And the beat just goes on and on - how Jew-hate on campus goes unabated 50 years on

A BBC documentary has caught a considerable number of students on US campuses still celebrating the 7 October Hamas attacks on innocent civilians and chanting support for what they referred to as “the resistance”, and using the antisemitic comparison that Zionism is the same as Nazism.

The second episode of Speechless, recently broadcast as part of the BBC Storyville series examined how the war has reverberated across American universities, focusing on protests, encampments and, in particular the documentary centred on clashes between pro-Israel and pro-"Palestinian" students.

The documentary demonstrated how, in less than 24 hours of the 7 October attacks, a joint statement by Harvard student groups declared: “We… hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence ... the apartheid regime is the only one to blame.”

Pro-Palestinian protest at Cornell University, as featured in Speechless: Part 2 – The Pendulum, with demonstrators holding anti-Zionism banners and Palestinian flags. Credit: BBC Storyville / Good Soup Productions

In footage from on campus demonstrations, activists were heard chanting: “Glory to the martyrs. Glory to the resistance. We will liberate the land. By any means necessary.”

In further footage in the documentary, one protester, addressed the rabble and asked: “Do you guys remember the photos of the bulldozer breaking through the Nazi border?” before describing 7 October as producing “joyful and powerful images”.

Another "student" tried to defend the use of Nazi imagery associated with the attacks, saying: “We are so horrible for showing a paraglider. What about their jets? Israeli jets have killed thousands and thousands of Palestinians, but that’s okay?”

At one point, the documentary showed how a message was distributed throughout the campus encampment advising students that a documentary crew was on site and telling them to “be wary of what you say” and describing the director as a “Zionist”.

The film later showed how the crew were prevented from accessing the illegal student encampment.

In the documentary a Jewish student who called herself "Maya", described being confronted by other students after she identified herself as a Zionist.

"The term “intifada” is debated within the film, with one student described it as “the breaking off of chains”, while another says the phrase “intifada revolution” constitutes “a genocidal chant”.

The documentary also highlighted the experiences of Jewish students on campus. One student says: “There is a defence of everyone’s rights but Jewish people’s rights,” while another added: “I’ve had much more difficulty being Jewish than I have trans.”

Bienstock, the director of the documentary who is Jewish, reflected on the reaction to 7 October, saying: “Watching 7 October described as ‘exhilarating’ was hard to process”. Indeed, when students at Cornell University learn Bienstock is Jewish, they brand her a Zionist without engaging with her to learn her views. Later, many of them shy away from her altogether. 

Regrettably in some ways, rather than centering on the Jewish experience of campus life, it argues that while antisemitism on campus is a genuine concern, it has become intertwined with wider ideological and political battles over free speech, protest and academic freedom - in effect minimising the Jewish student experience of hate, bullying, direct antisemitism and pro-Pally intimidation.

Political comment

About fifty years ago I returned to university, first as a student then later as an academic member of staff. Prior to my arrival, I would have described myself as largely Jewish in name only - I didn't attend shul and my knowledge of Jewish history and culture was little more than perfunctory, but that was all about to change.

This was the era of the rise of the far right in Britain and while they were never to achieve the success of the British Union of Fascists, they were extremely vocal and becoming increasingly popular. What I experienced in those early days at university stunned me and totally changed my life, because I knew to expect antisemitism from declared fascists, but what I had not expected was the bitterness and hatred of 'supposed' leftists and anti-racists.

At a national level, the National Union of Students (NUS) who were responsible for protecting student affairs at a national and local level had an across the board policy of 'no platform for Zionism', which effectively meant no Jewish student society could discuss issues about Israel of invite Zionist speakers. So when I fist approached my local Union president indicating a desire to set up a local Jewish society I was firmly advised that they thought it a bad idea, but if I chose to proceed, I would have to agree to uphold NUS policy.

Now I apologise to American readers for this somewhat long biographical titbit, but I use it to explain a key and extremely important point - In over 50 years and across the world nothing has changed - the oldest hate still festers in our colleges and universities unabated.

