Gizmodo is outraged. The National Institutes of Health, under pressure from the Trump administration, has updated its policies to allow the termination of funding to researchers who engage in discriminatory boycotts of Israel. And to hear Gizmodo tell it, that’s a scandal.
Under the Trump administration, the National Institutes of Health has announced a new policy that allows it to cut off funding to any medical researcher who engages in a political protest of Israel.
Except that there is nothing in the policy about protesting Israel or having "mean thoughts about what is happening in Gaza." The policy is a long-overdue recognition that boycotting Israel is not a neutral act of political speech - it’s discriminatory conduct targeting a single nation, and a Jewish one at that.
The NIH policy doesn’t say you can’t criticize Israel. It says if you refuse to work with Israeli companies or institutions because they are Israeli, you may be in violation of nondiscrimination rules. That’s not censorship. That’s applying the same standards that would apply if someone said they wouldn’t collaborate with Nigerian or Japanese partners.
But Gizmodo, like many progressive outlets, insists on treating BDS as “mere criticism”—a protected act of conscience rather than what it actually is: a campaign of economic warfare that singles out the world’s only Jewish state for boycott, exclusion, and academic isolation.
The NIH is responding to a real-world problem: researchers refusing partnerships, grants, or collaborative work with Israeli counterparts - not because of policy disagreements, but because those people are Israeli.
Imagine someone refusing to collaborate with anyone Chinese, or Muslim, or Catholic, or Cuban. Would Gizmodo write glowing profiles about their bravery? Of course not. But anti-Israel activism, especially when cloaked in the language of "justice," gets a free pass—even when it becomes indistinguishable from bigotry.
This wasn't the first time this writer, Lucas Ropek, has shown his hate for Israel under the guise of journalism (or whatever Gizmodo is.) In February, he made up facts about the Israeli pager attack on Hezbollah to make it sound like it caused mass civilian casualties. Apparently, Ropek thinks an Iranian proxy Islamist terror group that shoots rockets at Israeli civilians deserves more sympathy.
If Gizmodo’s writers were less interested in propaganda and more interested in principle, they might ask why only the Jewish state is the target of this kind of academic excommunication. They might also ask whether it’s ethical for publicly funded research to include people who refuse to engage with colleagues on the basis of nationality - again, not because of war crimes or human rights violations (hello, China), but because it’s Israel.
Moreover, Israel is in the forefront of medical research. Any institution that chooses to exclude researchers and partners for political reasons is hurting the entire health industry.
The personal cellphones of dozens of current and former Barnard College employees pinged Monday evening with a text message that looked, at first, like a scam.
The text said it was from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, part of a review of the employment practices of Barnard. A link led to a survey that asked respondents if they were Jewish or Israeli, and if they had been subjected to harassment.
After faculty members asked Barnard administrators about the text, the college confirmed to them on Wednesday that the messages were authentic — part of a federal investigation into discrimination against Jewish employees that started last summer.
Serena Longley, Barnard’s general counsel, acknowledged in an email to the faculty members that Barnard had provided the commission with the personal contact information of staff members to give them the opportunity to participate. “Participation in the survey is voluntary,” she wrote.
The texts, which faculty members said appeared to have gone to nearly all Barnard staff members, appear to be part of an aggressive new tactic by the Trump administration to collect reports of alleged antisemitism at Barnard, a women’s college affiliated with Columbia University that has come under heavy criticism for pro-Palestinian demonstrations on its campus.
The EEOC has plenty of valid reasons to proactively reach out to employees to determine if there is antisemitic or anti-Israeli harassment at Barnard.
Its methods leave much to be desired.
The EEOC is tasked to identify and stop discrimination in workplaces under Chapter VII of the Civil Rights Act. It can open an investigation based on public reports, and there are certainly enough of them at Barnard. These include a January protest that disrupted the “History of Modern Israel” class taught by Israeli professor Avi Shilon, and the February 2024 lawsuit against Columbia and Barnard, alleging that Jewish and Israeli students faced physical assaults, spitting, threats, and relentless intimidation due to pro-Palestinian activism which may have extended to faculty and created a hostile work environment for Jewish and Israeli employees.
In fact, the EEOC investigation of Barnard didn't start under the Trump administration but it was opened last summer.
So the investigation itself is appropriate and the EEOC had opened similar ones in the past.
Employers are required under federal law (via the EEO-1 report) to collect and report racial and ethnic data, as well as gender, but not religion or national origin. The only way that the EEOC can investigate whether there is a pattern of antisemitic/anti-Israel harassment is to proactively seek information from the employees themselves.
The problem is how creepy the EEOC methods were.
It should not have sent unsolicited texts to all employees without telling the university in advance and coordinating the investigation with the university or with any Jewish employee groups on campus. It could have set up and publicized a webpage to encourage employees to report incidents voluntarily, and if necessary anonymously.
The EEOC's methods could, and did, make some Jewish employees even more uncomfortable. That is not what the government should be doing.
As with everything else under this administration, there seems to be little thought about repercussions and unintended consequences. The impression being given is that antisemitism is an excuse to attack elite, anti-Trump institutions even when the specific actions do not violate any laws. Over the long run, this risks increasing antisemitism, not reducing it.
And Jews shouldn't be pawns for anyone's political goals, right or left.
MPower Change, the Muslim grassroots and pro-BDS organization founded by Linda Sarsour, sent out a fundraising "emergency" email:
I don't know if this is true, or whether some of its funders have pulled out, but MPower Change's donors include the Proteus Fund ( $25,000 in 2017), Ford Foundation ($300,000 from 2019 to 2023), Amalgamated Charitable Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and George Soros’s Foundation to Promote Open Society.
