'Twas the Night After Christmas...

Over the years, many Jewish customs have formed around the celebration of Christmas. Some families have Erev Christmas Board Game Nights. Some have Read-A-Loud Night where short stories by Jewish authors like Sholem Aleichem and Isaac Bashevis Singer are shared in Yiddish or English. On Christmas Day we would go bowling in the morning and to the movies in the afternoon. At the local move house, you'd run into everyone from shul...unless it was shabbat....then we would convene at someone's house to do jigsaw puzzles.

Note for fussy people: Yes,
those are Japanese udon noodles.
I wasn't in the mood for rice. 

But of all the Jewish Christmas traditions, the best known is the eating of Chinese food. This is a peculiarly American tradition. Again, everyone from shul would be at Kwong Ming in Wantagh or Hunan Gourmet in Merrick. Here, we would meet up at The Great Wall in Highland by Lund's. Today was not one of those days.

Today, it was 55°F and raining. In Minnesota. It was like the worst kind of day in March or November. Besides, since Ziggy left the building, I'm not much in the. mood for going without him, even after all these years. So I make my own Chinese  food, and I gotta tell you, I'm pretty good at this. This year was crispy chicken with red, green, and chili peppers and Hoisin Sauce (ICYDK: Kikoman's has an OU hechsher.) Anyway, it was particularly good on this miserably chilled night. 

In the middle of the Kansas City Chiefs game (they lost,) we had a power outage. I guess a chunk of our little village was dark. My first thought was who plugged in the Christmas tree?  When I was a kid, one of our neighbors annually went dark when the dad plugged in the Christmas tree. As we got older, we kinda took bets on which string of lights was the fuse-blower. But power was back in time for the Eagles game (they won,) so it wasn't a total loss. There are only so many sappy Christmas movies I can stand!

Despite the twinkling lights and the udon noodles, I cannot get away from obsessing about the disaster that is the war between Israel and Gaza. It takes much of my headspace on any given day,  and I find myself turning off the national news, something I have never really done. At a press conference at the State Department on December 20th, Secretary Anthony Blinken said:

 

What is striking to me is that even as, again, we hear many countries urging the end to this conflict, which we would all like to see, I hear virtually no one saying – demanding of Hamas that it stop hiding behind civilians, that it lay down its arms, that it surrender. This is over tomorrow if Hamas does that. This would have been over a month ago, six weeks ago, if Hamas had done that. How can it be that there are no demands made of the aggressor and only demands made of the victim?

Why is that? 

I don't think there is a Jewish person in the country who is not aggrieved at plight of Gaza civilians. Once upon a time, I would've thought there wasn't a Jewish person in the country who didn't understand what is at risk in this dispute, but now, I'm not so sure about that. 

The spin doctors are working overtime to make sure Gazans are portrayed as the only victims of aggression without any responsibility for the massacre of October 7th. Does it make sense to hold all of Gaza's civilian population responsible for this war, or is there any way to get people to understand the vicious cycle of human shields? And what does everyone think will happen if Israel stands down? Golda Meir once warned:

There cannot be quiet on one side of the border and shelling on the other. We will either have peace on both sides or trouble on both sides. I understand the Arabs want to wipe us out, but do they expect us to cooperate?

Blinken's observation, coupled with Meir's, brings into focus the dichotomy faced by Israel. And that's where this war get particularly ugly. The bombing of Gaza has killed over 20,000 Palestinians. In the eyes of the world, Israel has become the aggressor, the one who has come to kill. In a newsprint world, this would be black or white issue, with no grey in the middle. But how is Israel supposed to respond after 75 years of attempts to get the Palestinians to form a state have failed? After 4 declared wars, in which Israel prevailed each time, there has not been a significant change for the Palestinian doctrine of annihilation of Israel and its population. Golda Meir also said:

You cannot negotiate peace with somebody who has come to kill you.

But everyone needs to know the war will stop when the hostages are returned and Hamas stops hiding behind its civilians. It's just that simple. 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

There may not be a new blog next Monday, a lousy way to start the year. Something significant is happening next week and while I can't write about it quite yet, I promise full disclosure after the deed is done.  

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week 

Sometimes, you have to be brave,

step out of your comfort one,

and take the leap. 

To Be Or Not To Be... Funny

Alan Zweibel

Alan Zweibel, one of the original SNL writers, went to Hebrew school with my big brother, and somehow they have managed to stay in touch. Because of that connection, I became a fan of Alan's work, read his books, gone to hear him speak, and thought he was pretty funny even as a grown up. And then he wrote a piece for AIRMAIL, a seriously interesting "lively digital digest;" they live up to their own hype. 

Zweibel's exceptional essay on Jewish humor in the face of October 7th tackles the issue head on. Often asked why he thought Jews have been prominent in the world of comedy, he posits:

Humor is a mindset—a coping mechanism, if you will—that has enabled us to survive the persecution we’ve withstood through the centuries. A deflection of sorts from the horrors of pogroms, expulsions from so many countries, the Holocaust, and the more subtle gentlemen’s agreements that tacitly made it impossible for a Jewish family to move into certain communities. As my friend Rob Reiner said when asked what was at the root of Jewish comedy: “Fear.”

