A British Student Receives a Failing Grade for Writing the Truth about Hamas

For her final assignment before receiving her sociology degree at the University of Leeds, Danielle Greyman decided to write about Hamas’s abusive rule in Gaza. Her research taught her something that was indeed worth knowing:

Despite my assignment not being about Israel, the feedback I received from my grader was almost entirely attacking me for not blaming Israel. I was given a failing grade of 35. I know students who have written their essays drunk, at 2 am the night before they were due, and who still received a 50. The grader and university were saying my essay had absolutely no academic merit whatsoever.

I was shocked, and decided to research the grader, Claudia Radiven. I had never spoken to her, never had a class with her, and never interacted with her. Yet, I found I was blocked by her on Twitter. This is enough for me to believe the anonymity of marking was breached. I quickly created a new Twitter [account] to research her. I found tweets showing her support for Hamas, condemning Israel for actions that never happened, and just outright anti-Semitism.

To date, the University of Leeds has still not apologized or even acknowledged the discrimination that took place. Claudia Radiven is now the head of the module that this assignment was for, despite her irregular marking.

I did not get to continue into postgraduate study. I didn’t attend my graduation ceremony. . . . And I have been told by numerous Jewish sociologists that the field is so tainted by anti-Semitism that I should avoid it.

Read more at Algemeiner

More about: Hamas, Israel on campus, Sociology, United Kingdom


Israel Just Sent Iran a Clear Message

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.

Read more at Jewish Chronicle

More about: Iran, Israeli Security