Harvard University’s Antisemitism Task Force report, released yesterday, reveals a deeply hostile environment for Jewish and Zionist students. From classrooms to dining halls, Jewish students face harassment, social exclusion, and a curriculum skewed against Israel. The 311-page report includes horror stories of professors who accept the idea that Israelis should be treated differently, non-Jewish roommates of Jews being themselves shunned for being "friends with Zionists," a presentation about the Holocaust period castigated as Zionist and its presenter hounded as a supporter of Netanyahu. The descriptions of the horrendous environment Jews at Harvard have to navigate is unsparing and chilling.
Unfortunately, the report’s recommendations to fix this crisis - adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism, expanding Jewish studies, and improving disciplinary policies - are only baby steps. They, like nearly all such recommendations, refuse to tackle the root causes. Modern antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism, like all other types of antisemitism, see Israel and proud Jews as existential threats to their worldviews. Without directly confronting this, particularly the anti-ideological Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, Harvard risks treating symptoms while leaving the disease unchecked.
In the context of Harvard, the report notes something important but misses the cause. It notes a critical shift: before 2000, pro-Palestinian and Zionist student groups engaged in dialogue, however tense. Since then, pro-Palestinian groups have refused to interact with Zionists altogether. Around that time, the very idea of academic freedom came under attack - ironically, in the name of academic freedom. Orwellian "newspeak" has become mainstream.
The report attributes this change to the Second Intifada (2000–2005). This explanation misses the mark. The real turning point was the 2001 Durban “anti-racism” conference, which equated Zionism with racism and accused Israel of apartheid and genocide. Durban’s rhetoric galvanized global anti-Zionism, paving the way for BDS, formally launched in 2005 but rooted in the conference’s legacy. BDS started the idea that even talking to Zionist Jews is anathema, and it made up a fiction that Palestinians made a "call" to the world to boycott and isolate Israel, including avoiding even the pretense of discussion with Zionists.
This should have been called out and delegitimized at Harvard twenty years ago.
BDS is not an ideology but an anti-ideology. It demands boycotts of Israeli institutions, scholars, and anyone identifying as Zionist, explicitly rejecting “normalization” through dialogue. This stance, which views Zionism as an existential evil, has poisoned Harvard’s campus over the years - and has become normalized. .Pro-Palestinian groups’ refusal to engage isn’t about the Intifada’s violence but BDS’s dictate that Zionists are beyond the pale. The report’s silence on Durban and BDS allows this anti-ideological framework to persist unchallenged, perpetuating a culture where Zionist students are ostracized rather than debated.
The Harvard report's recommendations are necessary but insufficient. They address symptoms like exclusion, biased curricula, administrative inaction—without dismantling the ideological root: the perception of Jews, Judaism and Israel as an existential threat that must be destroyed.
Whether it admits it or not, Harvard’s silence on BDS implies tacit acceptance of its exclusionary and antisemitic narratives as legitimate. The report doesn’t endorse BDS, but by not refuting claims like “Israel is a settler-colonial state” or “Zionism is apartheid” or "Israel is engaged in genocide" - presented as fact in classrooms - it grants them academic legitimacy. This emboldens a campus culture where anti-Zionism is the default, and Zionist students are silenced or shunned.
To defeat antisemitism, Harvard must strike at the root: ideologies that see Jews, Judaism or Israel as existential threats that must be eliminated. This starts with forcefully condemning BDS’s foundation as an anti-ideology antithetical to academic freedom. BDS’s rejection of dialogue - boycotting Zionists, Israeli scholars, or Jewish students who support Israel - stifles inquiry and poisons discourse. and is antithetical to Harvard's supposed mission. Harvard should declare that any movement demanding non-engagement contradicts the university’s mission and is not welcome on campus. BDS is not pro-Palestinian - it is intended to destroy Israel and demonize anyone who disagrees.
Equally critical, Harvard must explicitly affirm the academic merit of Zionist ideologies. Zionism, as Jewish self-determination rooted in historical and legal claims, deserves scholarly consideration alongside other national movements. An official statement like, “Zionism merits rigorous debate, not demonization,” would counter the tacit legitimacy of BDS-style narratives. It would signal that Zionist students and faculty have a place at Harvard, reducing the chilling effect documented in the report.
Harvard’s cautious approach - prioritizing procedural fixes over ideological confrontation - reflects fear of backlash or legal challenges (like Title VI lawsuits noted in the report). But this timidity allows BDS’s hate and anti-ideological stance to fester. Campuses like Harvard have turned into battlegrounds where Zionists are enemies and whose viewpoints must be silenced. Without challenging this, Harvard can’t restore the dialogue that once existed or dismantle the hostility its Jewish students endure.
Harvard has a chance to lead by rejecting BDS’s rejection of dialogue and affirming Zionism’s place in academic discourse. Only by attacking this root can the university move beyond Band-Aid solutions and create a campus where Jewish students, Zionist or not, are no longer scapegoats for ideological crusades.
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy