Why did the presidents of some of America’s leading universities respond misleadingly to the question of Israel’s right to exist, when they testified before Congress on December 6?
And why did many in the mainstream media stumble so badly in their coverage of that part of the hearing?
The exchange on the topic was initiated by Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (Republican of North Carolina). She posed the question simultaneously to Harvard president Claudine Gay, Penn president M. Elizabeth Magill, and MIT president Sally Kornbluth: “Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation?”
Dr. Gay replied: “I agree that the State of Israel has the right to exist.” Presidents Magill and Kornbluth then answered with the identical language, except that Kornbluth added that she “absolutely” agrees “that the State of Israel has the right to exist.” But that’s not what Rep. Foxx asked them.
The Virginia congresswoman specifically included the phrase “as a Jewish nation” in her question, yet the three university presidents specifically excluded it from their replies.
Not that you would know that from much of the mainstream media coverage.
The Associated Press and Reuters, which reported at length on the hearings, ignored the exchange concerning Israel’s existence.
The New York Times altered Rep. Foxx’s question before misreporting the presidents’ replies. According to the Times, “When asked whether they supported the right of Israel to exist, they all answered yes, without equivocation.”
CBS News, for its part, got the question right but the answers wrong.
It reported: “Foxx asked each individual president if Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish nation, and all three college presidents agreed that Israel does.”
There is no way to know whether the mis-reporting of the exchange was just sloppy reporting, or a conscious effort to paper over the presidents’ sentiments regarding Israel. Either possibility is troubling.
Here’s why the episode matters.
It is highly doubtful that the presidents’ omission was accidental—first, because the presidents must have carefully prepared for the kinds of questions they were likely to be asked; second, because they all used the same language.
Which means that in all likelihood, Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth are personally uncomfortable with the concept of Israel as a Jewish state.
Israel’s Jewish identity has been one of its core principles since the founding of the state in 1948. The Israeli declaration of independence repeatedly refers to Israel as “a Jewish State,” not merely a state where many of Jews happen to reside. That document also describes the Land of Israel as belonging to the entire Jewish people, including those living around the world, and not just those living in Israel at the moment.
Legislation adopted by the Israeli parliament in 2018 fleshed out some of the ways in which the state is Jewish, including its national calendar, flag, anthem, and language. Additional details likely will emerge by national consensus in the years ahead.
This is not just a matter of semantics. Words can be weapons. Since the 1970s, Palestinian Arab spokespeople have promoted the creation of a secular, democratic Palestine instead of Israel. They think that sounds more moderate than explicitly calling for Israel’s annihilation. Some pundits today prefer the term “one-state solution.” But in practice, it’s the same as saying Israel should be destroyed, because such a state would have an Arab majority and therefore nothing about it would be Jewish.
Thus by declining to affirm that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state, the university presidents left room for the kind of “solution” that pretends to support Israel’s existence but actually means eliminating Israel.
If Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth were willing to engage in that kind of linguistic slight-of-hand in testimony before the U.S. Congress, it is not hard to see why their response to the anti-Israel and antisemitic hysteria on their campuses has been so weak. A president who does not think Israel needs to exist as a Jewish state is not likely to crack down on mobs that are saying similar things, just more crudely, in their shouts, manifestos, and blood-red graffiti.
Why the University Presidents Hedged on Israel’s Right to Exist
Rafael Medoff
Why did the presidents of some of America’s leading universities respond misleadingly to the question of Israel’s right to exist, when they testified before Congress on December 6?
And why did many in the mainstream media stumble so badly in their coverage of that part of the hearing?
The exchange on the topic was initiated by Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (Republican of North Carolina). She posed the question simultaneously to Harvard president Claudine Gay, Penn president M. Elizabeth Magill, and MIT president Sally Kornbluth: “Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation?”
Dr. Gay replied: “I agree that the State of Israel has the right to exist.” Presidents Magill and Kornbluth then answered with the identical language, except that Kornbluth added that she “absolutely” agrees “that the State of Israel has the right to exist.” But that’s not what Rep. Foxx asked them.
The Virginia congresswoman specifically included the phrase “as a Jewish nation” in her question, yet the three university presidents specifically excluded it from their replies.
Not that you would know that from much of the mainstream media coverage.
The Associated Press and Reuters, which reported at length on the hearings, ignored the exchange concerning Israel’s existence.
The New York Times altered Rep. Foxx’s question before misreporting the presidents’ replies. According to the Times, “When asked whether they supported the right of Israel to exist, they all answered yes, without equivocation.”