It is not a tax exempt group. It is sponsored by NEO Philanthropy, which funds many left-wing organizations.
There are few nations in the world where memory is not only preserved — but lived. In Israel, remembrance is not just about looking back. It is a living, breathing act of collective identity. Every year, on Yom HaShoah, something extraordinary happens. Without government mandates or media campaigns, life pauses — not out of obligation, but from a shared internal rhythm. The siren sounds, and a nation of millions responds in unison. The image is powerful, but its strength lies not in silence — it lies in meaning, in the understanding that remembrance binds us.
But such national memory did not appear fully formed. It was cultivated. In the early years of the Israeli state, Holocaust survivors struggled to tell their stories. The ethos of the “new Jew,” the sabra fighter, clashed with the image of the persecuted victim. That’s why the state didn’t create “Holocaust Memorial Day.” It created “Holocaust and Ghetto Uprising Remembrance Day.” Heroism came first.
It took decades of political, cultural, and educational work before Israeli society could embrace the Holocaust not only as a tragedy — but as part of its moral and historical DNA. Only then did the siren become sacred.
And now, as we approach Yom HaShoah 2025, a new question confronts us: How will we remember October 7th?
It is not a rhetorical question. It is a national challenge.
October 7th was a rupture. A moment of profound trauma — but also of remarkable unity. It revealed painful truths about our vulnerabilities and our divisions. Yet, in its aftermath, it also uncovered a core of resilience: families opening homes to evacuees, young people lining up to volunteer, strangers embracing one another in tears.
This is the essence of Israeli society at its best. But moments fade. What remains is memory. And memory must be shaped.
Do we allow October 7th to become a political football? A symbol of betrayal, anger, or blame? Or do we craft a new ethos — a foundational story that speaks not just of horror, but of heroism and responsibility? One that doesn’t erase the pain, but transforms it into a source of purpose.
We must ask ourselves:
Who are the names our children will memorize?
Who will be the Hannah Szenes or Mordechai Anielewicz of this generation?
What symbols will we pass down? What songs? What stories?
This responsibility cannot rest solely on the state. It belongs to all of us. To our educators and artists. To our journalists and rabbis. To parents, commanders, and influencers.
A siren alone is not a memory. Memory requires meaning.
Yom HaShoah, begins on Wednesday evening. Its full name in Hebrew is Yom HaZikaron laShoah ve-laG’vurah: the Day of Remembrance for the Holocaust and Heroism.
The day has rightly become a significant date in the Jewish calendar, when we come together to remember the victims of the Holocaust and pay tribute to the survivors who have dedicated their lives to sharing their testimonies. The act of remembrance is powerful.
It is not only a solemn reflection on the horrors and losses of our past, but a declaration that we will continue to honour and protect that past for the sake of our future. As antisemitism rises, it takes renewed strength to stand together in remembrance and Yom HaShoah, for me, is a poignant source of this strength precisely because it urges us to contemplate acts of heroism and resistance.
I am reminded of the Bielski brothers who became partisans and took to the forests and fields. They ambushed German troops and provided refuge for Jewish people seeking safety. By the time the Red Army reached them, their group had grown to over 1,200 Jewish people including Holocaust survivor Jack Kagan BEM. Using rudimentary tools, Jack was part of a small group of prisoners who succeeded in digging a narrow 250km tunnel from a concentration camp in Eastern Europe, enabling 150 Jews to escape. He was only 14.
I think of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising – which gives Yom HaShoah its date. As the Nazis attempted to liquidate the ghetto, 700 young Jewish fighters, led by Mordecai Anielewicz, took up arms and held off the Nazis for nearly a month. At the same time, thousands more who were not actively fighting, resisted by refusing to assemble at collection points.
Although the uprising was ultimately crushed, it is believed that as many as 20,000 Warsaw Jews managed to escape and survive in hiding and the uprising itself displayed the resilience and fighting spirit of a people who were starved and subjected to unimaginable brutality. An incredible feat.
Or take this observation, from Jonathan Foreman’s remarkable cover essay on the failures that led to Israel’s vulnerability on Oct. 7:
“It is now clear that some of Hamas’s rocket barrages in the months and even years before October 7 were part of a program of intelligence-gathering, in accordance with the old Soviet military doctrine of Razvedka Boyem, or ‘reconnaissance through battle.’ The bombardments not only offered a means by which Hamas could assess the capabilities and limitations of the Iron Dome system, they led to the discovery of an enormous Israeli vulnerability. This was a civilian and military safety measure without which the October attack would have been much harder to pull off. It had somehow become standard operating procedure for all IDF personnel, as well as the Kitat Konenut guards on the Kibbutzim, to go into their rocket shelters on hearing rocket alarms, leaving the posts and communities for which they were responsible completely open to attack.
“This was not previously the norm in the IDF. And for an obvious reason: Attacking armies have advanced under cover of artillery fire since at least the invention of the ballista in the fifth century B.C.E. As one retired IDF officer reminded me when despairing of this contemporary Israeli practice, ‘During the First World War, the armies on the Western Front kept soldiers on the fighting steps of their trench systems even during the heaviest artillery bombardments, bombardments vastly more intense and destructive than the rocket barrages of October 7.’”
One response to that IDF officer might have been: Well, we don’t treat rocket barrages as if they are artillery bombardments on the battlefield. To which Israelis might very well now answer back: Perhaps you should.
