Romantyczne bocianie gniazdo, stojące w pobliżu wymagającego drobnych remontów budynku gospodarczego.

Zaczarowany świat PRL

Andrzej Koraszewski

Tucker Carlson’s Jeffrey Epstein obsession is an antisemitic conspiracy theory

Jonathan S. Tobin

From left: Political commentator Rogan O’Handley, aka DC Draino, TikToker Chaya Raichik, commentator Liz Wheeler and U.S. conservative activist Scott Presler carry binders bearing the seal of the U.S. Justice Department reading “The Epstein Files: Phase 1” as they walk out of the West Wing of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 27, 2025. The Trump administration has said it would release documents on late tycoon and convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who was found dead in his prison cell in 2019. Photo by Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images.

Conspiracy theories aren’t generally concocted out of whole cloth. They are almost always rooted in quite real and terrible events for which there are no conclusive and satisfactory answers.

That is why last week’s announcement that the U.S. Department of Justice’s attempt to take a deep dive into the records of the case of disgraced financier and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein produced no great revelations. Neither did it reveal a much-sought-after list of celebrity “clients” for whom he procured underage victims. The lack of any definitive results was bound to be met with anger from an Internet audience already prone to disbelieve any official response. Predictably, it strengthened the conviction among those who had immersed themselves in this sordid story that this, too, was just more evidence of a grand plot to fool the public and cover up unspeakable crimes.

But just as predictable was the next step down the rabbit hole of Epstein conspiracy theories. Within days of Attorney General Pam Bondi admitting that no evidence in the FBI’s files would allow the Justice Department to continue the investigation, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson doubled down on the idea of a government cover-up while speaking at the Turning Point USA conference in Tampa, Fla.

Not only was he willing to hurl such an accusation at an administration made up of his presumable political allies. He went further by claiming to an audience cheering his supposed courage in making such charges that Epstein was an agent of the government of Israel, whose vile actions were somehow part of an effort to blackmail politicians and celebrities. Unsatisfied with such slander, he also invoked the notion that the entire financial industry is some sort of scam—and attacked pro-Israel billionaire Bill Ackman for good measure.

Nor was Carlson alone in trying to make this about Israel and the Jews. Podcaster and former Fox News and NBC journalist Megyn Kelly, who is generally far more responsible than Carlson when it comes to flinging around conspiracy theories, echoed the allegation, also voicing the belief that Epstein was probably a Mossad agent.

A classic antisemitic trope

Why are they—and their legions of imitators and followers—latching onto the idea that the Israeli government is at the heart of one of the most notorious sex crimes in recent history? The answer is obvious. For podcasters and social-media “influencers” who thrive only to the extent that they can feed their audiences’ hunger not just for simple answers to complex problems but the kind of conspiratorial thinking that confirms their desire to view every bad thing as a diabolical plot, the Epstein case is a gift that never stops giving. To attach Israel to this sort of topic is a guarantee not only of millions of clicks on videos and podcasts, but also gives those saying such things an instant mass audience that is always willing to believe anything awful that can be said about the Jewish state or the Jews.

Two main points need to be acknowledged in discussing this topic.

One is that neither Carlson nor Kelly—nor anyone else talking about this publicly—has any tangible, concrete evidence of Israeli government involvement in Epstein’s sex crimes. And they freely admit as much.

All they have got are circumstantial allegations that they claim that “everyone” believes. That consists of the fact that the criminal was Jewish, involved in Jewish philanthropy and knew prominent Israelis. Add to that the fact that Robert Maxwell, the father of Epstein’s one-time girlfriend/accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year prison term for conspiring to abuse minors, is alleged to have had ties with the Mossad some 40 years ago.

That’s a lot of smoke. Yet after more than a decade of obsessive global interest in the case, no fire has been discovered.

And no denial from Israelis like former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, no matter how persuasive or authoritative, will ever silence the conspiracy-mongering. It’s probably a mistake to even try.

