Stefanik Uses Jews to Grandstand
Congresswoman Distorts Pro-Palestine Slogans to Attack the Academy
The resignation of M. Elizabeth Magill, president of the University of Pennsylvania, is not a victory over antisemitism. Rather, the controversy over her statements earlier in the week — and the statements of leaders from Harvard and MIT — is a manufactured crisis constructed on a flimsy foundation of soundbites and legalese that has allowed misinformation to poison our politics.
Magill — and Scott L. Bok, chairman of the board of trustees — stepped down just days after a Congressional hearing that did nothing to get at questions of safety and discrimination on campus and everything to boost the stock of the Trumpist Republican leading the charge.
At the center of the controversy is the word “intifada,” which New York Republican Elise Stefanik, the chief inquisitor and MAGA demagogue at the Dec. 5 hearing, defined as referring not just to violent rebellion. She defined it as “calling for the genocide of Jews,” a strategic conflation that none of the university presidents pushed back on.
The result was a viral encounter between a bullying Stefanik and the three university president, and an argument governed not by fact and respectful of nuance, but by sound bite and slogan.
Protests are blunt instruments, relying on simplistic language that is designed to create discomfort among foes and to inspire action among the faithful. This means the language of any protest is going to lack definitive meaning.
The use of the word “intifada” is deliberate in its provocation, but ambiguous enough to be read as a call to action by supporters of Palestinian rights and as a call to violence by Jews and Israelis.
For some protesters (and their supporters), phrases like “Globalize the Intifada” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are a call for an end to Israel’s existence and a provocation. — because of its association with the more violent second Intifada.
The American Jewish Committee (https://www.ajc.org/news/what-does-globalize-the-intifada-mean-and-how-can-it-lead-to-targeting-jews-with-violence), for instance, argues that “indiscriminate use” of the phrase “encourages targeting institutions, and individuals around the world who show support for Israel, which includes the majority of Jews.” It adds that
Widespread violent actions against synagogues, Jewish homes, cultural centers and individuals taken in the name of resisting Israel demonstrates the need for increased vigilance by those advocating for Palestinian rights against using potentially inciting language.
The ADL makes similar criticisms and the Simon Wiesenthal center has described phrases like “Globalize the Intifada” (https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/article-704827) as the “language of incitement.”
I get where these groups are coming from, and some of the language I’ve heard and signs I’ve seen do make me uncomfortable. Is it designed to incite violence? This is where I disagree.
Neither phrase is inherently antisemitic — unless you define criticism of Israel as inherently antisemitic, which it is not. And the phrases are not calls for genocide, despite Stefanik and the ADL’s arguments to the contrary.
This is a disagreement over language that is making it difficult to address real concerns — ending Israel’s murderous assault on Gaza, releasing Israeli hostages and Palestinian political prisoners, and ensuring that Jews, Palestinians, and the larger Muslim community can feel safe on campuses and throughout the nation.
Violent antisemitic acts have increased in number — beginning well before the Oct. 7. But the recent targeting of synagogues and Jewish students in Michigan, New York, have only made Jews feel more vulnerable. Violence against Muslims and Palestinians is also growing more common — with the Michigan murder of a Muslim child and the Vermont shooting of three Palestinian students being the most high-profile of these attacks.
The grandstanding of politicians like Stefanik does nothing to prevent the violence, though it is going to have a chilling impact on speech and academic freedom across the country. My point here is not to defend the university presidents’ performance. It was — taken as a whole — legalistic and uninspiring, and makes clear that university administrators are not up to the task of protecting students while also protecting speech
.
Stefanik showed her hand this morning, tweeting “one down, two to go,” and making clear this is less about antisemitism and far more about attacking elite institutions.
She should be ashamed of herself for using Jewish fears and our historical anguish to make political points with her MAGA base.