In fact, several aspects of the conflict will never go back to being treated as lightly as they were. One of them, perhaps paradoxically, is suspicious calm. As we now know, crucial to Hamas’s ability to pull off its surprise attack was its commitment to acting as though it wanted peace. The lesson: Peace with Hamas isn’t possible, and the same is true of peace with Hamas’s fellow Iranian proxies like Palestinian Islamic Jihad. There can be no true détente with Iranian satrapies.
Training exercises by terrorist groups must be treated as the preludes to action that they are. Aid into Gaza will forever be more strictly examined, and if no one can deliver aid while avoiding Hamas, then the IDF will have to take whatever actions are necessary to clear a path to aid distribution that circumvents the terrorist gangs that seek to intercept it. If Gazans close to the border continue to threaten their Israeli neighbors, the buffer zone will be adjusted accordingly. The Hamas tunnel system proves that the so-called “Israeli siege” of Gaza was illusory. That might not be the case in the future.
And so on. But the rockets are among the most significant examples of this, because cracking down on rocket fire will require vigilance. Israel’s overly defensive stance toward rocket attacks must be made a thing of the past.
Mohammed Sakar, for example. Dr. Sakar works at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, and recently posted a highly interesting note on his Facebook page. He has since deleted it, but here is the Times of Israel’s translation of it in part:
“As head of the department, I exerted all efforts to reopen the hospital and I succeeded… in serving the wounded. I made sure that the hospital wards were used only for patients, and not for displaced persons… In this way, I managed to keep the hospital safe and avoid threats of closure.”
He then warned that he was “being openly threatened, even though I explained to those who came to my office that all the steps I took were to protect the hospital. God will not forgive you.”
He included a threatening note he received from the military wing of Palestinian Islamic Jihad: “Dear one, you have crossed the line, take heed!”
The Times of Israel notes that that was Sakar’s last post on Facebook and that he has not appeared in the media since deleting it.
The main takeaway from Sakar’s post is that it serves as yet more proof that the terrorist organizations in Gaza are still using hospitals as cover. Posts in support of Sakar, apparently from other Gaza residents, could be found on X, but that’s about it so far. One such post reads: “Dr. Mohammed Sakar received threats from mercenaries belonging to Islamic Jihad because of his opposition to armed men inside the hospital. Every mercenary organization has thieves around it, and it wants to take the land into its own hands and play with people’s lives as it pleases.”
In February 2024, IDF soldiers operating at Nasser hospital discovered Hamas terrorists and weapons, as well as medicine that had been withheld from hostages. In January, when the cease-fire went into effect, Hamas forces were seen emerging from the Nasser complex armed and in uniform.
But there’s another angle to this: Where’s all the international support for Dr. Sakar? It sure sounds like he’s trying to keep terrorists out of the hospital. He seems to be in mortal danger from Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Medical organizations and NGOs around the world ought to be interested in getting to the bottom of this. I eagerly await their campaigns to do so.
Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the
author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.
If you’ve ever
been lucky enough to see and hear Netanyahu in person, you’ll know what I mean
when I say he is an absolutely mesmerizing speaker. Some years ago, I was in
the front row for Bibi’s opening remarks at an event for journalists. It was a
smallish room, so that for a moment, the feeling I had that the prime minister
was looking directly into my eyes, made me wonder if he really was. But no, I
do not think I am that special. Bibi Netanyahu, on the other hand, is especially
gifted at public speaking—you feel drawn in like a magnet, even if you’re
inclined not to like the guy.
Which brings me
to my next point. Among our many pols and MKs I see no one who can step into
Netanyahu’s shoes. There’s no one even close to projecting leadership in quite
the same way—no one who’s got the charisma to take over.
The fact that
Netanyahu has not groomed a successor is a serious problem, and has been for a
long time. No one stays in politics forever. No one stays alive forever. That
includes Benjamin Netanyahu, despite his excellence as a speaker, his lengthy reign
as head of Likud, and despite having held the office of prime minister of
Israel for more years than any other past Israeli PM.
Then there is the
matter of October 7. Netanyahu may very well have to resign when this is all
over. Ronen
Bar may be a garbage person who likes to persecute Jews instead of taking
his job of protecting the Israeli people seriously, but the buck stops with
Bibi. October 7 happened on his watch.
All of this
explains why we need to have someone ready for the eventuality of Bibi leaving office.
But who knows if grooming a successor would even make a difference. You can’t
teach someone to have magnetic eyes and charisma. Those are things you’re born
with. Or not.
It’s important to
note here that charisma and magnetic eyes have nothing to do with good
governance, and certainly doesn’t speak to whether a leader’s policies are
worth a damn. But leadership qualities and skills are vital in a prime
minister, in particular because of the spotlight the world shines on Israel. The
Israeli prime minister has to be able to develop relationships with foreign
leaders. He has to be able to connect with presidents and premiers on a
personal level—has to make them like him, so they’ll be favorably disposed
toward Israel. So he needs to have personality. But he (or she, actually), also
needs to speak good English. Bibi does.
A lot of the others do not.
Take Bezalel Smotrich,
for example. I really like the guy. I like his policies, in particular the way
he is working against illegal Arab building, and the fact that he sticks up for
the rights, the safety and the security of all Israeli citizens, including
those of us living in Judea and Samaria. More than that, I know he’s a good
person.