The other is that attaching Israel, the Mossad or the Jews to this sort of a case is a classic trope of antisemitism, straight out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in which Jewish plots to suborn society via sexual subversion and shadowy manipulation of world leaders and governments play a prominent role.

That’s why throwing out these sorts of charges is not merely run-of-the-mill clickbait; it would be defamatory and irresponsible at any time. But in doing so now, they are self-consciously throwing fuel on the fire of a global surge in antisemitism that has been taking place since the Hamas-led Palestinian assault on southern Israeli communities on Oct. 7, 2023.

Carlson has been doing his best to stoke the global information war against Israel since then, using his podcast viewed by millions to platform smears of the Jewish state and more traditional antisemitic themes like Holocaust denial. A deep dive into the funding for his online network, where he has peddled pro-Iranian and pro-Qatar propaganda, as well as Russian disinformation, might (as some of his critics allege) reveal funding from nefarious sources like Qatar.

Having conspicuously failed to persuade President Donald Trump not to act to end the Iranian nuclear threat and work with Israel to destroy Tehran’s program, as well as all of his predictions of disaster if he did having been proven to be laughably false, has not deterred Carlson from jumping right back onto the Jew-hatred horse after he fell. That’s typical of antisemitic conspiracy theorists. The fact that he continues to claim that he is neither antisemitic nor anti-Israel is evidence not only of his shamelessness. It shows the way he is uniting with left-wing Jew-haters to try to move the Overton Window of acceptable discourse about Israel to make it safe to engage in antisemitism.

A true crime scandal

To note the way that the Epstein case is being used to legitimize Jew-hatred is not to deny the crimes that the perpetrator and his associates engaged in, or that there is a lot about the case that remains inexplicable and troubling.

That Epstein got off with a slap on the wrist when he was first charged with sex crimes has always had the odor of corruption, or at least misconduct on the part of the Florida prosecutors involved. The fact that he engaged in such conduct while hobnobbing with some of the most famous and powerful people in the world is also as outrageous and puzzling as how he got away with it for so long.

Then there is the question of Epstein’s suicide in a New York City jail, which occurred under suspicious circumstances, with some calling it murder by those who wished to silence him.

It’s also true that Epstein’s fortune made on Wall Street gave him access to some of the most influential and famous people in the world, including former President Bill Clinton, Britain’s Prince Andrew, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and a host of others. Some of them might have flown on his private planes on trips to his Caribbean island estate and/or participated in his crimes against underage girls.

Has evidence that would connect others to this scandal been destroyed? Maybe. It’s also possible that Epstein was smart enough not to have a document with a “client’s list” lying around to incriminate him and his pals. Scholar and Harvard Law school professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, who was on Epstein’s legal team when he was first charged with crimes but later left it—and was himself the target of some libelous accusations of participating in his client’s wrongdoing that were ultimately walked back—has said that he knows the names of some of the guilty parties but can’t speak because of confidentiality pledges imposed by the court.

It’s likely that even revealing those names won’t stop the conspiracy from continuing to metastasize. What we do know about the Epstein case is enough to fill a library of “true crime” books and documentaries. What we don’t know about it—and at this point, likely never will—is equally vast.

Why do so many people care about the man and this case?

As with all true crime tales, it plays into the public’s hunger for prurient stories of sexual misconduct. Like reality shows that portray dysfunctional or depraved conduct, the focus on these investigations allows audiences to be both titillated and to feel morally superior to those depicted.

More than that, it also taps into most people’s understanding that even the best of political and legal systems are susceptible to corruption or injustice—particularly when, as was likely applicable to Epstein, a two-tier system in which the wealthy and well-connected are treated better than ordinary people. Throw in the belief by some that global elites are not merely wrong-headed and corrupt but devoted to the abuse of children, and you have a formula for an obsession.

That’s why it would have been nice if the government files on the case could have ended some of the wild speculation.