I have long believed fear is the baseline. When my husband complained to my dad about Jewish comedians, saying "There's a huge difference between laughing with us and at us," my dad replied, "any laughter buys us time to get out." Reiner just says it another way. They each are touching one end of the same nerve. Distraction is a powerful tool, to a point. And if we can make 'em laugh.....

But these days, it's hard to be distracted, much less intentionally funny, let alone laugh. The exponential rise of antisemitism not just in these here United States, but world wide, is terrifying. It's not the words, but the knowledge that we've lived this before....in Shushan, in Spain, in England, in Portugal, and, of course in Germany. Even after the Holocaust we saw it in Poland, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt at the birth of the State of Israel. 

Rabbi Heschel with Dr. King in Selma

Obviously, this is not new, in fact, it's been growing steadily. From the marchers in Charlottesville chanting will "Jews will not replace us!"  in August of 2017, to the Women's March in January of 2017, right up to the UN Women ignoring condemnation of the use of rape by Hamas is only a thin slice of virulent populist antisemitism. Hey! Ava Duvernay  even removed Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel from the movie Selma rather than show a Jew with Dr. King.  In recent months, the bravado that comes with confidence that they will be neither stopped nor held accountable for their action has spurred the antisemites to come out of their closet, especially on college campuses.

But something happened on October 7th that we'd not seen since the 30s and 40s: the wholesale murder of Jews for being Jews. Rape, genital mutilation, beheaded, burning, and shooting of civiian men, women, and children becomes the commodity of war. Hamas filmed their operatives hunting Jews in the kibbutzim. (Watch it if you dare)

Communities with whom Jews have stood with on the front lines of civil rights, equal rights, and racism are not merely silent; they condone the actions of Hamas. They call them freedom fighters not understanding what their version of freedom means. They shout about From the River To The Sea, not grokking what they're shouting about. But it doesn't much matter because they are actively setting up for an open season on Jews.

How can one be funny after that? Zweibel isn't alone in his confrontation of fear:

Then came October 7—when the fear became present. When the unheeded warnings relegated to the past visited us with an unannounced vengeance. When the 78-year-old vow made after the liberation of Auschwitz of “Never again!” came rushing forward, and we realized that “again” was now.

I grew up in an assimilated time when a lot of my Jewish friends were admitted to Ivy League schools, people of all religions were using the word “schmuck,” and Sandy Koufax was nationally applauded for refusing to pitch the opening game of the 1965 World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur.

It was also the day I found it impossible to focus on my work. As if it would be blasphemous to even look for anything funny when such savagery was rendered upon so many who were doing nothing more than enjoying their lives.

I wondered the same thing every time I laughed at a joke. How can I be so callow as to laugh in the face of the enormity of hate?  I did not, nor do I now, have an answer. And yes, I feel guilty each time I smile about something else. Yet, I know as Jews, we will ultimately find humor buried in the rubble. Already I've seen Israeli videos mocking those on campus who support Hamas. Harsh to the point of being cruel, those videos are meant to be laughed at....but with a well-honed razor's edge. 

I am certain someone will complain about my even posting this video, but frankly, I don't care if I upset anyone. 

And although I don't always like what Bill Maher says, his New Rule segment last Friday on the conflict is fact-based, blunt, and spot on. There are even a few Maher-ian inappropriate jokes, but hey! It's Bill Maher. Still, the segment is worth watching:

The fears we are experiencing are very real. Videos shot and released by Hamas demonstrate they are serious about their claims of wiping Israel and Jews off the map. Do we take them at their word that this is their goal? We must, and at the same time understand that should a ceasefire or a truce be set in place, it will not last and we will be under attack again. 

Eventually, not long in the future, there will be grim jokes about October 7th. We will laugh because that is what we do when we face our fears. We cannot be afraid and we cannot let them think we are afraid. Like every other time they tried to kill us, we will survive. We will remember the dead,  but we will choose to remember them as they were....alive. We will laugh with our dead because that's the only way we will be able to move forward with giant holes in our hearts. In our community heart. In the heart of Am Yisrael....the People of Israel. 

Italian author and Holocaust survivor Primo Levi wrote:

“Monsters exist, but they are too few in numbers to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are … the functionaries ready to believe and act without asking questions.”

I have believed that for a long time. The monster might set the stage, but it is his/her cabal that carries out the terror. It gives the monster plausible deniability in the court of public opinion, and allows the monster to go forward. Hamas leadership relies on that scenario as they take their jihad forward. Think I'm making this up? Read The Doctrine of Hamas. Pay close attention to the section called The Movement. 

Zweibel closes his essay in a way that speaks to and for many of us. 

I also wait. Frightened to think where all this will lead. Frightened that we have a grandson who will soon be applying to colleges. Frightened as my grandparents were when they said, “If it happened, it can happen again.” And silently wondering when I’ll feel comfortable enough to be funny again.

But right now. At this moment. It's just too fucking hard to laugh. Maybe later.

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week

We may have endless differences amongst ourselves,

but in the end, we are a single community.

Or so they tell us. 

עם ישראל חי

AM YISRAEL CHAI!

The people of Israel Live!

“What are we? Humans? Or animals? Or savages?"