Bezalel Smotrich (photo: Avi Ohayon / Government Press Office of Israel)
At that point, I
took part in a protest outside the Israeli Supreme Court where, with very few
exceptions, the protesters were Beit El residents who had been bussed into
Jerusalem for the protest. Also there was Bezalel Smotrich. He was speaking to
the protesters from inside a tent that had been erected specifically for the
event. I couldn’t get anywhere near that tent, such was the size of the crowd.
But I liked that Smotrich showed up. I like every politician who shows up at protests
against terror or on behalf of settlers and settlements. It means something to
me.
Liking someone
and their actions, however, doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve got leadership
skills. Or decent English. Smotrich has neither. He is neither
distinguished-looking nor a commanding speaker.
In fact, Smotrich
the politician makes me think of Kamala Harris the politician. Dems liked her
without being able to articulate why. Possibly because Harris didn’t articulate
any policies. But also because she can’t articulate anything at all. Not even a
single coherent sentence. Basically, she was the anti-Trump, because there was
no other reason to vote for her.
Happily, that is not the case with Smotrich. Good guy. Good policies. But
bland, milquetoast presence. Which is funny considering he is demonized by the
left as a far right firebrand. The left went absolutely out of its mind when
Israel Bonds invited Smotrich to speak. Little did they know they were in for a
treat: Smotrich speaking in such execrable English that it made for absolutely
hilarious parodies.
Haaretz writer Refaella Goichman went to town on that speech, noting as I have, that Smotrich is no Bibi:
Smotrich struggled to read large portions of the speech from the paper, which isn’t so bad – not everyone is cut from the same international cloth as Bibi. But at a certain point, when discussing family who had died in the Holocaust, he finally managed to pronounce the word “perished” after several tries (“my entire family preshit? preshade...?”) and smiled proudly to himself.
Screenshot, Haaretz
Listening to the full speech was painful.
Smotrich’s
performance went viral. But for all the wrong reasons. There were parodies galore.
Contrast and compare Smotrich's disastrous performance with any of Netanyahu’s many eloquently executed speeches to the UN and to Congress. Congress goes nuts over him.
Bibi is
brilliant, every time. My political views may align more closely with those of
Smotrich. But he’s no Bibi. And I definitely don’t want to see Smotrich go up
against Iran.
So just what is
it that makes Bibi a leader, Bezalel not? Social psychologist Amy Cuddy, in her
2012 TED Talk, “Your Body Language May Shape Who You Are,” describes the qualities that inspire crowds: expansive
postures, steady voices, and piercing gazes that make them appear confident
and captivating.
Netanyahu’s tall frame and the magnetic gaze that held me at his speech, echo Ronald Reagan’s warm authority, Margaret Thatcher’s steely resolve, and Winston Churchill’s defiant presence, inspiring public trust. Bezalel Smotrich, whose Judea and Samaria policies I admire, lacks this—his slight build, plain attire, and broken English, mocked in his 2023 Israel Bonds speech, fail to inspire beyond his base.
In Israel’s
global arena, fluent English is non-negotiable for any leader to sway Congress
or counter Iran, ruling out Smotrich and others who falter. But then there is Nir Barkat, who earned the name "Batman" after he tackled a terrorist to the ground in 2015.
Barkat, a
businessman-turned-Jerusalem mayor, offers polished looks and solid English, but his reserved demeanor lacks Bibi’s
fire, despite that epic terrorist takedown. Though the subject of many a meme, Barkat is just like every other superhero. You never quite know who you're going to get—to extend the superhero analogy—Superman or a mild-mannered Clark Kent. I want him to project power, but I'm not seeing it.
Just one of many Nir Barkat memes from 2015.
I made this with Grok. Doesn't look like Nir Barkat, but whatever.
With Smotrich’s faint optics, Barkat’s dim spark, and no one else I’d vote
for, Netanyahu’s ungroomed successor may well leave Israel feeling and looking leaderless—not a good look for dealing with the threat of a nuclear Iran. Meantime, I watch and wait for a successor to emerge. Someone with that certain something, in addition to perfect English, that projects leadership for all to see.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday called terror group Hamas “sons of dogs,” and told the terror group to release hostages it is holding in order to eliminate what he said was Israel’s pretext to continue its war in Gaza.
“The first priority is to stop the war of extermination in Gaza. It must be stopped – hundreds are being killed every day,” Abbas said in a speech. “Why don’t you hand over the American hostages?”
Addressing Hamas as “sons of dogs,” the PA president told the terror group to “release those you’re holding and put an end to this story. Shut down their [Israel’s] excuses. End it.”
He further called on Hamas to cede control of Gaza to the PA, give up its arms, and become a political party.
“Hamas must hand over Gaza responsibilities and hand over its arms to the responsibility to Palestinian Authority and transform into a political party,” Abbas said.
Undoubtedly, implementing this comprehensive vision, which has become an Arab-Islamic vision by decision of the emergency Arab summit held recently in Cairo, based on the Egyptian-Palestinian plan presented to that summit, requires the fulfillment of the following conditions:
First: The existence of a political horizon based on ending the Israeli occupation and implementing international legitimacy resolutions, including the establishment of an independent, sovereign, contiguous, viable, and recognized Palestinian state, which would be a full member of the United Nations and live in security and peace alongside Israel.
Second: Israel's complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, ensuring clear and sustainable mechanisms for the flow of essential supplies and reconstruction requirements to the Gaza Strip, and the release of prisoners, hostages, and detainees.