In the US, Students for Justice in Palestine continue to hold a large sway in student politics, including intimidating Jewish students unabated. Polls undertaken during the height of the campus protests showed 8% of the entire national student population had participated with 45% supporting them. In response, and in an attempt to protect our Jewish students a substantial number of law suits were filed in an effort to silence the pro-Palestine bullies but most have failed, arguing speech and slogans at the heart of the controversy are protected by the first amendment. But sadly the courts have failed to see the point. If you are Jewish and you need to walk from point A to point B and that means traversing an area filled with dozens, if not hundreds of students calling for a global Intifada, or the death of every Jew in Israel then you are not safe.

Fifty years ago I was told I would be physically hurt if I set up a Jewish society and it is still the same today.

We have failed to support our Jewish students and we continue to do so today - and more importantly, no-one seems to care. So my question is - what will it take for politicians to realise campus antisemitism is rampant and pretty words and investigative committees are no longer enough.

Israel passes controversial death penalty law

 On Tuesday night, the Israeli Knesset enacted legislation requiring the death penalty for all West Bank Palestinians convicted of carrying out deadly terror attacks. Of course, the broader debate over the legitimacy of capital punishment is an emotive one and will be discussed later. The US has had a long term affinity for capital and the law allows 27 states to apply it, while the UK abolished it in 1960.

The new Israeli law has triggered predictable outrage abroad and deep debate at home. But beyond the headlines, the story is not just about capital punishment. It is about how terrorism, justice, and narrative framing collide and how those collisions are interpreted very differently depending on the lens. While some of the criticism is a legitimate part of the debate, there has also been a predictable international media reaction: alarmist headlines, sweeping generalizations, and, in some cases, outright misinformation.

But a closer reading of the legislation and of the reporting itself reveals a far narrower, more complex reality than many news  outlets would have readers believe.

Not “Palestinians” — Terrorists Convicted of Murder

A striking number of headlines refer broadly to “Palestinians,” implying that the law applies collectively to an entire population, but this is not the case..

A similar story has been seen in other newspapers.

The UK Telegraph newspaper headline completely ignores the fact the law focuses exclusively on terrorists who have murdered innocent civilians, not the average Palestinian.

The new law targets a specific category of perpetrators: terrorists who intentionally kill a person as part of an act of terrorism. It is not applicable to all Palestinians, nor even to all individuals involved in terrorism. Those whose actions do not result in fatalities are not subject to the death penalty under this law.

Yet by stripping away that crucial distinction, media coverage transforms a narrowly defined legal measure into what appears to be a sweeping policy of collective punishment. Nothing new here, as most newspaper in both the US and UK love the opportunity to berate Israel,

That framing is misleading.

The law is NOT retroactive — and not about “thousands of prisoners”

Another claim circulating is that the law could be used against the thousands of Palestinians currently held in Israeli prisons.

Again, that is not the case. This law will only affect terrorists convicted of intentionally killing innocent people, not thousands of inmates.

Furthermore, the law cannot be applied retroactively. It applies only to future convictions meeting a specific criteria. Existing prisoners — regardless of their crimes for which they were convicted — are not affected.

By omitting this basic legal principle, some reporting inevitably has left audiences with the false impression that Israel is preparing to execute large numbers of current detainees but this is not the case

A Country Deeply Divided on the Issue

Another element missing from much of the coverage is the significant domestic debate prevalent Israel itself. Indeed, there is no national consensus behind the law.

Opposition figures, legal experts, and segments of the public have, and are continuing to raise major concerns — from moral objections to questions about deterrence and potential consequences. Even within Israel’s political and security establishment, the issue has long been contentious.

In other words, this is not the action of a monolithic state imposing an uncontested policy despite i9mplications raised by external media.. It is the product of a democratic system grappling openly and contentiously with a deeply sensitive issue.

Furthermore, this law has been passed against the backdrop of the Hamas October 7 massacre. Beyond emotive calls to deal with future terrorist threats or to apply some form of deterrence, there is a very practical reality that Israel has faced. Let us never forget, Israeli hostages were kidnapped and held in Gaza to be exchanged for thousands of Palestinian prisoners.

It is hard to forget that in a previous prisoner exchange, The now eradicated Hamas leader and mastermind of October 7, Yahya Sinwar was among those released  and for some Israelis, the death penalty may reduce the risk of such a murderer being freed in future.

A Law That Will Face Legal Scrutiny

So transparently the legal debate is far from over and Israel’s legal system, anchored by an independent judiciary, is expected to examine the law in detail. Any attempt to implement it will likely face rigorous judicial review.