I am taking a breather to write about something domestic this week: education in America. 

photo: Kimberly Cambra/Philadelphia Inquirer

In the last year, good folks of Bucks County had a bit of an issue with the Central Bucks school board. Seems the Republican run school board has been replaced by a whole new crop of Democrats. One-time Republican now turned Democrat Karen Smith was sworn in as school board chair not on a Bible,  but on a stack of banned books. The book on top? NIGHT by Elie Wiesel. She chose it because a quote from that book was ordered to be removed from a library due to a board policy that "banned staff from advocating beliefs to students on “partisan, political, or social policy issues." The removed quote? 

I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. 

The other books in the pile?

• The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison: about a child being raped by her father. 
• Lily and Dunkin, by Donna Gephart: with a transgender main character
• All Boys Aren’t Blue, by George M. Johnson: about a young man growing up Black and queer.
• Flamer, by Mike Curato: about a teenager grappling with his identity
• Beyond Magenta, by Susan Kuklin: about the lives of 6 transgender teens

Each of those books confront marginalized groups. Kids need to read books in which they see themselves even when they have not shared that intimate knowledge with others. They need to see they are not alone or weird or abnormal. Each one of those books deals with identity and should never be locked away from readers.

Is this what education in the United States has come to? Mob rule? Get elected or appointed and make rules up as you go? 

Marginalized groups are being terrorized in academic settings and some seek to legitimize that rhetoric. When administrators turn a blind eye and then turn their backs on students of any kind of minority, they are not serving their communities with justice. They are painting targets on kids backs whether or not they fully comprehend the impact of their actions. They are providing tacit approval for bullying and harassment. Doesn't matter if it's gay kids, or trans kids, or Jews, or Muslims, or kids who wear green sneakers. Pull the books about marginalized communities outta the library, tell kids that stuff is bad for them, and the kids will do the rest. Once the target is in place, the potential victim is established, marked, and eventually attacked. 

Ms. Magill, Dr. Kornbluth, and Dr. Gay

This week, presidents of three prestigious universities testified before a congressional House committee about anti-semitism on their campuses. Students across the country are being harassed, attacked, and openly threatened because they are Jews. Those attackers are not going after Israelis per se, they are going after all Jewish students and faculty. Swastikas, threatening graffiti, and physical intimidation are becoming increasingly common on campuses. 

The presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, and MIT were all asked about what was happening to Jewish students on their respective campuses. All three were asked the same question by Representative Elise Stefanik (R, NY):

“I am asking, specifically: Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?”

All three, Ms. Magill of Penn, Dr. Kornbluth of MIT (who is Jewish), and Dr. Gay of Harvard said it depended on context. While one might argue context may be a factor in prosecutorial conversation, the intent of the speeches, chants, or verbal assaults cannot be dismissed as requiring context. What context would they accept? Someone's head bashed in? Jews herded into a building? Or perhaps a synagogue shot up...like Tree of Life in Pittsburgh or Temple Israel in Albany?

There is a point missing from their context-laden speeches...and that is intent. The shouts, the jeers, the slogans are not innocuous; they are meant to incite a reaction. Just as the January 6th insurrectionists were not merely peaceful demonstrators intent on visiting the Capitol to take in the sights, crowds screaming From the River to the Sea, Palestine Must Be Free are not simply trying to make a point. They are trying to rally others to their cause.   

What would the three presidents say had the word Jews been changed to Blacks? Would they remain as morally ambiguous as they appeared? 

Korbluth did admit to being Jewish during her testimony. She said,

As an American, as a Jew, and as a human being, I abhor antisemitism, and my administration is combatting it actively." 

Still, she insisted that calls for genocide be tempered by context. I wonder how Sally Kornbluth would feel if she was the one being targeted because she was Jewish? Or if her kids were the ones being attacked because they were Jewish? Would that have been enough context for her?

Maybe someone should've asked that. follow-up question.

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week

If you're gonna shout slogans,

at least bother to learn what they mean.

from the Wall Street Journal - 5 December 2023

***********

PS: Bonus points if you get the title quote right. Send an email to 

thewifelyperson@gmail.com

I'll announce the winner next week. 

There just might be a prize for the first correct email. 

Me too, unless you're a Jew

December 4th demonstration
Photo by Barbara Mazor

I've spent much of this week trying not to give myself a stroke from reading the news. Seriously. I can feel my blood pressure going through the ceiling as I watch and read some of the absolute bullshit batshit going on around the world. I am constantly astounded by how, even now, in the weeks following the massacre in Israel, the voice of Jewish women is ignored. 

UN WOMEN remained silent in the face of the October 7th atrocities against women until forced to issue a statement on December 1st, 2023. Their statement is absurd in its focus. Past some lip service mentioning October 7th, it says nothing about heinousness of the crimes committed against Israeli women. Doubt me? Read the statement:

We deeply regret that military operations have resumed in Gaza, and we reiterate that all women, Israeli women, Palestinian women, as all others, are entitled to a life lived in safety and free from violence.

 

We unequivocally condemn the brutal attacks by Hamas on Israel on 7 October. We are alarmed by the numerous accounts of gender-based atrocities and sexual violence during those attacks. This is why we have called for all accounts of gender-based violence to be duly investigated and prosecuted, with the rights of the victim at the core.

 

In all conflicts, UN women fully supports rigorous investigations and Commissions of Inquiry where they exist. We are actively supporting the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, which began its investigation into sexual violence very shortly after the attacks occurred. We welcome that the Commission has opened its call for submissions on gender-based crimes since 7 October.