Third: Halting all Israeli military operations in the West Bank, halting settlement activity and settler attacks, and halting the violation of the sanctity of holy sites in the West Bank and Jerusalem. A comprehensive truce must be achieved in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Jerusalem, including confidence-building steps and creating the conditions for launching a serious political process that leads to a just and comprehensive peace in accordance with the principles and resolutions of international legitimacy.
Fourth: Adopting a comprehensive plan for recovery and reconstruction in the Gaza Strip, based on the principle of preventing the displacement of the Palestinian people from the Strip—that is, "reconstruction without displacement." This plan was actually adopted at the recent emergency Arab Summit in Cairo, and requires international cooperation and partnership for its implementation.
Sada News quotes more of what he said, and while its description says Abbas said Hamas should release the hostages, the longer speech only said,
To be frank with you, and to dot the i's and cross the t's regarding our internal national affair, I find it necessary to say before you: Hamas, since its coup against Palestinian national legitimacy in 2007, and its work throughout this period to separate the Gaza Strip from the West Bank and Jerusalem, passing through six devastating wars it caused on the Gaza Strip, and of course without absolving the occupation of responsibility, has inflicted severe damage on the Palestinian cause, and provided the occupation with dangerous free services, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and provided this criminal occupation with free pretexts to implement its conspiracies and crimes in the Gaza Strip, the most prominent of which was the detention of hostages.
I don't see "sons of dogs" mentioned in either transcript. But Hamas media says that is what he said, and it condemned him for it:
In a statement broadcast on state television, Abbas attacked Hamas, saying, "You sons of dogs, hand over the hostages and that's it," referring to the Israeli soldiers held by the resistance in the Gaza Strip. Observers considered this a "dangerous precedent in Palestinian political discourse ."
Sometimes Abbas goes off script, so it is possible he went beyond what he meant to say - and now the PA is covering it up.
In 2024, ADL tabulated 9,354 antisemitic incidents across the United States. This represents a 5% increase from the 8,873 incidents recorded in 2023, a 344% increase over the past five years and a 893% increase over the past 10 years. It is the highest number on record since ADL began tracking antisemitic incidents 46 years ago.
The report includes a state-by-state breakdown of antisemitic incidents.
You might think that Jews are safer in North Dakota or Alaska than New York or California.
But when you compare these numbers with the incidents per 100,000 Jewish population, some of the states with the smallest Jewish populations end up on top, while New York and Florida are towards the bottom.
Wyoming has only 1,150 Jews but it had 31 incidents in 2024 (18 harassment, 13 vandalism.) Florida, with nearly 660,000 Jews, had 353 incidents - about 2% of the number of incidents per 100,000 Jews.
This is not completely fair, since comparing states with very small Jewish populations tend to skew the data. If we look at only assaults, which is what Jews would be most worried about, and only include states with 3 or more assault incidents over the past three years, this list might show the worst states to be a Jew in today (total assaults 2022-2024)
The only theme here is that Jews aren't secure anywhere in the US.
But what does the lawsuit say about Harvard's actual actions against antisemitism on campus?
It claims, "Well before the Government’s engagement, Harvard had initiated steps to address antisemitism on campus. Recognizing the seriousness of this issue, Harvard has taken and will continue to take steps to do so in the future."
Yet the major actions it has taken appear to be defensive, not pro-active. For example, it touts that it has adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a factor in determining whether incidents violate Title VI. It links to its Frequently Asked Questions, which say:
The NDAB Policies and Procedures encompass Harvard’s compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), and Harvard considers the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) guidance in complying with Title VI. The definition of antisemitism used by Harvard in the NDAB Policies is the same definition of antisemitism used by OCR. Harvard, like OCR, uses the definition of antisemitism endorsed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA definition) and considers the examples that accompany the IHRA definition to the extent that those examples might be useful in determining discriminatory intent.
Yet the OCR started using the IHRA definition as early as 2018, but Harvard did not adopt this standard until January of this year - indicating that it disagreed with using the IHRA definition until then. In fact, the OCR settled complaints with NYU and Duke in 2020 and encouraged their use of IHRA then, but Harvard did not take action then.
What made it change its mind?
On January 20, immediately after President Trump was inaugurated, Harvard settled two lawsuits against it for violating Title VI. Part of the settlement was that Harvard would adopt the IHRA definition.
This was not a principled decision - it was a reaction to the lawsuits and an attempt to shield itself from valid criticism that it had not done enough to protect Jews and Israelis on campus.
"To conclude that the (complaint) has not plausibly alleged deliberate indifference would reward Harvard for virtuous public declarations that for the most part, according to the (complaint), proved hollow," Stearns wrote.
"The facts as pled show that Harvard failed its Jewish students," the judge added.
Only after the lawsuit was ruled valid, only after Trump took office, did Harvard agree to follow US government guidelines on upholding Title VI. it is bragging now that it is doing, kicking and screaming, what the US said it should have done for the past seven years.
Although it has only been in place for a few months, I cannot find any examples where Harvard invoked the IHRA definition to prove any anti-Israel activity on campus crossed the line into antisemitism.
This is not the only example of Harvard's reluctance to follow its own stated standards. For example, it was supposed to issue a report last fall on antisemitism, and the report has not yet been released.
Another egregious example comes from November 2023, when the Harvard Graduate Student Union endorsed boycotting Israeli academic institutions. This is a direct violation of the academic freedom that Harvard pretends to uphold. Dozens of Jewish and Israeli students resigned from the union which had said it would not protect them.