Yet this reality — that the law will be tested, challenged, and potentially constrained through legal mechanisms is largely absent from coverage that prefers a more simplistic and largely anti:Israel narrative.

In addition, while death by hanging may be the default punishment for West Bank residents convicted of deadly terrorist acts by military courts, judges can opt for life imprisonment under vaguely defined “special circumstances.” Also, the sentence would still require a simple majority of judges, thus avoiding a unilateral decision on a matter of such gravity.

It is worth noting that the law was watered down to ensure it would not go any further than any similar laws enacted under U.S. legislation.

The Bottom Line

The death penalty law raises serious questions. Israelis themselves are debating them.

But the portrayal of the law as a sweeping, discriminatory measure targeting Palestinians as a whole — or as a tool poised to be applied to thousands of existing prisoners — does not withstand scrutiny.

It is a narrower, prospective measure aimed at a specific category of deadly terrorism.

And once again, the gap between what the law says and how it is reported tells its own story..

Political Comment

The new legislation raises a number of political, legal, religious and ethical issues. Now I am very far from as religious or Talmudic scholar so, if I may I will leave that issue to others more learned than me.

But on the political arena I think Israel is making a grave mistake. Internationally the country is not at its strongest and, thanks to a major media and social media campaign the "Palestinian" movement to sway opinion against the country, It is therefore inevitable that when a Palestinian terrorist kills an Israeli and is sentenced to death they could well be perceived as martyrs and undoubtedly anti-Zionists will create a mass campaign against the country.

Secondly, the country is an active war against Iran - a war that could see the US leaving without completing all of the strategic goals required. If that happens Israel will need to be united in what could become a prolonged war with Iran.

Third, it is inconceivable that the PA will recruit terrorists willing to kill Jews and become martyrs to "the cause" and promote their illegitimate campaign. While Iranian money will not be available, there are enough funds available to mount a prolonged campaign.

At an ethical issue there are further problems. The only capital death on Israeli soil was Adolf Eichmann and the nation has a proud history of avoiding capital sentencing despite countless sentencing. If this is to change courts will have to establish unquestionable guilt and internationally there are countless examples of how, despite stringent safeguards mistakes have been made.

So, in short I fear this new law will be a terrible mistake for a country that prides itself for being the only democracy in the Middle East and while the nation is very from an apartheid state, having legislation that punishes according to race leaves Israel vulnerable to accusations of having different rules for Palestinians than Jews. Creating laws based on vengeance and hatred are not the solution - we win when we show even our enemies that we will not succumb to bitterness and revenge. Payback and reprisal will not make Israelis safer.

A case of double standards

With the Jewish State of Israel once again having to defend it's people and it's border, it felt obvious to me that I, as a democrat, should make definitive statement on my position. For that reason, I will deviate slightly from my usual theme to discuss the legitimacy of the Israeli response to the savage attack on the Supernova Music festival and Kibbutz Kvar Aza

Some media outlets are already arguing the Israeli response to Hamas attacks on Sderot and Kfar Aza are disproportionate.. But, let us assume that in response IDF troops had gone into Gaza and entered a Palestinian music festival and butchered 260 young people then taken a further 200 hostage. Let us further assume 40 of those victims were babies and tiny children who had been beheaded and mutilated. Even further,  let us assume that these IDF troops had repeatedly raped some of those women.

With this in mind, would the world propose the notion of proportionality? Of course not.

The simple reality is that Israel has always been expected to have a higher ethical (and more forgiving) standard than its enemies - even when those opponents are unashamed terrorists whose founding rhetoric argued:

“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’” (source: Hamas Charter, 1987)

Transparently the current conflict is having a devastating effect on innocent civilian life in Gaza and there will be hardly a member of the  worldwide Jewish Community that will not shed a tear for every innocent Palestinian child affected by this war. Since before the formation of the State of Israel there has been a passion for Jews/ Israelis to live alongside the Arab world in peace and harmony. To that end, Israel has repeatedly reached out and offered to give away land so this may happen. However, leaders of the Palestinian people have always refused any chance of peace.

There comes a time when it becomes imperative that we say "enough", a time when we must say "we will no longer accept the unacceptable".