 

We also welcome that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict Pramila Patten has activated the UN Action network, of which we are a member, to proactively share UN-sourced and verified information on incidents, patterns, and trends of conflict-related sexual violence to aid all investigations.

 

We continue to call for accountability for all acts of gender-based violence committed on and after 7 October, the immediate and unconditional release of all remaining hostages, and a humanitarian ceasefire.

 

For the sake of everyone in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel, and especially women and children, we call for a return to a path of peace, a respect for international humanitarian and international human rights law, and an end to the suffering of people in Gaza and in Israel, and those families still waiting for their loved ones to return.

Rigorous investigations. Hmmm. They want more tape? 

In response to this exercises in absurdity, Jewish women marched on the UN this afternoon...Monday, December 4th, 2023, demanding that our voices be heard. Rape as a weapon of war is a crime against humanity.  

Hear Our Voices was an event held today at the UN. If you can handle it, watch the whole thing. I will tell you it's hard to do, but I strongly urge everyone to watch it from start to finish. The list of speakers include Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Superintendent of the Israeli National Police Yael Richert who oversees identification of bodies, Sari Mendes who is part of the chevrah for preparing female IDF soldier...and civilians in the massacre...for burial, Simcha Glaiman of Zaka who was part of the body recovery team, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and others. Each is critical to hear. 

But Mendana Dayani, the last speaker, is an absolute must listen. She calls out all those with whom we have stood with shoulder-to-shoulder to protest violence against women across the globe, to support the Black Live Matter movement, to stand with the LGBTQ+  community for full civil rights to account for the collective silence they have given us since October 7th. She emphasizes that when we, as women, talk about being heard, we are talking about ALL WOMEN and not just a select few. She tells them

You ignored our pleas.

She calls out the UN's long history of siding against Israel, the demands that the UN do its job for the women and girls who were raped, mutilated, and murdered on October 7th. 

There is no ignoring the eyewitness testimony, or the audio clips of Hamas terrorists bragging to their families about how many Jews they killed. Recognition of the intentionality, planning, and execution of the attacks cannot be dismissed as acts of passion in war. THEY WERE ORCHESTRATED. 

What becomes unfathomable and unconscionable is the silence from our so-called allies in the women's movement. Justifying rape and mutilation because you don't like a particular government or religion is never justifiable. 

Or maybe, it does us a favor. It gives us a window into the real-world politics of being a Jew. Maybe, just maybe, it reminds us that we are not one of them.  We are white only when it suits their purposes, otherwise, we are the other. That we are not inherently entitled to the same protections under international law. That singling out the only democratic state in the Middle East is okay because it's a Jewish state. 

I read a lot about genocide this past week because a certain person asked me what it meant. In this case, we were at MIA's exhibit In Our Hands: Native Photography, 1890 to Now, a brilliant and thought-provoking exhibition. The word genocide was used in several of the descriptions of the photographs, and the question was asked. Considering the age of this certain person, I explained in very broad terms that it basically meant when one group of people tried to permanently get rid of another group of people. 

But that, in turn, took me down a rabbit hole on the meaning of genocide when I saw it used in a letter signed by over 1,000 British artists about Israel. Three of the signers happen to be actors I greatly admire: Olivia Coleman, Harriet Walker, and Juliet Stevenson. I always thought they were intelligent women.... but not anymore. It was pretty clear they don't do their homework before signing on to stuff. 

The letter as described in the UK's Jewish Chronicle cites an Israeli “genocide” against the Palestinians" and "accuses cultural institutions across Western countries of “repressing, silencing and stigmatising Palestinian voices and perspectives”.

The statement says its signatories “refuse to pit one community against the other, and stand firmly against all forms of racism including Islamophobia and antisemitism” but does not mention the Hamas atrocities on October 7 that kick-started the conflict.

 

The letter says: “The scale of violence unfolding in Gaza demands our collective attention and action. Members of Israel’s far-right government are openly calling for ethnic cleansing.

 

“The use of starvation as a weapon of war, along with denial of water and electricity, is cruel beyond words.

 

“The wholesale destruction of civilian infrastructure, the bombing of hospitals, schools, churches and mosques, the killing of 14,500 people in a matter of weeks, amount to a policy of collective punishment against the Palestinian people.

 

“The United Nations and hundreds of legal scholars have called on the international community to prevent genocide.”

 

The main targets of the letter are arts institutions that, in the words of the letter, “cancel performances, screenings, talks, exhibitions and book launches” and “threaten livelihoods of artists and arts workers who express solidarity with Palestinians”.

 

The letter goes on to say: “While catastrophe unfolds, we have observed a glaring absence of statements of solidarity with Palestinian people from most UK arts organisations.

 

“We find it deeply troubling and, frankly, indicative of a disturbing double standard that expressions of solidarity, which have been readily offered to other peoples facing brutal oppression, have not been extended to Palestinians.”

Really? Here are some of the standard requirements for the designation of genocide:

• The Palestinian population has flourished and grown exponentially since 1948. 
• That's not genocidal.
• Law or cultural power excludes groups from full civil rights:
• In Gaza: yes. In Israel: no. Israeli Arabs have all civil rights including voting
• Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity
• In Gaza: yes. In Israel: no; all religions have equal rights to pray as they see fit. 
• Killers refer to murder as 'extermination' because they do not believe their victims to be fully human: 
• In Gaza: yes. See LGBTQ+ legal status. In Israel: No.