CBS News, for its part, got the question right but the answers wrong.
It reported: “Foxx asked each individual president if Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish nation, and all three college presidents agreed that Israel does.”
There is no way to know whether the mis-reporting of the exchange was just sloppy reporting, or a conscious effort to paper over the presidents’ sentiments regarding Israel. Either possibility is troubling.
Here’s why the episode matters.
It is highly doubtful that the presidents’ omission was accidental—first, because the presidents must have carefully prepared for the kinds of questions they were likely to be asked; second, because they all used the same language.
Which means that in all likelihood, Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth are personally uncomfortable with the concept of Israel as a Jewish state.
Israel’s Jewish identity has been one of its core principles since the founding of the state in 1948. The Israeli declaration of independence repeatedly refers to Israel as “a Jewish State,” not merely a state where many of Jews happen to reside. That document also describes the Land of Israel as belonging to the entire Jewish people, including those living around the world, and not just those living in Israel at the moment.
Legislation adopted by the Israeli parliament in 2018 fleshed out some of the ways in which the state is Jewish, including its national calendar, flag, anthem, and language. Additional details likely will emerge by national consensus in the years ahead.
This is not just a matter of semantics. Words can be weapons. Since the 1970s, Palestinian Arab spokespeople have promoted the creation of a secular, democratic Palestine instead of Israel. They think that sounds more moderate than explicitly calling for Israel’s annihilation. Some pundits today prefer the term “one-state solution.” But in practice, it’s the same as saying Israel should be destroyed, because such a state would have an Arab majority and therefore nothing about it would be Jewish.
Thus by declining to affirm that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state, the university presidents left room for the kind of “solution” that pretends to support Israel’s existence but actually means eliminating Israel.
If Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth were willing to engage in that kind of linguistic slight-of-hand in testimony before the U.S. Congress, it is not hard to see why their response to the anti-Israel and antisemitic hysteria on their campuses has been so weak. A president who does not think Israel needs to exist as a Jewish state is not likely to crack down on mobs that are saying similar things, just more crudely, in their shouts, manifestos, and blood-red graffiti.
Dr. Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and author of more than 20 books about Jewish history and the Holocaust. His latest is America and the Holocaust: A Documentary History, published by the Jewish Publication Society & University of Nebraska Press.
Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.
Editor's Picks
Israel and the Internet Wars – A Professional Social Media Review
The Invisible Student: A Tale of Homelessness at UCLA and USC
What Ever Happened to the LA Times?
Who Are the Jews On Joe Biden’s Cabinet?
You’re Not a Bad Jewish Mom If Your Kid Wants Santa Claus to Come to Your House
No Labels: The Group Fighting for the Political Center
Latest Articles
Finding Our Inner Jew
An American Tragedy: Porn Star, Cat Fights and Fredo Returns
But When There’s a Real Genocide, They’re Silent
Sonoma State University President Retires
It’s Not a Fairy Tale
Alleged Paul Kessler Killer Will Stand Trial
Culture
Aliza Lavie’s ‘Iconic Jewish Women’ Inspires and Empowers
Recipes to Celebrate World Baking Day
Holy Moly — A Perfect Red Rice
Jewish Comedians Shine at ‘Netflix Is a Joke’ Festival
So Many Holidays, So Little Time – A poem for Parsha Emor
Will you be at work today?
Israel War Room Discovers How-to-Riot Guide and Pro-Terror Propaganda for College Students
Israel War Room exposed a Google Drive that included pro-terror propaganda and a how-to-riot guide for students at anti-Israel encampments across the U.S.
Orthodox Jewish Families Fight for Equal Treatment in California Schools
When it comes to religious schools, funding for services for students with disabilities is blocked – even though it should be permitted under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The Multitasking Chef: Benny’s Grill L.A. is a Solo Restaurant Operation
Benny is a one-man show, seamlessly transitioning between roles as chef, waiter, cashier and busboy.
Showing Decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind
Hollywood
Spielberg Says Antisemitism Is “No Longer Lurking, But Standing Proud” Like 1930s Germany
Young Actress Juju Brener on Her “Hocus Pocus 2” Role
Behind the Scenes of “Jeopardy!” with Mayim Bialik
Podcasts
Eitan Bernath: Exploring the Jewish Kitchens of Mexico, Food on Social Media and Egg Salad
Modern (Orthodox) Dating ft. Mikey Greenblatt (@jewishvibes)
More news and opinions than at a
Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.