“That which stood for our ancestors applies to us, as well. For it was not only one individual who stood up against us to destroy us. Rather, in every generation they stand up against us to destroy us.”
This quote, said by Jews worldwide at the Passover Seder a few weeks ago, is accompanied by horrific imagery to anyone with a passing knowledge of Jewish history. The beautifully illustrated Katz Haggadah shows a haunting image of Abraham making a covenant with G-d, but in the smoke are images of all the generations that seek to destroy the Jewish people. Starting with the Egyptians, it includes the Babylonians, Romans, Crusaders, Cossacks, Nazis, and Arabs.
In the next edition, they should add another group, the one who strives to destroy the Jewish nation in this generation: the College Leftist.
The deranged mentality and bloodlust of the College Leftist was perfectly articulated in an op-ed by the Editorial Board of the Crimson, Harvard’s student newspaper, entitled “In Support of Boycott, Divest, Sanction and a Free Palestine.” With all the subtlety of a blunt ax, the Editorial Board takes the straight-line Palestinian propaganda approach to compare Israel to Apartheid South Africa and endorse the complete and total destruction of the Jewish State. Whether they know it or not, they are calling for a second Holocaust.
The column begins with a mea culpa for the “past wrongs” of the Crimson Editorial Board. The “past wrong” they are referring to was a column written in 2002 entitled “Do Not Divest From Israel” with a sub-headline of “The comparisons to South Africa are offensive, repugnant, and detrimental to peace.” When Elon Musk tweeted the popular meme of the Left sprinting leftward while the Right stands still, this is a prime example of what he was talking about. In 2002, the liberals at Harvard agreed that “any comparison between today’s Israel and Apartheid-era South Africa is so fundamentally flawed as to be offensive,” pointing out that “the Israeli legal code does not discriminate against Arab Israelis the way that the Apartheid laws discriminated against black South Africans.” In the subsequent two decades, despite the fact that Israeli Arabs are now, for the first time, part of the governing coalition of Israel, the same Editorial Board (under new leadership), determined that “the tactics embodied by BDS have a historical track record; they helped win the liberation of Black South Africans from Apartheid, and have the potential to do the same for Palestinians today.”
The reasoning for this move was explained in the column; they have given in to the Harvard College Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC), claiming that “PSC has hosted informational programming, organized weekly demonstrations of support through ‘Keffiyeh Thursdays,’ and even installed a colorful, multi-panel ‘Wall of Resistance’ in favor of Palestinian freedom and sovereignty.” They make PSC seem like a benign organization, one that simply wants to raise awareness and promote peace in the region.
The truth is far more sinister. The PSC is not “dedicated to supporting the Palestinian struggle for self-determination, justice, and equality…,” as their mission statement claims. Instead, they are a down-the-line anti-Israel group, and their advocacy is not for a Palestinian state, but against a Jewish one. A cursory glance at their website proves this – not by what they say, but by what they don’t say.
If PSC were truly pro-Palestinian, they would at least acknowledge the actual day-to-day issues that Palestinians face and who is causing them. Issues like housing, poverty, healthcare, and other domestic policy issues, which all fall under the purview of the Palestinian Authority, would be first and foremost in achieving prosperity for Palestinians. The Palestinian unemployment rate was 26% in 2021. Israeli companies employ tens of thousands of Palestinians for a far higher wage than can be earned in PA-controlled territories, yet the PSC and the Editorial Board of the Crimson want those companies to be shut down.
What is missing from the PSC website? Their blog and public statements are devoid of any mention of the words “Hamas,” “Fatah,” “Arafat,” “Abbas,” or “Palestinian Authority.” According to the PSC, there is no governing body of the Palestinians; there are only the evil Israelis.
The aforementioned “colorful, multi-panel ‘Wall of Resistance’ in favor of Palestinian freedom and sovereignty” was on display during the annual “Israel Apartheid Week,” so any potential critics can be assured that the conversation would be balanced and nuanced. One of the panels was a display stating the word salad of “Zionism is Racism Settler Colonialism White Supremacy Apartheid.” Everything that Leftists consider evil, that’s what Zionism is. It’s surprising they didn’t have a panel that simply read, “Trump supports Israel.”
This is the group that convinced the Editorial Board to publicly endorse the BDS movement. There is no indication in the column that the Editorial Board took opposing viewpoints in arriving at this decision. In fact, editorial chair Orlee Marini-Rapoport bragged about the column on Twitter, stating that “I am an Editorial Chair @thecrimson. I am also Jewish. Yesterday, the Board overturned a decades-old precedent; for the first time, we announced our support of BDS. I encourage you to read our editorial. I’m so proud to be part of this thoughtful group.” Orlee is mistaken. To be a thoughtful group, thinking is a prerequisite. This is simply regurgitating Palestinian propaganda.