Yet Harvard remained silent. It did not issue any public statement to emphasize that it would continue its existing partnerships with Israeli universities.
It is not even clear that the actions that Harvard has done have practically protected Jewish students on campus - we have no statistics and I can find no interviews of students saying that they feel safer on campus in recent months.
I have previously highlighted the difference between Harvard’s actions on campus and those of Northwestern University, which appear to be far more proactive and protective of Jewish students than Harvard’s.
Harvard's record shows that it is not truly interested in protecting Jews on campus, and will only do so when under outside pressure.
At least 12 civilians were killed and 30 others were injured in US airstrikes on a market and residential area in the center of Yemen’s capital city, Sana’a, on Sunday night.
According to local media, deadly US strikes targeted the Furwah neighborhood market in Sana’a’s Sha’ub district.
Footage aired by al-Masirah satellite channel showed extensive damage to vehicles and buildings in the bombed area in Sana’a, with citizens, who rushed to the scene, holding what appeared to be a dead child. Other wounded civilians wailed on stretchers heading for hospitals.
A Yemeni journalist confirmed on April 22 that a Houthi missile launched from an airbase on Adhran Mountain near Sanaa City malfunctioned and crashed into Furwa Market, Shuab District, on April 21. Houthi media falsely reported this as a CENTCOM airstrike. The Houthi missile misfire resulted in more than 40 casualties. A Yemen analyst also reported that the Houthis continue to claim that a CENTCOM airstrike caused the explosion. The Houthis have arrested approximately 30 people in Sanaa City for publishing footage of the incident.
The hatreds of the Dark Ages have cast their shadow on Britain once more. In Essex, on Saturday, people taunted Jews with dead babies. They carried dolls in shrouds stained with fake blood and hollered ‘Stop killing babies!’ as families walked home from synagogue after Sabbath prayers for Passover. In Edinburgh, also on Saturday, angry men openly dreamed of executing witchy women. ‘Bring back witch-burning… JK’, said a placard at a trans rally. The suggestion was as clear as it was sick: for the crime of her belief in biology, JK Rowling should be strapped to the stake and set alight. Another placard drove the point home: ‘Kill JK Rowling.’
It is 2025 and we are witnessing the public shaming of women and Jews, the taunting of them with slanders and threats. In Essex, life was breathed back into the medieval libel that damned the Jew as baby killer, as nefarious luster after the blood of innocents. Images of pious ‘pro-Palestine’ activists marching past Orthodox Jews while carrying blood-stained infants should chill the spine of all who know the history of Jew hatred. In Edinburgh there was the dream of witch trials. The cry went up: drag these bitches who deny the womanhood of men and punish them with fire for their disrespect.
In the UK, on the same day, in our supposedly enlightened era, the blood libel and the witch hunt made their return to public life. Jews, once again, found themselves surrounded by sick, dark whispers about baby killing. Women, once again, found themselves condemned for witchcraft. We need to talk about this. That two supposedly ‘progressive’ causes – support for Palestine and support for trans rights – can rekindle such pre-modern bigotries, such ancient hysterias, is both alarming and telling. Saturday might prove to be the day we learned just how menacing to civilisation the politics of identity can be.
All of Easter Saturday’s ‘political’ gatherings were grotesque spectacles. It was in Westcliff-on-Sea in Southend, Essex that the ‘pro-Palestine’ marchers assembled. This is a part of Essex with a significant Jewish population. And it was Sabbath. Passover, too. Yet that wasn’t going to stop the Israelophobes. To the horror of local residents, they chanted about Israel’s ‘targeting’ of ‘sleeping babies’. They waved their blood-spattered dolls in onlookers’ faces. They noisily accused the Jewish nation of laying waste to ‘the birthplace of Jesus’, getting perilously close to reanimating the trope of the Christ killer, the Jew as destroyer of messiahs.
‘Even by the standards of the past 18 months, the march in Southend was despicable’, said a spokesperson for the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA). The chants about the slaying of babies alongside those grim, funereal displays of shrouded dolls represented a ‘chilling echo of medieval blood libels’, the CAA said. It is nearly 900 years since the sick calumny about the bloodletting Jew was born, in Norwich, England. It is deeply shaming, intolerable in fact, that England’s Jews once again find themselves negotiating mobs of people howling about child slaughter and waving bloodied shrouds.
One by one, led from within, institutions can change by taking out the trash of ideologically driven pseudo-scholarship—and inspiring others to do the same. Although change could come faster if the Harvards and Stanfords set the pace, Hutchins proved that this revolution need not be Ivy-covered. Universities with middling reputations, dwindling student bodies, and flagging endowments may be desperate enough to hire without political and identity-obsessed bias, improve teaching quality, and teach students to think critically rather than recite political catechisms. Administrators could bolster their case for change with surveys assessing students’ classroom experience to determine whether professors effectively define the goals, methodologies, intellectual components, workloads, and evaluation standards in the course—from the syllabus through grading the final assignments.
In consultation with professors, students, and outside educators, each university should develop a code of classroom conduct. It should define the teaching mission and the professors’ commitment to providing a high-quality, nonpartisan educational experience that respects students’ intellectual independence. It should also articulate a vision of professorial accountability, rejecting the arrogance that has thickened over the decades.
To make such reforms stick, university leaders will have to grow spines and bypass the learned societies. Currently, tenure cases require as many as six “outside reviewers.” Despite that moniker, most evaluators are the ultimate insiders. They usually derive their status from the learned societies that have shaped the generation now treating classrooms as revolutionary cells. Tenure evaluations should not just rely on those deemed to be experts by the ASA or the American Historical Association. Master teachers and expert alumni should be consulted—going beyond the academic clique.