Egg on their faces

A big part of the problem now is the fact that three of the figures who hold positions of authority in the Department of Justice were, seemingly only yesterday, the ones who were engaged in spreading conspiracy theories about Epstein. That was true of Dan Bongino, a podcaster and media personality before his current appointment as deputy director of the FBI. The same could be said of the statements of Bondi and FBI director Kash Patel.

In February, Bondi told Fox News that an Epstein client list was on her desk to be reviewed. She also said that her department had obtained hours of video related to the case. In March, the White House invited 15 far-right influencers to an event where they received white binders labeled “The Epstein Files: Phase 1”; however, the documents provided were already publicly available.

But having encouraged conspiracy theorists when it was the Biden administration that was supposedly covering up evidence, they were left with egg on their faces when it turned out they had nothing to back up their charges.

That’s deeply embarrassing for Bondi, Patel and Bongino, who were forced to eat crow. It’s also provoked a round of recriminations within the Trump administration and among conservatives on the Internet.

As a result, people like Carlson are now not only hyping long-running assertions that Epstein’s crimes were just the tip of an enormous iceberg of egregious conspiratorial wrongdoing but are now aiming their fire at Trump. The president urged his supporters to move on from the story, leading some on the right to lament that he, too, has been co-opted by the global conspiracy. Some on the left are now alleging that he is being protected by the cover-up with the same irresponsible lack of proof that those on the right have used when speaking of the case.

Carlson has no influence

There are two conclusions to be drawn from all this.

One is that, as appalling as the discourse about the Epstein case has been, it is, like the debate about Israel and Iran, further distancing the Trump administration from “woke right” antisemites like Carlson.

Perhaps Bondi will ultimately be dropped by Trump. But like the fact that he is disappointing those on the far right who imagined that “America First” meant an anti-Israel foreign policy, the White House’s determination to move on from the obsessions of Carlson and his ilk continues to demonstrate that they have very little influence on the policies and actions of Trump 2.0.

There are strong arguments to be made that, as bad as Epstein’s crimes were and as Trump himself has now said, other important threats to America and the West are higher priorities. We might like to know for sure who did what and with whom on Epstein’s plane and island. But for the government and the media to be chasing their tails seeking answers to questions that might have no conclusive answers on an old scandal is not a good use of anyone’s time.

It’s also true that it won’t stop the conspiracy theorists or the antisemites from continuing to promote the idea that the Epstein case demonstrates that Israel or the Jews were promoting sexual crimes and then hiding them. Like the assassination of John F. Kennedy and other such fodder for those who dwell in the fever swamps, the Epstein case will live on and continue to feed on itself for the foreseeable future.

There was never a chance that even the Trump administration’s admission that the case is closed was going to satisfy those who are up to their necks in wild theories. Telling them that there is no “there” there was, no matter the truth of the matter, never going to silence the doubters or stop scoundrels from seeking to link it to hatred for Israel.

As with his promotion of Holocaust denial, Carlson’s stance that he is “just asking questions” about Epstein is disingenuous. While he will claim that he is being silenced even after he shouts his unsubstantiated charges to huge audiences, the time is long past to stop speaking of him and his “woke right” associates as if they aim to seek the truth about Epstein, Israel, Iran or anything else. Like the virus of antisemitism itself, unscrupulous hatemongers may always be with us. While it will never be possible to conclusively discredit those who spread conspiracy theories aimed at harming Israel and the Jews to those willing to swallow their smears, it’s incumbent on decent people to stop treating Carlson as a credible source of information or a representative of anything but the most irresponsible elements of society.

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.

Opowieść snuta przez pokolenia

RABIN JONATHAN SACKS
Tłumaczenie: Jolanta Różyło 

PARSZA BO 

Jest to jeden z najbardziej zaskakujących ustępów w literaturze religijnej. Mojżesz, na kilka dni przed wyjściem z Egiptu, przemawia do Izraelitów. Wygnanie trwa w tym momencie już dwieście dziesięć lat. Po wstępnym okresie spokoju i beztroski, przyszła era ucisku i zniewolenia, podczas której dochodzi do powolnego ludobójstwa męskich potomków ludu Izraela. Teraz, po wielu znakach i cudach oraz zesłanych na Egipt plagach, udaje się rzucić najpotężniejsze starożytne imperium na kolana i zyskać okazję, by uwolnić się spod jarzma dręczycieli.