The Editorial Board also fails to distinguish what is “occupied Palestine.” In the column, they reference Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, both of whom refer to Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank), Gaza, and East Jerusalem as the “Occupied Palestinian Territories.” If that is their definition, then the Editorial Board is as wrong as those organizations, given that Israel unilaterally left Gaza in 2005 and signed the Oslo Accords in 1994, giving Area A to the Palestinian Authority. It was the PA and Hamas themselves who made the decision to not declare a state, as Israel did in 1948, something they could have done at any point between 1967 and today. (For those who don’t know, from 1948 to 1967, Jordan annexed the West Bank and kept the Palestinians in refugee camps during that time. After the West Bank was liberated during the Six-Day War, Israel simply did not annex it, and the Palestinians could have declared a State in that region. Same is true with Gaza and Egypt.)
It is just as likely that the Editorial Board’s definition of occupied Palestine is “from the river to the sea.” Given that Jews cannot even enter a Palestinian-controlled area without fearing for their lives, if Israel becomes Palestine, it will be Judenrein. Jews will be exiled from their homeland or killed. Since a third of the world’s Jews live in Israel, this will be a second Holocaust.
The Editorial Board could easily be advocating for this, considering they defended people who openly did advocate this, like Marc Lamont Hill (no relation). In the column, the Editorial Board links to a column about Hill’s firing after he said, “Free Palestine from the river to the sea” and claims that he was fired because he “endorse[d] Palestinian freedom.” Apparently, there is no distinction between Palestinian freedom and Jewish genocide.
The Editorial Board tries to convince their readers that this decision has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. “In the wake of accusations suggesting otherwise,” they write, “we feel the need to assert that support for Palestinian liberation is not antisemitic.” When the implication is that the “liberation” is from the yoke of the evil Jewish occupiers, more than a simple throwaway line is necessary to prove that assertion. In areas under control of the Palestinian Authority, if a Palestinian sells land or a home to a Jew, it is considered high treason and punishable by death. When candy is handed to Palestinian children on the streets after a Jew is murdered by a terrorist, and streets are named after Jew-killers, the Editorial Board owes its readers far more than a simple “don’t call us antisemitic.”
The Editorial Board not only endorses the anti-Semitic BDS movement, they also claim that anti-BDS actions are “extraordinary abuses.” This included anti-BDS legislation that passed in 26 states, in which the Editorial Board claims that “Israel remains America’s favorite first amendment blind spot.” They claim that “Companies that choose to boycott the Jewish State, or otherwise support the pro-Palestine Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement, face legal repercussions…” If one were to read this literally, one would assume that companies could face fines or maybe even jail time for high-level executives if they dare endorse the BDS movement. The reality – and it’s a reality that the Editorial Board fails to grasp – is that the government has market power, and it chooses to not use its market power on companies that are anti-Semitic. It is doubtful that any member of the Editorial Board shed a tear when numerous Democratic cities boycotted Chick-fil-A because the owner is pro-traditional-marriage (which is not even a corporate stand).
The Editorial Board begins its conclusion with a startling admission: They are willingly blinding themselves. “In the past,” they write, “our board was skeptical of the movement (if not, generally speaking, of its goals), arguing that BDS as a whole did not ‘get at the nuances and particularities of the Israel-Palestine conflict.’ We regret and reject that view.” The view that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is nuanced is one to be rejected, and its regretful that previous Boards did not agree. For the Board, it’s far simpler to adopt the opinion that Israel is evil and the Palestinians are good! This way, they don’t have to grapple with the fact that they are endorsing a group that would happily see all Jews, including the Jewish members of this Board, at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea.
For years, decades in fact, many dismissed the radicalization of college campuses as a phase that students go through, and that these students will mellow when they reach “the real world.” This has not happened. With the infusion of radicalized college students, the corporations that they joined have increased in their radicalization, as well. This is seen in Big Tech, Hollywood, corporate America, newsrooms, and the government. The Editorial Board of the Crimson today are the industry leaders of tomorrow. Former Crimson staff members include Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of YouTube, which has been known to ban opinions that they deem “misinformation,” and Nathan Blecharczyk, co-founder of Airbnb, which decided in May of 2019 to ban listings in the “Israel Occupied Territories.”
Crimson staff members have gone into government, like Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Secretary of Transportation (and Presidential candidate) Pete Buttigieg, and Senator Richard Blumenthal. Of course, they have entered the media as well. The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, MSNBC and many other legacy media outlets are filled with Crimson staff members. Former CNN President Jeff Zucker was once the President of the Harvard Crimson.
No one should expect the opinions expressed in the Crimson to stay there. Jew-hatred has gone mainstream because it’s wearing the more acceptable face of Palestinian advocacy. Do not ignore that hatred because it came from a student newspaper. Confront it everywhere it pops up its ugly head, because in every generation, it will.
Moshe Hill is a political columnist and Senior Fellow at Amariah, an America First Zionist organization. Moshe has a weekly column in the Queens Jewish Link, and has been published in Daily Wire, CNS News, and other outlets. You can follow Moshe on his blog www.aHillwithaView.com, facebook.com/aHillwithaView, and twitter.com/HillWithView.