against Jews.

It is true that the last 16 months of brazen antisemitism and the mainstreaming of efforts to rationalize and even justify it in the liberal corporate media have presented new and unique challenges for Jews.

But the response of most Americans, which is to say that those who live outside the woke leftist bubble in which much of the press and other cultural elites live, is support for Israel and anger at students and other activists who chant for the genocide of Jews (“from the river to the sea”) and terrorism against them (“globalize the intifada”). President Donald Trump may only have the support of the approximate half of the electorate that voted him into office. But he speaks for the vast majority of the country that supports Israel and believes that foreigners who use their student visas to engage in anti-Israel (and anti-American) protests, encampments and often violent-like behavior should be deported.

Jews and the groups that purport to speak for them as well as to lead the fight against antisemitism like Kraft’s FCAS ought not to buy into the idea that America is full of hate. In this way, the Super Bowl ad was just another version of those ubiquitous lawn signs that say “Hate Has No Home Here,” as if to imply that those who don’t engage in such liberal virtue signaling, are haters. Trump, whose executive orders against antisemitism and full-throated support of Israel aren’t couched in amorphous platitudes like that of the 2025 Super Bowl ad, has had no trouble in identifying the sources of the current surge in antisemitism. Like him, they ought to be exposing the Jew-haters, and countering lies about Israel and the Jewish people that are integral to the left’s toxic myths of critical race theory, intersectionality and the woke catechism of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) that are the root of the problem.

If they did, they might find that most Americans don’t need to be shamed into uniting against antisemitism but would, instead, readily support an unapologetic campaign to back Israel and join the fight to roll back the woke tide fueling much of contemporary American antisemitism.

This Super Bowl ad will soon be forgotten. But the decision to run something like it demonstrates just how clueless even well-meaning establishment figures like Kraft are when it comes to the world’s oldest form of prejudice. It’s a reminder that rather than relying on legacy groups and celebrity-driven foundations like that of Kraft, it is long past time to get rid of such organizations and pour Jewish philanthropic dollars into the hands of those able to think clearly about the problem. Jews need to stop their reflexive desire to universalize their tribulations, and even more, to stop blaming all of the American people for the transgressions of leftist elites.


Jonathan S. Tobin – is editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for Newsweek and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily” program, which are available on all major audio platforms and YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. He has won more than 60 awards for commentary, art criticism and other writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia University.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Trump critics want to make America safe for antisemites

Trump critics want to make America safe for antisemites

Jonathan S. Tobin


An executive order to deporting pro-Hamas student visa holders horrifies left-wingers. Would they defend foreigners inciting against other minorities?

.
A tent encampment supporting Hamas and Palestinians in the Gaza Strip on the quad of San Francisco State University, May 3, 2024. Credit: Mariwlqs via Wikimedia Commons.

Left-wingers are great believers in academic freedom but only under certain conditions. And it is those conditions that are defining the debate about President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 13899 on combating antisemitism in the United States. Issued last week amid a blizzard of other orders and Trump policy changes that have left his foes dazed, this one didn’t get the attention his other actions received. It mandates that all federal departments and agencies will review and report to the White House every possible criminal and civil action that they can take against “unlawful antisemitic harassment and violence.”

Rather than content itself with virtue-signaling on the issue and the meaningless platitudes that defined the Biden administration’s “U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism,” Trump’s order cuts straight to the heart of the matter. It is specifically focused on the most prevalent example of antisemitic harassment and violence in contemporary America: the surge of Jew-hatred and pro-Hamas agitation on college campuses since the massacre of 1,200 men, women and children in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

As a White House statement put it, the goal is “to protect law and order, quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation, and investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities.” The president is explicit on this point: “The order demands the removal of resident aliens who violate our laws.”

And to show that this administration means business when it comes to applying the full power of the federal government to the problem, the U.S. Department of Justice formed a multi-agency task force to do just that.

