Hostility to Jews Festers on College Campuses—and Refuses to Stay There

Isaac de Castro, the cofounder of a group that monitors anti-Semitic incidents at American universities, reports on some recent cases:

At Columbia University, Jewish students were spat on and called murderers on their way to class, and professors have told their students anti-Semitism is no longer an issue [of concern]. At Cornell, a student assembly member was threatened . . . if he did not vote for BDS (boycotting, divesting from, and sanctioning Israel). At the University of Southern California, the student-body vice-president resigned from her position after being the victim of bullying and harassment for [identifying] as a Zionist. At Tufts, a student-judiciary member was silenced when discussing an unquestionably anti-Semitic referendum because his Jewish identity allegedly made him biased.

But what starts at universities refuses to stay there:

California’s ethnic-studies model curriculum . . . was unanimously passed by the state Board of Education. The lesson plans aim to teach children a racial hierarchy, in which Jews are the only group described with the word “privilege.” In previous version, Jews were not even mentioned. Capitalism was cited as a form of oppression along with racism and Islamophobia; anti-Semitism was not. Students who have been exposed to, and conditioned by, these illiberal tenets in college are entering the workforce and [are now themselves in a position] to reach the vulnerable minds of young kids to create a tightly knit cycle of indoctrination.

An Instagram post by the U.S. Palestinian Community Network commenting on the lukewarm changes made in the curriculum [thanks to the work of] Jewish advocacy groups reads, “Zionists have no place in the classroom!”

Read more at New York Daily News

More about: Anti-Semitism, BDS, California, Education, Israel on campus

An American Withdrawal from Iraq Would Hand Another Victory to Iran

Since October 7, the powerful network of Iran-backed militias in Iraq have carried out 120 attacks on U.S. forces stationed in the country. In the previous year, there were dozens of such attacks. The recent escalation has led some in the U.S. to press for the withdrawal of these forces, whose stated purpose in the country is to stamp out the remnants of Islamic State and to prevent the group’s resurgence. William Roberts explains why doing so would be a mistake:

American withdrawal from Iraq would cement Iran’s influence and jeopardize our substantial investment into the stabilization of Iraq and the wider region, threatening U.S. national security. Critics of the U.S. military presence argue that [it] risks a regional escalation in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. However, in the long term, the U.S. military has provided critical assistance to Iraq’s security forces while preventing the escalation of other regional conflicts, such as clashes between Turkey and Kurdish groups in northern Iraq and Syria.

Ultimately, the only path forward to preserve a democratic, pluralistic, and sovereign Iraq is through engagement with the international community, especially the United States. Resisting Iran’s takeover will require the U.S. to draw international attention to the democratic backsliding in the country and to be present and engage continuously with Iraqi civil society in military and non-military matters. Surrendering Iraq to Iran’s agents would not only squander our substantial investment in Iraq’s stability; it would greatly increase Iran’s capability to threaten American interests in the Levant through its influence in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

Read more at Providence

More about: Iran, Iraq, U.S. Foreign policy