Mojżesz nie mówi jednak ani o wolności, ani o krainie płynącej mlekiem i miodem, ani o podróży przez pustynię, która czeka Izraelitów. Zamiast tego wspomina aż trzykrotnie o dalekiej przyszłości, w której tułaczka Izraelitów dobiegnie końca i znajdą się oni – w końcu wolni – na swej własnej ziemi. I znów Mojżesz nie mówi ani o samej ziemi, ani o społeczeństwie, które trzeba będzie stworzyć od nowa, ani nawet o wymaganiach i odpowiedzialności, wiążącymi się z wolnością (o tym, jak wiemy, opowiada księga Dwarim).

Mojżesz mówi o edukacji, szczególnie o obowiązku rodziców wobec dzieci. Zajmuje się pytaniami, które mogą zadać kiedyś żydowskie dzieci, dla których doświadczenie niewoli i tułaczki będą zaledwie odległym wspomnieniem. Mojżesz daje lekcję, do której stosowały się wszystkie pokolenia Żydów od jego czasów do dziś: opowiedz naszą historię swoim dzieciom i zrób to tak dobrze, jak tylko potrafisz. Odgrywaj sceny wygnania i wyjścia z Egiptu, niewoli i wolności. Pozwól dzieciom zadawać pytania. Wskrzeszaj tę opowieść za każdym razem, żeby nie stała się tylko wyschniętym reliktem przeszłości. Tłumacz, że czcisz Boga w rytuałach i podczas świąt nie w podzięce za to, co uczynił dla twoich przodków, ale dla ciebie. Niech twoja opowieść będzie barwna, pełna życia i osobista.

Mojżesz uczy nas tego aż trzykrotnie:

„I będzie, gdy przyjedziecie do ziemi, którą da wam Wiekuisty,
jako przyrzekł, przestrzegać wtedy będziecie tego obrzędu.
A gdy wtedy powiedzą wam dzieci wasze: cóż to za obrzęd u was?
To odpowiecie: ofiara to paschalna Wiekuistemu, który przeszedł
mimo domów synów Israelskich w Micraim, gdy raził Micrejczyków,
a domy nasze uchronił. I ukłonił się lud i ukorzył się” (Szemot 12:25-27).

„I opowiesz synowi twojemu dnia onego, mówiąc: to dla tego,
co uczynił mi Wiekuisty, gdym wychodził z Micraim” (Szemot 13:8).

„I będzie, gdy zapyta się ciebie syn twój w przyszłości mówiąc: ‘Cóż to jest?’ to powiesz mu: ‘Przemożną ręką wywiódł nas Wiekuisty z Micraim, z domu niewolników” (Szemot 13:14).

Dlaczego Mojżesz, w tej podniosłej chwili odkupienia, uznał tę naukę za najistotniejszą? Dlatego, że wolność jest dziełem narodu, naród zaś potrzebuje tożsamości. Nie ma jednak tożsamości bez pamięci, która zakodowana jest w opowiadanych przez nas historiach. Nie ma ważniejszego czynnika w budowania ciągłości międzypokoleniowej niż historia naszych przodków, która następnie, jako święte dziedzictwo, przekazywana jest kolejnym pokoleniom. Ta opowiadana przez nas historia to my sami – tożsamość rodzi się wraz z pierwszą opowieścią przekazaną dzieciom przez ich rodziców.