These are just  few. When you get into war and war crime, the definitions shift a bit because of offensive and defensive positions. But you can't use those to layer a different set of blames. They get their own, and I think we all understand that. 

But using the standards above, I'd like to know more about the double standard to which they refer. Is that the one where it's okay to kill Israelis because Israel isn't allowed to defend itself? Or the one where it's okay for Hamas to fire thousands of missiles into towns and villages without fear of reprisal? I particularly like the part about ethnic cleansing. I guess they don't understand that river to the sea requires TOTAL ethnic cleansing...or that the status of homosexuals and trans people in Gaza require execution. Hmmmm. Maybe someone should mention that, not that they would be believed because, after all, it must be a Jewish plot to discredit the kind folks of Gaza City.

I am so tired of the trope, the hate, the blame-casting, and the refusal to see us a people. We can no longer ask, Do we not bleed? because we have proof in all forms of media that we do, in fact, bleed. But it will never be enough for the Jew haters of the world. Jewish body count apparently is a thing, and you get to brag about it to your family and friends from your victims cellphones  or uploading video to Facebook so families can watch family members die. I guess that's okay, too. 

Yes, there are thousands of casualties in Gaza. That's a fact of war. But Israel wasn't preventing them from evacuating; it was Hamas refusing to let their human shields leave the area. If you start a war, Hamas, guess what? Israel will fire back. Israel's obligation is to its citizens; yours, however, is to your bank accounts. When the leaders of Hamas are the richest oligarchs in the region, it's not because your people are successful and thriving; it's because you are stealing from them. They are starving while you're partying in Qatar.

But British entertainers don't want to hear that. Nor does the UN or most of the world. No. They are happy to close their eyes and close their drapes.

Elizabeth Robertson/
Inquirer staff photographer

Don't let yourselves think it ain't here either. It is. Just ask Chef Michael Solomonov of Philadelphia. The Pro-Gaza Gang apparently doesn't like falafel prepared by Jews. Last night they were protesting in front of one of his restaurants. And here, some of you thought it was political. Silly you. Next, they'll be trying to shut down Russ & Daughters or Ben's. 

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week

Wanted: New Bucket List destination.

Barcelona's city government is supporting Hamas.

No Antoni Gaudí for me. 

(sigh)

There Is No Free Speech....It's all expensive.

Bruce Nestor

As I was finishing off tonight's episode, I had the news on in the background. On KARE-11's BREAKING THE NEWS, there was a story about the Edina school district being sued over how they handled participants in a pro-Palestinian demonstration that took place on school grounds during school. The issue was not the demonstration itself, it was the chant: From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.

Okay. That stopped me. And the blog. 

Two Somali students were suspended over the chant. At a press conference Monday afternoon,  Attorney Bruce Nestor said:

Edina High School authorities and school authorities accused them of being antisemitic, on the basis of using the chant during the walkout of "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." That is a slogan that is used by elected representatives here in the United States, it is used by hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in support of the aspirations of the Palestinian people for freedom

There is no evidence of an attempt to harm, or discriminate, or be anti semitic. There is nothing objectively true about this statement being characterized as anti semitic.

In their statement to the news station KARE-11, the school district stated:

The District would like to affirm its unwavering support for students’ First Amendment right to free expression and to peacefully advocate for causes that are important to them. Similarly, the District has strong policies prohibiting any type of discrimination against students based on their religion or any other basis protected under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 

The District cannot comment on any particular students or allegations as that information would be considered private data protected by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). However, students do not have unfettered First Amendment rights while on school property and students do not have a right under the First Amendment to engage in speech that is substantially disruptive or that violates District policies. 

Our core beliefs in Edina Public Schools are grounded in the inherent dignity of all people. We value and appreciate the diversity of all of our students. Edina Public Schools deeply condemns islamophobia and antisemitism. We will not tolerate hateful or inappropriate comments or behaviors and will work diligently to provide a safe and inclusive environment for our students and staff.

The Anti-Defamation League had already issued a statement about the chant:

“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is an antisemitic slogan commonly featured in anti-Israel campaigns and chanted at demonstrations. 

This rallying cry has long been used by anti-Israel voices, including supporters of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the PFLP, which seek Israel’s destruction through violent means. It is fundamentally a call for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, territory that includes the State of Israel, which would mean the dismantling of the Jewish state. It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland. 

Usage of this phrase has the effect of making members of the Jewish and pro-Israel community feel unsafe and ostracized. It is important to note that demanding justice for Palestinians, or calling for a Palestinian state, should not mean, as this hateful phrase posits, denying the right of the State of Israel to exist. 

Is it anti-semitism? Is it an expression of belief? Is it all protected speech....or is it hate speech meant to sanction/encourage violence against Jewish students?

All of the above brings the basic foundations of this country back into the forefront of the nanosecond American news cycle. Clearly, verbal and physical assaults continue to be directed at Jews and Muslims in these here United States. Yes, demonstrations can turn violent, but not all do. We cannot muzzle that which we don't like, or we'll ultimately get muzzled right back. 

