Latest news with #JewishGroups
New York Times
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- New York Times
Glastonbury ‘Appalled' by Band's Chant Against Israel's Military
The organizers of Glastonbury music festival said on Sunday that they were 'appalled' by statements made onstage during a performance by the British punk duo Bob Vylan, in which the lead singer led the crowd in chants of 'Death, death to the I.D.F.,' referring to the Israeli Defense Forces. Glastonbury, Britain's biggest music festival, had already been facing criticism for its decision to allow Kneecap, an Irish-language rap group, to perform on Saturday, despite pressure from broadcasters and politicians to cut the act after the band voiced anti-Israel statements and one member faced a terrorism charge. Kneecap's performance was such a draw at the festival that the arena was already full for Bob Vylan's set an hour beforehand. The chants by Bob Vylan's singer, which were broadcast live on the BBC, drew immediate condemnation from politicians in the United Kingdom. Israel's embassy in the United Kingdom, as well as some Jewish groups, accused Glastonbury of promoting hate. Avon and Somerset police said on Saturday that they were reviewing video footage from the stage to determine if any criminal offenses had been committed. 'With almost 4,000 performances at Glastonbury 2025, there will inevitably be artists and speakers appearing on our stages whose views we do not share, and a performer's presence here should never be seen as a tacit endorsement of their opinions and beliefs,' said a statement on the Instagram accounts of the Glastonbury Festival and Emily Eavis, one of the festival's organizers, on Sunday. 'However, we are appalled by the statements made from the West Holts stage by Bob Vylan yesterday.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
National Post
5 days ago
- Politics
- National Post
'Political expediency': Lawyer for IDF soldiers critical of war-crimes probe
There is a growing backlash after the RCMP announced this month it is investigating whether Canadian citizens involved with clashes in or around Israel were in contravention of this country's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Article content Amid outcry from Jewish groups, the force said it wasn't a criminal probe, but to 'collect, preserve and assess information' for potential future prosecutions. Article content Article content Article content Foreign governments, such as Belgium and Brazil, have also opened investigations into their own citizens who served with the Israel Defense Forces. Article content Article content Lt.-Col. (ret.) Maurice Hirsch, director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform, at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, suggests these are politically motivated probes. Article content He has been retained by IDF soldiers who have been questioned by foreign government representatives. Hirsch has previously served as senior legal analyst for Human Rights Voices in New York, lawyer for the Israel Defense Forces, director of the legal department for Palestinian Media Watch, senior military consultant for NGO Monitor, and adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Article content I can't tell you exactly as to what their motivation is, but I believe that it's somewhere in the realms of political expediency, and internal demographic politics. It requires these governments to almost change what they've been doing traditionally, even to the point of potentially abandoning allies. Article content Article content Their voter base has changed. And so now you have a situation where you need to almost pander, to cater, to a more fringe population. Article content Article content In May, U.K. government lawyers told the High Court that there was no evidence Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, and that evidence exists of Israel making efforts to limit harm to civilians. If the government doesn't believe that war crimes are being committed, then obviously they won't then take that forward, and actively engage in an investigation of something that they don't believe is happening. Article content But if the government is so prejudiced, and predisposed, that war crimes are being committed, then obviously you launch an investigation. Article content Video footage, forensic analysis, operational logs — all impartially examined. What they have is so weak and poor, it's impossible to say it's 'evidence.' I think it's just so circumstantial and flimsy, even imagined.
Washington Post
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
How Trump tried to build a lawsuit-proof travel ban
On Monday, President Donald Trump restricted the entry of travelers to the United States from more than a dozen countries, resurrecting and expanding sweeping restrictions from his first term that are expected to draw swift legal challenges. The travel ban has been criticized by immigrant rights groups for targeting several African and Muslim-majority nations, and for appearing to capitalize on a moment of public grief: Earlier this month, a man seeking asylum in the United States threw an incendiary device at an event organized by a Jewish group in Boulder, Colorado. Trump cited the attack in his announcement of the ban. Today on Post Reports, host Elahe Izadi speaks with immigration reporter David Nakamura about who will be most affected by this ban, how the Trump administration crafted it to hold up in court, and why the public response to this iteration has felt muted. Today's show was produced by Emma Talkoff, with help from Rennie Svirnovskiy and Tadeo Ruiz Sandoval. It was edited by Ariel Plotnick and mixed by Sam Bair. Thanks to Lucy Perkins and Christine Armario. Subscribe to The Washington Post here.