Today, that time has come and the Palestinian people, alongside Hamas, the PIJ and Hezbollah have a simple choice  - they must decide between unconditional surrender of the Palestinian people and the handing over of every terrorist to the Israeli authorities, the unconditional surrender of Hamas and the withdrawal of Hezbollah forces from the Lebanon - Israeli border ... or a continuation of the conflict. 

Nothing less is acceptable - Am Israel chai.

Israel and the Labour Party

As a left-winger in the Labour party I find that whenever the issue of Israel and Palestine are raised I am often at odds with comrades and friends. Each time the subject is raised I find the discussion always veers towards how awful Israel is, or how aggressive the Defense Forces are, or how Zionism equates with racism.

However, there is an alternate, and I would argue more socialistic view.

Let me explain. There can be little or no justification for the current oppression of legitimate Palestinian rights by the Israeli government. Equally, incursions by individual terrorists and members of Hamas into Israeli territory and the use of bombs and rockets against the civilian population is just as unacceptable. As Gandhi stated so eloquently, ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’.

One of the arguments raised by the Israeli right is that they are duty bound under Torachic law to defend themselves under the principle of an eye for an eye (ayin tachat ayin). But this totally misses the central tenet of the concept. The Torah argued that if you offend another and damage their eye, so must you harm your own. Thus under this analysis the Netanyahu government should be treating the Jewish settlers in an identical fashion to the way they treat the Palestinian people. This is clearly not happening.

In the 1980s a Marxist political group (Mapam) proposed a peace settlement where Jew and Arab could live together in harmony, sharing the wealth of the country in socialist co-operation. Experiments such as Kibbutz Tuval in the north of Israel thrived and prospered and Palestinians and Jews forget racial/ religious barriers and worked together for mutual benefit.

One of the key factors behind this success was the underlying philosophy of the kibbutz movement, with its strong association with Habonim Dror and the socialist-Zionist movement. However, a further key to its success lay in the fact that the essence of socialist-Zionism and the peace movement in general rests on the belief that the Palestinian people have a legitimate right to their own separate identity.

These values need today to be reinforced again and it is incumbent on every socialist internationally to campaign for every oppressed people, wherever and whoever they may be. The Jewish people have a right to a homeland; of that there can be no debate. Similarly, there is now a critical need for the UN to help establish and support a fully independent Palestinian state. The only guarantee for the future, security and character of both peoples is if internationally we campaign for reconciliation through a peaceful settlement.

Part of the dilemma for the Israeli right lay in the outposts in the Palestinian territories. These illegal outposts and settlements are major obstacles to ending the occupation and promoting an agreement, as well as an element that contradicts the Israeli national interest. The Labour party, through the Socialist International and the United Nations should fight for the evacuation of the outposts and settlements, while providing the settlers with adequate compensation and seeing to their rehabilitation.

In particular, the Labour party should adopt the following principles:

• The Palestinian people have the right to self-determination, including the right to establish its own state alongside the State of Israel.
• Israeli settlers in locations which, after the determination of the permanent borders, fall within the Palestinian State will be able to return to Israel and will receive appropriate compensation. It will not be possible to achieve a permanent agreement without evacuating settlements. During the negotiations the two sides will determine those settlements in which Israeli settlers may remain; settlers will be required to recognize and respect Palestinian sovereignty.
• Jerusalem will not be divided. It will be recognized that members of both nations live in the city, and that both have national and religious rights. The area of the city will be redefined and agreed and coordinated municipal frameworks will be established within its borders in order to enable each community to manage its own internal affairs. Two capitals will exist within the municipal area: the capital of Israel in the Jewish areas, and the capital of Palestine in the Arab areas. The status of the holy sites will be determined through negotiations based on maintaining the religious rights and freedom of worship of all religions.
• The permanent settlement will include a comprehensive solution of the problem of the refugees (from 1948) and the dislocated residents (from 1967). The Palestinian State will be entitled to absorb refugees within its borders according to its own considerations. A compensation arrangement for refugees will be agreed upon with international support. After such agreement is reached, the parties will categorically waive any further claims for the return of refugees, restitution of property rights or the right of settlement in the area of the other state.
• Borders will be open to the passage of goods and workers as agreed upon by the two parties and in line with basic socialist principles. Israel will actively support the Palestinian economy and will help recruit international support and investments to promote economic development of the Palestinian State
  

Tacitus