Issues surrounding free speech are endlessly muddied by people who have absolutely no understanding of law and/or the Constitution. It's too easy to be sucked into the vortex of batshit news and bullshit reporting when the people producing these videos have no credentials, no expertise, no understanding, and have never been to the place on which they're pontificating. But batshit and bullshit aside, there is a very fine line between free speech and elective truth-telling that has to be marked, if not respected. So how do you get there?

I'm not totally sure there is a definitive answer,  but Ilya Shapiro's essay on free speech as it appeared in THE FREE PRESS needs to be read by every American citizen, wanna be citizen, or alien...legal or illegal...because it impacts us all. Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, knows what he's writing about, and makes a whole lotta sense. I've left his links in because many of them are worth following. 

Where Free Speech Ends and Lawbreaking Begin

Ilya Shapiro 

November 27, 2023 

Even antisemites have the right to free speech, as Nadine Strossen and Pamela Paresky correctly wrote in The Free Press. Since the Hamas massacre of October 7, they have been taking full advantage of that right. Especially on college campuses.

Pro-Palestinian groups have harassed and even assaulted Jewish students; protesters have interrupted courses and taken over buildings; Ivy League professors have called Hamas’s attack “exhilarating” and “awesome”; students have torn down posters of missing Israeli children; others have chanted—and even projected onto university buildings—slogans, like “from the river to the sea,” “globalize the intifada,” and “glory to our martyrs.”

In response to such activities, universities have suspended or banned student groups like Students for Justice in Palestine. Alumni have pulled their donations and publicly stated that they won’t hire students who signed letters blaming Israel for the massacre. Republican lawmakers have suggested revoking the student visas of those participating in anti-Israel protests.

Those who care deeply about free speech are asking themselves many questions at this urgent moment: What should we make of the calls to punish Hamas apologists on campus? After all, this is America, where you have the right to say even the vilest things. Yes, many of the same students who on October 6 called for harsh punishment for “microaggressions” are now chanting for the elimination of the world’s only Jewish state. But Americans are entitled to be hypocrites. 

Don’t these students have the same right to chant Hamas slogans as the neo-Nazis did to march in 1977 in Skokie, Illinois—a town then inhabited by many Holocaust survivors?

I would put my free speech bona fides up against anyone. I’m also a lawyer and sometime law professor who recognizes that not all speech-related questions can be resolved by invoking the words First Amendment. 

Much of what we’ve witnessed on campuses over the past few weeks is not, in fact, speech, but conduct designed specifically to harass, intimidate, and terrorize Jews. Other examples involve disruptive speech that can properly be regulated by school rules. Opposing or taking action against such behavior in no way violates the core constitutional principle that the government can’t punish you for expressing your beliefs.

The question, as always, is where to draw the line, and who’s doing the line-drawing. 

Here are some of the most pressing questions those who care about civil liberties and protecting the rights of Jewish students are asking.

What are some examples of protest activities that are rightly considered conduct rather than speech? 

In drawing the line between speech and conduct, some cases are easy. 

Beating someone up, as has happened at Columbia and Tulane, is assault. Crowding around someone in a threatening manner, like a group of Harvard students—including an editor of the Harvard Law Review—did to an Israeli student who filmed their protest, is commonly known as the crime of “menacing.” A pattern of actions designed to frighten and harass someone, like forcing Jewish students into the Cooper Union library while pounding on the doors and windows, is stalking. Defacing someone’s property by spray-painting swastikas and slogans, as happened at American University, is vandalism. So is tearing down posters—at least on private property and in most campus settings. And masking at a protest, also a hallmark of events sponsored by the Students for Justice in Palestine organization, is illegal in many states—a remnant of the battle against KKK intimidation.

The proper response to such behavior, regardless of how “expressive” someone may claim it to be, is the same response we’d have to instances of assault, stalking, intimidation, and other crimes in any other context: identify, arrest, and prosecute the perpetrators. And in the campus setting, expel them. 

Are genocidal slogans like “globalize the intifada” or “from the river to the sea” protected by the First Amendment? 

It depends on the context.

First, a clear-cut case: the Cornell student who posted death threats online to Jewish students was rightly arrested, because, as the Supreme Court held, the Constitution doesn’t protect “those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” 

In addition to such “true threats” (and not simply political hyperbole), the First Amendment does not protect the incitement of violence, which the Supreme Court has defined as speech that is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” The courts have set a high bar on meeting this standard—but it’s surely been reached in some recent cases both on and off-campus.

Take, for example, the pro-Palestine rally in Los Angeles, where, in the course of the event, a 69-year-old man holding an Israeli flag was struck and killed. Assuming eliminationist or other violent slogans were chanted there, it would be hard to imagine a more direct connection between those chants and actual violence. 

But a group of students marching through campus cheering for Hamas is no different than a group of students celebrating the killing of innocent black people. Though we can imagine how different the campus response to the latter would be, from a First Amendment perspective, both are protected.

Wait, but isn’t shouting antisemitic epithets hate speech?

Offensive or “hate” speech is constitutionally protected—including burning a flag or giving a racially charged speech to a restless crowd.

But even undeniably protected speech can be off-limits in certain contexts. If I come to your neighborhood in the middle of the night and use a bullhorn to tell you what I really think of Joe Biden or Donald Trump, I can be arrested for disturbing the peace. The same thing goes for breaching the terms of a parade permit, or not getting a permit at all and blocking traffic.