Kryją się tu odpowiedzi na podstawowe pytania, które na pewnym etapie życia zadaje sobie każda myśląca istota: Kim jestem? Co tutaj robię? Jak powinienem żyć? Istnieje wiele odpowiedzi na te pytania, ale dla każdego Żyda brzmią one następująco: jestem członkiem narodu, który Bóg wyprowadził z niewoli; jestem tu, aby budować społeczeństwo, które darzy szacunkiem nie tylko swoją własną wolność, ale również wolność innych ludzi; powinienem żyć w ciągłym przeświadczeniu, że wolność jest Bożym darem, który czcimy poprzez zawarte przymierze prawa i miłości.

W historii Zachodu dwa razy zignorowano, zapomniano, czy też zbuntowano się przeciwko tożsamości. W XVII i XVIII wieku próbowano stworzyć świat bez niej. Projekt ten nazwano później Oświeceniem. Była to szlachetna idea, a znaczenia i dorobku (który bez wątpienia powinniśmy kultywować) Oświecenia nie sposób kwestionować. Pewien jego aspekt od początku był jednak spisany na straty – próba życia bez tożsamości.

Według myśli oświeceniowej w średniowieczu tożsamość ludzi opierała się na wyznawanej przez nich religii. Religia jednak przez wieki prowadziła do wojen między chrześcijanami a muzułmanami, a później, za sprawą reformacji, do konfliktu między poróżnionymi grupami chrześcijan: protestantami i katolikami. Zatem za jedyne pokojowe rozwiązanie uznano całkowite wyzbycie się religii, a zarazem swojej tożsamości. Tożsamości uznano za zbyt personalne – należało czcić tylko rzeczy uniwersalne jak rozum i obserwację, filozofię i naukę. Historie chciano wymienić na systemy, abyśmy wszyscy mogli stać się częścią jednej społeczności jak budowniczy wieży Babel. Jak powiedział Schiller, a Beethoven ubrał w muzykę w IX symfonii: „Alle Menschen werden Brüder”, „Wszyscy ludzie będą braćmi”.

Niestety jest to idea, której urzeczywistnienie, przynajmniej w świecie, jaki znamy, nie jest możliwe. Okazała się ona w końcu fatalna w skutkach. W XIX wieku nastąpił gwałtowny powrót tego, co tak usilnie próbowaliśmy stłumić. Tożsamość powróciła, aby się zemścić – tym razem nie oparta na religii, ale jej trzech substytutach: państwie narodowym, rasie aryjskiej i klasie robotniczej. W XX wieku idea państwa narodowego doprowadziła do dwóch światowych wojen, segregacja rasowa była bezpośrednią przyczyną Zagłady, a walka klas zrodziła przywództwo Stalina, gułagi i KGB. Miliony ludzi straciły życie w imię trzech fałszywych bożków.

W ciągu ostatnich pięćdziesięciu lat Zachód podjął drugą próbę zniesienia tożsamości, tym razem używając skrajnie innych metod. Na Zachodzie czcimy dziś nie uniwersalizm, a indywidualizm – „ja” i „moje” to słowa go definiujące. Moralność – kodeks wartości, który spajał społeczeństwo w imię wspólnego dobra – rozwarstwił się i przekształcił w prawo każdej jednostki do robienia tego, na co tylko ma ochotę, o ile swoim zachowaniem nie krzywdzi bezpośrednio innych.

Nasze tożsamości stały się ledwie maskami, które nakładamy na krótką chwilę i bez większego zaangażowania. Dla większości społeczeństwa małżeństwo jest anachronizmem, rodzicielstwo odłożone zostało na później lub całkowicie odrzucone, a społeczność to tłum bez twarzy. Nadal kultywujemy historie, od „Harry’ego Pottera” po „Władcę pierścieni” i „Gwiezdne wojny”, ale to tylko fikcja, filmy, fantazje. Zaangażowanie zmieniło się w eskapizm. Taki świat wydaje się niezwykle tolerancyjny, jednak tylko do czasu, kiedy spotyka się z przekonaniami, które nie są częścią jego kodeksu. Wtedy ten jakże tolerancyjny świat staje się brutalnie bezwzględny, aż w końcu zdegradowany zostaje do polityki tłumu. Tak rodzi się populizm – preludium despotyzmu.