To be fair, cultivating good teaching and fostering pathbreaking research takes time. Some insulation from the rush of modern society is justified. Senior professors should receive five-year contracts that are automatically renewable unless vetoed by colleagues, administrators, or students questioning teaching quality, academic productivity, or scholarly integrity. Universities should not judge professors by the political positions they take—or don’t take—but by the quality of their teaching, carefully defined, and their research.
Such procedures will make academics more accountable and reflective. Periodically contemplating accomplishments and goals, short- and long-term, can produce better professors. Moreover, with society, culture, technology, and knowledge changing so rapidly, locking in employees for three or four decades is a guarantee of obsolescence that seems radically unfair to students and to institutions as a whole.
Freeing the university from its tenure shackles will not be easy. Academics, who merrily assault everyone else’s “privilege”—real or imagined—go postal if you question their prerogatives. These tattooed Marxists in tweed with perpetual employment and rich pensions assail Americanism cushioned by middle-class entitlements they guard jealously.
Faculty unions will also go ballistic. Advocates for tenure will gaslight, claiming, as Henry Reichman, first vice president of the American Association of University Professors, recently argued, that “tenure is essentially a guarantee of academic due process and presumption of innocence.” Making tenure sound benign doesn’t make it OK; it proves its irrelevance. Standard employment contracts and labor laws guarantee basic fairness too.
Universities are long overdue for a robust debate about what they stand for and what they offer students and society. Despite professorial claims that ending tenure is an assault against universities and the republic, it will benefit professors and students. Students might start getting the teaching they, their parents, and the state have long been paying for. And professors might discover the joys of capitalism. Fostering competition and incentivizing excellence bring out the best in us, while lifetime guarantees produce torpor.
A report that the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany published today about aging Holocaust survivors suggests “sobering insights into the future of this incredible community,” per the nearly 75-year-old nonprofit, which estimates that it will distribute about $530 million in compensation this year to Holocaust survivors worldwide, and $960 million for welfare needs of survivors.
Some 1,400 (.6%) of the estimated 220,800 survivors in 90 countries today are centenarians, and half of the survivors live in Israel, according to the Claims Conference. The median age of survivors is 87, and 61% are women, per the nonprofit.
The Claims Conference’s new report, titled Vanishing Witnesses: An Urgent Analysis of the Declining Population of Holocaust Survivors, projects that just half of Holocaust survivors worldwide will remain in six years, with just 30%, or about 66,250, remaining in 2035. By 2040, just 22,080 survivors will remain, according to the Claims Conference.
Mortality rates differ, per the nonprofit, with 39% of U.S. survivors (from 34,600 to 21,100) and 54% of survivors in former Soviet countries (from 25,500 to 11,800) expected to be lost by 2030. Israel, which has the most survivors (110,100, as of last October), is projected to lose 43% by 2030, dropping to 62,900.
“This report provides clear urgency to our Holocaust education efforts,” stated Gideon Taylor, president of the Claims Conference. “Now is the time to hear first-hand testimonies from survivors, invite them to speak in our classrooms, places of worship and institutions. It is critical, not only for our youth but for people of all generations to hear and learn directly from Holocaust survivors.”
“This report is a stark reminder that our time is almost up, our survivors are leaving us, and this is the moment to hear their voices,” Taylor said.
Greg Schneider, executive vice president of the Claims Conference, told JNS that “we need to know the data around survivors—where they live, poverty rates, the type of persecution that they endured—and then to project that into the future first and foremost so that we can secure the maximum amount of funding and benefits.”
“Survivors are living longer, and we need to plan for that even as we are helping it happen. There are 300 agencies around the world that we fund to provide services, and this data is essential as they plan the coming years,” Schneider.
The IDF's internal investigation concluded that the killings resulted from a series of operational errors and professional failures. IDF elements were operating in a "hostile and dangerous combat zone" and believed there to be a "tangible threat." Soldiers misidentified the convoy of vehicles, assessing that they were being used by Hamas insurgents—a tactic the group has systematically employed since Oct. 7, 2023.
Hamas has made a practice of blurring the lines between combatant and civilian, systematically exploiting ambulances, hospitals, and humanitarian symbols for military purposes. This tactic forces troops into impossible split-second decisions under fire—precisely the kind of dilemma that international law accounts for, but online critics ignore.
International humanitarian law also recognizes that tragic mistakes can happen during active combat, especially when insurgents like Hamas use protected facilities and vehicles to launch or shield attacks. Such conduct undermines the protections that civilians and humanitarian actors are entitled to.
No army—American, British, or Israeli—is immune to errors in war. What matters is what follows: transparency, investigation, disciplinary action, and institutional learning. That is the measure of a professional military in a democratic society.
In the IDF incident, surveillance indicated that five vehicles approached rapidly and stopped near IDF troops, with passengers quickly disembarking. The deputy battalion commander assessed the situation as a credible Hamas threat and ordered fire. Though that judgment proved incorrect, the belief was reasonable under the circumstances, including poor nighttime visibility, and which only underscored that the IDF complied with the rule of distinction under law of armed conflict.
The examination into the incident was conducted by the IDF General Staff Fact Finding Mechanism, a professional team outside the operational chain of command. Their findings were presented to the chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, and included operational breaches, failures to follow orders, and reporting deficiencies. As a result, the deputy commander of the Golani Brigade was dismissed, and the commander of the 14th Brigade was severely reprimanded. The case is also being reviewed by the IDF Military Advocate General's Office for potential legal proceedings.
