According to Joy Karega-Mason, assistant professor of rhetoric and composition at Oberlin College, a group of “Rothschild-led banksters [sic]” were responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks; the slaughter at the offices of Charlie Hebdo was carried out by the Mossad; and Jews and Zionists have controlled every American president. These and similar statements filling Karega-Mason’s Facebook page recently came to the attention of Oberlin students and faculty as well as the public at large. So far, the college president and other administrators have alternated tepid condemnations with expressions of fealty to the principle of academic freedom. Abraham Socher, an Oberlin faculty colleague, comments:

I do not contest Professor Karega-Mason’s right to say whatever she wants on Facebook or anywhere else. . . . But anyone who is tempted to think that what she has said was not anti-Semitic or can be creatively contextualized away ought to think about what would constitute anti-Semitic speech, and whether they would apply such alibis or restrictive, ahistorical definitions to any other form of hate speech. Perhaps a simpler way to put it is this: [a graphic posted by Karega-Mason] seems to have originated on neo-Nazi websites. Did it somehow become less repellent when Professor Karega-Mason posted it on her Facebook page? And, if so, why? . . .

In my sixteen years at Oberlin College, I have never publicly criticized a colleague. But it seems to me that to look quickly away from Professor Karega-Mason’s posts without explaining exactly what is wrong with them would be to confirm that Oberlin College is indifferent to—or at least very squeamish about [recognizing]—anti-Semitism.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.