Defending pro-Hamas agitation

All of this probably sounds reasonable to most observers, including many who may otherwise detest Trump and lament most of what he is doing to transform the federal government in accordance with his campaign promises. But to the American left, the notion of cracking down on hatred on campuses—and deporting those who have used their student visas as licenses to engage in pro-Hamas agitation that targets Jewish students for intimidation and violence—seems to touch on a sore point. They think it isn’t just wrong but nothing less than tyranny. For them, holding accountable those who have incited and taken a leading part in spreading the epidemic of Jew-hatred that has spilled across the country in the last 16 months is among the most overt signs of what they believe is the onset of Trumpian tyranny.

This goes beyond their knee-jerk opposition to everything the 47th president does. They both deny that left-wing antisemitism is a form of Jew-hatred and believe that anything done to prevent the targeting of Jews obstructs their efforts to demonize Israel and mark out its supporters for isolation is inherently wrong.

According to groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the real problem on campuses since the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel triggered a wave of antisemitic protests is not the free pass administrators gave to most of them. It’s the fact that in some instances, universities and colleges sought to hold those who took part in the pro-Hamas agitation accountable for violating the rules of their schools, which forbid them from holding unauthorized demonstrations, occupying buildings as well as creating hostile atmospheres for Jews.

Keeping campus antisemites safe

That was a sentiment echoed in Slate magazine, which declared the executive order on antisemitism to be a “threat to every American.” The same piece declared that Democrats like former President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris “failed college students last year.” They did that by being insufficiently supportive of their attacks on Jews and the Jewish state, instead of merely extolling them, as Harris did, “showing exactly what human emotion should be.” In effect, the leaders of the Democrats treated campus antisemites as “very fine people” in the same way that they falsely accused Trump of treating neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017. But even that wasn’t enough for the left.

The increasingly anti-Israel PEN America, a group supposedly dedicated to defending free speech, declared a crackdown on antisemitism to be a new “McCarthyism.”

The influential left-wing think tank the Center for American Progress accused Trump of “weaponizing antisemitism for political gain.” They said, “It’s clear that Trump’s real goal is to silence opposing voices, whether they be from pro-Palestinian protesters on college campuses or Black Lives Matter marchers.” It’s significant that these two sectors, which have overtly aligned themselves with antisemitic views and actions, are far from models of “peaceful protesters.”

The New York Times’ anti-Zionist columnist Michelle Goldberg claims that Trump’s purpose is to “crush the academia left.” By that, she means it’s an effort to stop federal funding for academics whose goal is to attack America and to mendaciously label Israel as a “settler-colonial” and “apartheid” state. Why should people who promote such inherently antisemitic ideas be supported by a government that is obligated to prohibit prejudice against Jews?

That same disingenuous talking point was echoed in the increasingly anti-Zionist, left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz, where one writer lamented that what Trump was doing was creating “an authoritarian army of informers targeting Muslims, foreign students and the left under the guise of combating hate.”

Some of the criticism of Trump is pure gaslighting.

For example, the openly antisemitic Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which was originally founded as a political front group for fundraisers for Hamas terrorists, told the AP that “the action is discriminatory and wrongly characterizes protesters as ‘pro-jihadist’ or ‘pro-Hamas’” when, of course, the mobs on campuses and in the streets of major cities usually make no pretense of being anything else but that.

Much like the debate about Trump’s 2019 executive order on campus antisemitism, his far more serious approach this time is something of a test for those who comment about it. At that time, his opponents deplored the very idea of classifying Jews as a minority deserving of protection under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act with some twisting themselves into figurative pretzels to characterize efforts to deter antisemitism as itself antisemitic. Some Jews who took that absurd line proved that their Trump derangement syndrome was far stronger than any revulsion they might feel about Jew-haters.

Advocating for Jewish genocide

But five and a half years later, and after the horror of Oct. 7, it’s now clear that those who oppose efforts to fight antisemitism aren’t just driven off the deep end by Trump’s presence in the White House. They are now also telling us that they think those chanting for the genocide of Jews (“from the river to the sea”) and terrorism (“globalize the intifada”) are the good guys and not vile supporters of the war to wipe the one Jewish state on the planet off the map.