So for any particular incident, you have to drill down on the specific facts. Engaging in what someone—even most people—would consider “hate speech” won’t get you in trouble. But doing so outside Jewish students’ dorms at midnight, or following Israeli students around to yell at them, will land you in hot water.

What about the interruption of classes and speakers by protesters? Isn’t this just more speech that’s protected by the First Amendment?

In the campus context, we’ve learned in the last couple of years—some of us quite personally—that there’s a difference between protest and disruption. Student handbooks typically spell out that it’s generally fine to hold signs, wear t-shirts, give out pamphlets, organize counter-events, and otherwise show displeasure with a speaker. But students aren’t allowed to shut down events, disrupt classes, or otherwise interfere with university programs. 

The week before Thanksgiving, Josh Hammer’s speech at the University of Michigan was disrupted by anti-Israel protesters (Hammer is Jewish). Meantime, a student at MIT commandeered a math lecture to protest what he called the “ongoing genocide of Gaza.”

It’s in no way a free speech violation to prohibit students from shouting down professors and speakers. To allow such disruption would be to empower a “heckler’s veto,” which is merely another form of censorship. But because of either ideological affinity or administrative weakness—and maybe even a misunderstanding of free speech principles—university officials have been hesitant to discipline students for this sort of behavior. Which is why it continues. 

As Yascha Mounk, a liberal fed up with campus illiberalism, explained in a pithy X thread, “part of protecting free speech is to punish students who violate the rules that make free speech possible for everyone else. This includes punishing those who violently disrupt talks—and it also includes punishing those who tear down fliers depicting children kidnapped by Hamas. The answer to this moment isn’t to give up on a culture of free speech on campus. It’s to enforce the rules that sustain it in an impartial manner.”

Relatedly, students at Columbia, Harvard, Northwestern, and other schools have taken over buildings, threatening to stay until their oft-nebulous demands are met. This conduct, again, is not protected by the First Amendment. The students should be removed and disciplined—up to and including arrest for trespassing—not fed burritos, as they were at Harvard.

There have been reports at many campuses of professors celebrating Hamas’s massacre. Is this acceptable speech?

Professors have the same free speech rights as anyone else, but HR manuals correctly admonish faculty and administrators not to create hostile educational environments. 

So the Stanford lecturer who asked Jewish students to leave their belongings and go to the back of the room was rightfully removed from teaching while the school looked into this incident. But Columbia professor Joseph Massad can write, as he did on October 8, that Hamas’s actions were “awesome.” The question of whether someone like that should be hired in the first place, or granted tenure, is different—but he can’t be punished for such “extramural” speech. 

Many of the students who participated in the protests at MIT and elsewhere are foreign nationals. What are their free speech rights as noncitizens? 

Although foreigners can’t be punished for speech any more than citizens, there can be repercussions for affiliating with certain groups or calling for violence. The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the denial or revocation of a visa of “any alien who. . . endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.” 

Although the Biden administration is surely loath to deport foreign students, it’s hard to argue against the idea that at least some of those rallying around hang glider logos to show support for Hamas meet that visa-revocation standard. Indeed, the State Department confirmed to Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) that it can revoke the visas of Hamas supporters.

But MIT declined to take action against demonstrators who prevented Jewish students from attending class, despite warnings that they were violating university policies, precisely because officials knew that many of the harassers were foreign students subject to deportation. The school’s refusal to do so effectively gives foreigners—but not Americans—the right to harass, intimidate, and vandalize. Such appeasement of antisemitism opens the university to claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which brings us to the next question. 

What if an institution knows that Jewish students are being threatened and does nothing, or creates impotent task forces without addressing immediate threats? Or what if officials take ideological sides (like an administrator at the University of Chicago who marched with SJP protesters) or egg on a mob shouting down a speaker (like Stanford Law’s DEI dean at Judge Kyle Duncan’s event in March)? 

This is where Title VI of the Civil Rights Act comes in.

Title VI prohibits any entity that receives federal money (including student loans) from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin, which the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) understands to include “actual or perceived” ancestry, ethnicity, and religion. 

As part of the launch last May of the Biden administration’s national strategy on antisemitism, OCR issued guidance to remind K–12 and higher-ed schools of their legal obligation under Title VI to address complaints of discrimination, including harassment, based on Jewish ancestry. “The Department’s most important tool to fight against antisemitism,” Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona reiterated this month, “is Title VI.”

So the legal landscape is ripe for both administrative complaints and lawsuits alleging that all these hand-wringing academic grandees have failed to address the very real threats to the physical safety of Jewish students. At Cooper Union, a staffer locked Jewish students in the library for their own protection in the face of demonstrators shouting, “Free, free Palestine.” I’m not sure offering Jews a chance to hide in the attic satisfies Title VI.

Apparently the Department of Education feels similarly: it recently announced Title VI investigations into Cooper Union and six other schools, including Columbia, Cornell, and Penn. 

Jewish students are also planning lawsuits: three NYU juniors have already sued their university, asserting a variety of federal and state claims, including Title VI and breach of contract (not enforcing NYU’s own discrimination and student-conduct policies). 

Is it legal to ban or suspend Students for Justice in Palestine from campus? 