Czas dzisiejszego hiperindywidualizmu dobiegnie końca. Jako istoty społeczne nie możemy żyć bez tożsamości, rodziny, społeczności i wspólnej odpowiedzialności. Oznacza to, że nie możemy również żyć bez opowieści, które łączą nas z przeszłością, przyszłością i innymi ludźmi, z którymi dzielimy tę samą historię i los. Biblijny przekaz jest wciąż aktualny: aby stworzyć i utrzymać przy życiu wolne społeczeństwo, musimy uczyć nasze dzieci o tym, jak zdobyliśmy wolność i co dzieję się, kiedy jej zabraknie. Musimy opowiadać im o przaśnym chlebie reprezentującym nieszczęście i gorzkich ziołach niewoli. Utrata własnej historii, zapomnienie kim się jest i dlaczego, grozi utratą wolności.

Nie pieniądze czy przedmioty, ale właśnie historie są najcenniejszym prezentem, jaki możemy podarować swoim dzieciom. Ne mogą to być jednak fikcje, ale prawdziwe opowieści, które łączą nasze dzieci z nami i z naszym bogatym dziedzictwem wzniosłych idei. Jesteśmy spadkobiercami historii, która inspirowała setki pokoleń naszych przodków i ostatecznie zmieniła świat Zachodu. Zapomnienie jest równoznaczne z utratą. Zachód już zapomina o swojej historii. Nie pozwólmy, aby i nasza została zapomniana.

Z perspektywy trzydziestu trzech wieków, które minęły od czasów Mojżesza, możemy dostrzec, że miał on rację. Opowieść snuta przez pokolenia jest darem tożsamości – wiedząc, kim i po co jesteśmy, możemy przebrnąć przez pustynię czasu odważnie i śmiało. Oto idea, która może zmienić życie.

“Oświadczenie Chalila al-Hajji o poświęceniu Gazy nie jest przejęzyczeniem – to zdjęcie maski z twarzy. Kiedy mówi, że Gaza “składa się w ofierze”, ma na myśli, że mieszkańcy Gazy zostali sprzedani… Wymienieni na podniesienie znaczenia w Teheranie, brawa w Dosze…” — Hamza Howidy, urodzony w Gazie obrońca pokoju i praw człowieka. Na zdjęciu: Al-Hajja przemawia w Al Dżazirze w czerwcu 2025 r. (zdjęcie: X.com/Osint613)

Palestyńczycy zabierają głos: Prawdziwy powód, dla którego Hamas chce ich “poświęcić”

Khaled Abu Toameh
Tłumaczenie: Małgorzata Koraszewska

Professor who called for Iran to strike US base removed, Georgetown says at House hearing

Andrew Bernard

Robert Groves, interim president of Georgetown University, testifies before the House Committee on Education and Workforce in the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, D.C., July 15, 2025. Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images.

Robert Groves, the interim president of Georgetown University, told members of Congress on Tuesday that the school removed a professor who called for Iran to attack U.S. military bases in the Middle East.

Speaking at the House Committee on Education and Workforce’s latest hearing on campus antisemitism, Groves said that Jonathan Brown was no longer the chair of Georgetown’s department of Arabic and Islamic studies.

“Within minutes of our learning of that tweet, the dean contacted Professor Brown. The tweet was removed,” Groves told lawmakers. “We issued a statement condemning the tweet. Professor Brown is no longer chair of his department. He’s on leave, and we’re beginning a process of reviewing the case.”

A spokesman for Georgetown told JNS that Brown retains his faculty appointment as Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization at the university’s School of Foreign Service.

Shortly after the U.S. concluded airstrikes against Iran in June, Brown wrote on social media, in a since-deleted post, that he wanted Iran to retaliate.

“I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on a base, then everyone stops,” Brown wrote.