The IDF expressed deep regret for the civilian harm and emphasized that the investigation is part of an ongoing commitment to learn from operational failures and reduce the risk of recurrence.
In short, the IDF acted exactly as a military in a democracy should: it investigated, acknowledged fault, and held individuals accountable.
There must also be a clear distinction between errors made in the course of legitimate military operations and intentionally directing attacks against civilians, which is Hamas' standard practice and a blatant war crime.
Israel mourns every innocent life lost. Hamas counts every innocent death as a victory. That is not just a moral difference—it is the difference between law and lawlessness, between a tragedy and a crime.
Perhaps the killing of the medics sheds light on the larger problem of assessing the number of terrorists killed.
How many other incidents occurred in the war in which 15 men were killed and six were terrorists? What process is used to determine that the six were terrorists? Were they armed?
The IDF report on the March 23 incident does not specify these details. This leaves many questions about “known unknowns,” to use the phrase former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld liked.
There are many known unknowns in Gaza. How many tunnels are there? How many were dismantled in 18 months of war? How many men has Hamas recruited?
How many Hamas battalions have actually been “dismantled”? How many more incidents are there where an inflated number of enemies were “eliminated”?
The last question raised by the report relates to why the IDF decided to crush the vehicles after finding out they were ambulances and rescue vehicles?
“The decision to crush the vehicles was wrong,” the IDF says. That one sentence doesn’t tell us much about why the decision was made. Is it the usual order to crush vehicles after a firefight?
If the vehicles are obstructing a road and disabled, why not just push them to the side? Why would anyone order an ambulance to be crushed? The fact that the decision was “wrong” doesn’t really tell us about the larger context or if this is the usual practice.
The IDF says it “regrets the harm caused to uninvolved civilians.”
It also says it will learn from this incident to “reduce the likelihood of similar occurrences in the future. Existing protocols have been clarified and reinforced – emphasizing the need for heightened caution when operating near rescue forces and medical personnel, even in high-intensity combat zones.”
While this is good, it doesn’t address larger questions about other civilians or why aid convoys continue to run at night through IDF-controlled zones if such convoys cannot be protected.
The report also doesn’t fully explain how the number of terrorists is determined after a firefight or why vehicles are crushed after these incidents.
The IDF said Sunday that an investigation into the incident involving rescue teams and vehicles in Gaza on the night of March 23, 2025, found that it occurred while the troops were conducting a vital mission aimed at targeting terrorists. Throughout the operation, vehicles and ambulances moved along the route without obstruction, since the forces did not perceive any threat posed by them.
There were three shooting incidents on that day: In the first incident, troops fired at a vehicle identified as a Hamas vehicle. An hour later, the troops opened fire on suspects emerging from a fire truck and ambulances very close to the area in which the troops were operating, after perceiving an immediate and tangible threat. Supporting surveillance had reported five vehicles approaching rapidly and stopping near the troops, with passengers quickly disembarking.
The deputy battalion commander assessed the vehicles as employed by Hamas forces, and ordered to open fire. Fifteen Palestinians were killed, six of whom were identified later as Hamas terrorists. Due to poor night visibility, the deputy commander did not initially recognize the vehicles as ambulances. Only later, after approaching the vehicles, was it discovered that these were indeed rescue teams.
About 15 minutes later, the troops fired at a Palestinian UN vehicle due to operational errors in breach of regulations. At dawn, it was decided to gather and cover the bodies to prevent further harm to them and clear the vehicles from the route. There was no attempt to conceal the event, which was discussed with international organizations and the UN, including coordination for the removal of bodies.
The investigation determined that the fire resulted from an operational misunderstanding by the troops, who believed they faced a tangible threat from enemy forces. Alongside this, the examination identified several professional failures, breaches of orders, and a failure to fully report the incident. The deputy commander of the battalion will be dismissed due to his responsibility as the field commander in this incident. Existing protocols have been clarified and reinforced - emphasizing the need for heightened caution when operating near rescue forces and medical personnel, even in high-intensity combat zones.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Yes Veronica Sherman, You ARE a Faux Jew!
-
[image: Yes Veronica Sherman, You ARE a Faux Jew!]
Veronica Sherman says she’s Jewish and that she even has the "proof." But
it is not the slam dunk she th...
All of France is a No Go Zone Now
-
Every year huge crowds gather in Paris at the Champs-Élysées to ring in the
new year with fireworks and concerts. Much like the New Year’s Eve parties
in...
The True Gift of Hanukkah
-
Happy Hanukkah! Dry Bones Golden Oldie, by Sali the LSW. (Long Suffering
Wife). Here is a Dry Bones cartoon from 2011.
If you are wanting to donate to a...
Hamas/Gaza War Musings #65: Bibi's "Guilt?"
-
The so-called corruption trials against PM Binyamin Netanyahu have been in
the news even more recently. He took US President Trump's hint to ask for a
"...
How Oren Yiftachel Sees Zionism
-
How do Israeli academic anti-colonialists who identify with the cause of a
liberated Palestine view Zionism? What is their conceptual thinking? How do
th...
Now What?
-
Today, Jews cannot walk down the street in North America, Europe, or even
Australia without the possibility of being spat on, beaten, or even
murdered. Cou...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Thursday, April 24, 2025
Elder of Ziyon
Buy 
.jpg)
.jpg)