SJP is the most prominent anti-Israel—many would say anti-Jewish—organization on college campuses, with hundreds of chapters across the United States and Canada. Immediately following the October 7 attack, its national organization exulted in the atrocities as a “historic win for the Palestinian resistance,” and created a toolkit for its chapters to use on their individual campuses. Since then, SJP has organized countless events at which its members and supporters have celebrated Hamas and called for the elimination of Israel.

Some schools have had enough. 

Earlier this month, Brandeis University withdrew recognition of SJP as a student organization. In an op-ed in The Boston Globe, Ronald Liebowitz, president of Brandeis, wrote: “Specifically, chants and social media posts calling for violence against Jews or the annihilation of the state of Israel must not be tolerated.” 

Such speech is SJP’s specialty. Notwithstanding Brandeis’s robust free speech policy, Liebowitz explained that the school was exercising its right to “restrict expression. . . that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment” or that “is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the university.” Other private universities followed suit: Columbia and George Washington University both suspended their SJP chapters for violating basic school rules. 

Notably, the Florida public university system also initially ordered the deactivation of SJP chapters, at the behest of Governor Ron DeSantis. (Full disclosure: DeSantis recently appointed me to the board of trustees of Florida Polytechnic University, where there’s no SJP chapter.)

The system’s chancellor, Ray Rodrigues, citing the National SJP’s alleged ties to Hamas, wrote to university presidents, “It is a felony under Florida law to ‘knowingly provide material support. . . to a designated foreign terrorist organization.’ ” 

He recently walked back the decision to ban the chapters, at least temporarily, after two schools raised concerns about potential personal liability for officials who executed the orders. Rodrigues further announced that he’d be seeking assurances from the chapters that “they reject violence. That they reject they are a part of the Hamas movement. And that they will follow the law.”

Those conditions are key to the legality of any action by a public university against SJP. Although government actors can’t force student groups to renounce a particular ideology or otherwise express views they don’t actually hold, the phrase “material support for terrorism” reflects both state and federal criminal codes and may provide an avenue for other schools to curtail SJP activities. The question comes down to the nature of the ties among Hamas, the national SJP group, and its chapters. 

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government may prohibit even nonviolent “material support” for terrorism, including “advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization.” So if a state can establish that SJP is in effect acting as Hamas’s PR agency on campuses, governors would be in the clear to stop taxpayer support. As with cases of “true threats” and “incitement,” the devil is in the details, so it’s heartening that public officials like Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares are launching investigations of assorted nonprofit organizations with potential terrorist ties.

Some prominent alumni have suggested that businesses not hire students who have joined statements in favor of Hamas. Isn’t that participating in cancel culture?

A dozen CEOs pledged not to hire the Harvard students who signed an open letter blaming Israel for the attack on itself. Independent journalists have taken to publicizing the names of students who engage in antisemitic speech and behavior. Law firm Winston & Strawn rescinded its offer to NYU Law’s student body president, who sent a campus-wide anti-Israel statement—and then later was caught on camera tearing down posters of kidnapped Israelis.

I don’t think that any of this qualifies as cancel culture, at least if one defines that term as (1) forming a mob (2) to seek to get someone fired or disproportionately punished (3) for statements within the societally permissible range of policy views. 

Perhaps some people think it’s permissible—even understandable—to support Hamas. But I can hardly blame a law firm or Fortune 500 company for not wanting to associate with someone who celebrates gang-rape, mutilation, kidnapping, and live incineration, any more than I can blame them for not wanting to hire someone who yells at a federal judge “We hope your daughters get raped,” as Stanford law students did.     

“I am a 70-year-old Jewish man, but never in my life have I seen or felt the antisemitism of the last few weeks.” That’s how Erwin Chemersinky, the dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, described recent events on campus. Some of us were less surprised given the anti-Israel, anti-American, and generally anti-Western ideology that has taken root in higher education. Still, the extent and breadth of it has alarmed even the most pessimistic among us.

We shouldn’t weaken speech protections, which have made America not only the freest country in the world, but the most tolerant. But sometimes “speech” isn’t speech. Sometimes it rises to the level of conduct that prevents others from being able to live their lives. Right now we need people to discern the difference. 

Kids have a right and a need to exercise their freedoms. We protested against Vietnam and for the rights of Russian Refusniks. It's how we learned what's worth fighting for...besides ice cream in the food service line. If kids want to support the Palestinian cause, they have a right to do so, but it's incumbent upon them to know and understand what they're supporting. It's pretty clear lots of people don't understand that from the river to the sea is to establish a Jew-free zone,  one where homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death, where the government that is sharia run and will limit the rights of women. They don't get the big picture because they're only seeing what the Palestinian propaganda machine wants them to see. 

How do you teach them to go a step further in learning about the cause they support? How do you get them to examine the issues? 

Teach critical thinking and comprehension skills. Kids have to be taught how to read and research, how not to take anything at face value, that there are always two sides whether we like it or not. 

If we as parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, educators, and community leaders don't lead by example, understand you're not failing just the kids. You're failing this country. If we cannot produce leaders who are compassionate, considerate, and committed to the good of the many, we won't have a country to complain about. 

Is that what you really want?

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week

Looking for fun things to do?

Visit the American Swedish Institute in Minneapolis

and do have lunch at Fika. 

The museum is delightful and the food, spectacular.