A specialist in traditional Islamic sources, Brown has attracted controversy for years over his academic views and anti-Israel advocacy. In 2017, he issued an apology for a lecture about the morality of slavery and rape.

“I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody, because we own lots of people all around us and were owned by people, and this obsession about thinking of slavery as property,” he said in the lecture. 

During questions from the audience, the professor cited the example of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. “He had slaves, there is no denying that,” he said. “Are you more morally mature than the prophet of God? No, you’re not.”

A convert to Islam, Brown is also the son-in-law of Sami al-Arian, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to a terrorism conspiracy charge over his support for Palestinian Islamic Jihad and was deported from the country in 2015.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee, during a committee hearing about antisemitism on campus with leaders from Georgetown University, City University of New York and University of California, Berkeley, July 15, 2025. Credit: Courtesy of the House Committee on Education and Workforce.

‘Why did you give a medal?’

Tuesday’s hearing, the ninth that the education committee has held on antisemitism, also featured Félix Matos Rodríguez, chancellor of the City University of New York, and Rich Lyons, chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley.

Members of the committee were generally divided along partisan lines for the scope of their questioning; Republicans asked the university leaders about faculty and student statements about Israel, and the war in Gaza. Democrats asked about the Trump administration’s cuts to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

“This is yet another hearing to demonize Muslims and their religion, to demonize Palestinians, including those in Gaza who have undeniably faced unspeakable harms—a humanitarian crisis and human-rights crisis—and particularly, the young student activists and faculty who are determined to stand up against human rights violations,” said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.).

“This is particularly another public opportunity for Republicans to pit Jewish Americans against Muslim Americans, Muslim against Christian, black against white,” she said.

Another focus of the hearing was foreign funding for the universities, particularly Georgetown’s relationship with Qatar, where the school has had a satellite campus for 20 years.

Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.) asked Groves about the university’s decision to award a humanitarian medal to Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, the mother of Qatar’s emir.

“Months prior to giving this award, Sheikha Moza had posted on social-media comments praising the Oct. 7 attack on Israel,” Harris said. “She praised the mastermind of the Oct. 7 attack, Yahya Sinwar, saying, ‘The name Yahya means the one who lives. They thought him dead, but he lives.’”

“She added, apparently referring to Israel, ‘He will live on, and they will be gone,’” Harris continued. “I have to ask: Why did you give a medal to someone who had made such antisemitic comments?”

Groves said Sheikha Moza’s post “is not consistent with Georgetown policy,” but that the school would not consider revoking the award, which was given for Sheikha Moza’s contributions to educating impoverished children around the world.

The university leaders were also confronted with anti-Israel and pro-Hamas statements and incidents from students and professors, as well as questioned about whether they had adequately rooted out Jew-hatred on their campuses.

‘You get to decide who to hire’

Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) asked Lyons, Berkeley’s chancellor, about Ussama Makdisi, professor of history and chancellor’s chair at the university.

“In the fall of 2024, you named Ussama Makdisi the inaugural chair of a newly endowed program in Palestinian Arab studies. On Oct. 7, Makdisi described the Hamas attacks against Israel as ‘resistance,’” Fine said. “I understand freedom of speech, but you get to decide who to hire. Why would you give a position to someone who said Oct. 7 was justified?”

“Professor Makdisi is a fine scholar,” Lyons replied. “He was awarded that position from his colleagues based on academic standards.”

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), the committee chairman, stated in his closing remarks that he was “disappointed” by the responses from the witnesses.

“Berkeley admits abhorrence of the views of the professor rewarded with his own program, but won’t do anything about it, and refers to him as a fine scholar,” Walberg said. 

“That’s something I could not refer to him, when he misses the moral issue of humanity,” he said. “Georgetown couldn’t affirmatively say it wouldn’t allow a member of the KKK to come speak. CUNY severely underrepresented the number of antisemitism complaints received. So those are concerns that we still have.”