Their stands are the logical conclusions to be drawn from fashionable left-wing ideologies like critical race theory and intersectionality, which falsely label Israel and the Jews as “white” oppressors of people of color, even though the conflict with the Palestinians isn’t about race.

It isn’t about color either, since the majority of Israeli residents come from families of Middle Eastern backgrounds who were forced out of Arab countries. That leads us to understand just how hypocritical those claiming to oppose Trump’s order to defend free speech and academic freedom truly are.

The pro-Hamas left is all in favor of academic freedom when it comes to defending their freedom to indoctrinate students in the new secular religion of neo-Marxist thinking, as well as hatred of Jews under the guise of anti-Zionism. And, as we’ve seen in numerous examples in recent years, when it comes to defending the rights of students and even professors to oppose those toxic ideas, including the woke catechism of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), they think academic freedom is not an issue.

Left-wing hypocrisy

Indeed, when conservative law professor Amy Wax was suspended by the University of Pennsylvania for being too candid about her opinions, which were deliberately mischaracterized as “racist,” there was no groundswell of support on the left or in corporate liberal media. On the contrary, left-wingers think it entirely appropriate to silence those who disagree with them about woke ideology.

It is not a coincidence that the Ivy League school is, of course, one of those whose presidents testified before Congress in December 2023 that it depended on the “context” as to whether advocacy for the genocide of Jews would violate administrative rules.

We all know that if any student, professor or member of a college staff advocated for the lynching of African-Americans, Hispanics or any other DEI-approved minority (a category from which Jews are pointedly excluded) or some other openly racist cause, they would be expelled or fired with few questions asked. Speakers deemed “racist”—which, in practice, usually just means critical of woke ideology—are routinely shouted down or disinvited. And if foreigners used their student visas to advocate for attacks on blacks or Hispanics or Asians, there would be no rush to the barricades to decry their being deported.

A definition of academic freedom that only applies to those who hate Jews and Israel makes a mockery of the concept. The same applies to those who are angry about the Trump administration’s acceptance of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s working definition of antisemitism because it correctly notes that those who wish to deny rights to Jews not denied to anyone else are antisemitic. Anti-Zionism is indistinguishable from antisemitism.

The Biden administration accepted the IHRA definition but did nothing to back it up. Trump is working to correct that mistake.

To their credit, liberal Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee endorsed Trump’s executive order, although both included caveats about not violating anyone’s free speech.

But what’s at stake here is not freedom of speech.

Protecting Jews, not Jew-haters

Anyone can say what they like about the Israeli government and its policies. However, advocacy for terrorism against Jews that results in actions in which they are deliberately targeted for violence crosses the line from speech into discriminatory and illegal conduct. Seeking to target those groups that participate in such actions and to defund institutions that get taxpayer money that are facilitating it is neither tyrannical nor McCarthyism. It’s using the power of the law to protect those who are being attacked for being Jewish.

More to the point, foreign students are only here by permission and as long as they demonstrate good conduct. Deporting Hamas supporters is an appropriate and legal measure that rightly punishes those who take advantage of American generosity while taking part in immoral activities. Would we treat members of the Nazi Party or supporters of any other racist or totalitarian movement any differently? If not, then why the sympathy and the rush to support antisemites and Hamas supporters?

Decent people—whether Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, Jews or non-Jews—should be applauding the seriousness of Trump’s stand on antisemitism. Those who stand against it may pretend that they are merely defending the right to express an opinion. That is the height of disingenuousness. Opposing Trump’s executive is an effort to make America safe for left-wing and Islamist antisemites and to treat them as especially worthy of the government’s protection, as opposed to the Jews they intend to victimize.


Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for Newsweek and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily” program, which are available on all major audio platforms and YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. He has won more than 60 awards for commentary, art criticism and other writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia University.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com