The Guardian
10-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Australian universities hesitate on antisemitism definition amid academic freedom concerns
Months after the release of a new definition of antisemitism, a string of Australian universities are yet to adopt it amid concerns it may contravene academic freedom. The academic board at the Australian National University (ANU) has declined to adopt the definition, paving the way for the university to become the first to reject the policy, while at least 11 other institutions have not yet made a decision. Peak Jewish groups last week accused the ANU of allowing an 'unsafe and unwelcoming campus' over the board's decision not to adopt the definition endorsed by Universities Australia (UA) in February that closely aligns with the contentious International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, after a parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism on campuses. The UA definition has faced some criticism since its release. The National Union of Students (NUS) and National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) rejected the definition over free speech and academic freedom concerns. University of Sydney students overwhelmingly voted to reject university management's adoption of the definition, over similar concerns, at a meeting convened by the Student Representative Council. UNSW, Deakin University, Victoria University, University of Technology Sydney and RMIT University were waiting for the outcome of consultation between the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency and the Higher Education Standards Panel, which were tasked by UA to ensure the definition upholds higher education standards and freedom of expression. James Cook University will examine the definition when it reviews its discrimination policy later this year, as will the University of Adelaide at the request of its council, while Charles Darwin University is considering the 'best positioning' of the definition within its policy framework to 'ensure that academic freedom and expression is honoured'. The University of the Sunshine Coast's academic board will consider the definition in coming months, while the University of Newcastle is 'actively engaging' with stakeholders to consider 'different perspectives' on the matter. The University of Queensland senate endorsed the definition, which was later discussed by the academic board in March, and is working to 'finalise' its decision. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email On Friday 23 May, the last day of term, ANU's academic board chair, Prof Tony Connolly, informed the ACT Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS) the board would recommend against adopting the definition and instead intended to adopt a broader anti-racism definition based on a 2023 report released by the university's anti-racism taskforce. An ANU spokesperson confirmed the board had recommended a definition of racism be adopted and 'anti-racism culture' be developed in accordance with the taskforce's recommendations. The academic board holds significant authority in developing and approving university policies but it is ultimately up to the executive to decide whether to endorse its decision. The spokesperson said the university had not rejected the UA definition and was 'continuing to work with our community to determine the best approach and consider the matter through the appropriate governance processes'. Last Friday, the heads of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) and the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism (5A) wrote to the ANU vice-chancellor, Prof Genevieve Bell, expressing their 'dismay' at the board's decision. 'By reason of many examples of antisemitic behaviour at ANU, your campus has become unsafe and unwelcoming for Jewish students,' the letter read. 'Absent a credible definition of antisemitism at ANU, we do not see how the university intends to identify antisemitic conduct and respond appropriately to it.' The working UA definition, first developed by Group of Eight institutions, was unanimously endorsed by 39 vice-chancellors in February, based on work with Jillian Segal, the special envoy to combat antisemitism. The definition says criticism of Israel can be antisemitic 'when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and when it calls for the elimination of the state of Israel or all Jews or when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel's actions'. 'Substituting the word 'Zionist' for 'Jew' does not eliminate the possibility of speech being antisemitic,' the definition states. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Liat Granot, a co-president of the AUJS, addressed ANU's academic board last month, encouraging it to adopt the definition. Granot said rejecting the definition made Jewish students feel 'incredibly exposed, unsupported and disillusioned'. 'This definition was seen as the last straw … to a hope we had in the institution's ability to protect us. That's been crushed,' she said. In March, the NTEU's ACT division secretary, Dr Lachlan Clohesy, wrote to Connolly urging him to oppose the UA definition. Clohesy said the definition was 'inconsistent with fundamental principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech', and risked conflating legitimate criticism of the Israeli state and government with antisemitism. Clohesy said some Jewish NTEU members had taken particular issue with the 'inclusion of Zionism as part of Jewish identity' in the definition, and the 'underlying assumption that a Jewish person is likely to be Zionist'. 'NTEU is also concerned that the adoption of this definition could lead to attempts to initiate disciplinary [action] against ANU staff in future,' he wrote. The ECAJ and 5A urged the board to reconsider its position and to 'recognise that a non-legally binding, working definition of antisemitism that reflects the Jewish lived experience, is essential'. 'The ANU academic board … comprised of academics with no specialised anti-racism mandate, and which has a focus on academic freedom, is not the appropriate body to evaluate whether the UA definition should be adopted.' A UA spokesperson said the body respected the autonomy of universities to make their own decisions, 'including how best to implement policies and principles that support student safety and free expression'. More than 20 universities did not provide a comment.
South China Morning Post
07-06-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
US Jewish groups united against Trump's antisemitism strategy
US Jewish groups are unified over the need to fight mounting antisemitic incidents across the country, but many are bitterly opposed to how President Donald Trump is seeking to counter the scourge. A string of incidents has targeted Jews in the United States in recent weeks. Two Israeli embassy workers were murdered in Washington, Molotov cocktails were thrown at an event in Colorado, and tensions persist on university campuses. The conservative Heritage Foundation think-tank, behind the 'Project 2025' road map for radically overhauling and shrinking the government, published in October 'Project Esther' – a blueprint on combating antisemitism. The project seeks to 'dismantle' so-called 'anti-Israel,' 'anti-Zionist,' or 'pro-Palestinian' organizations allegedly part of a 'Hamas support network' that has 'infiltrated' universities including Columbia and Harvard. The text advocates the dismissal of professors, barring some foreign students from campuses, expelling others outright, and withholding public funding from universities. Robert Greenway, a Project Esther co-author, recently told The New York Times it was 'no coincidence that we called for a series of actions to take place privately and publicly, and they are now happening.'
