Does Denying Hamas Committed Sexual Violence on 10/7 Constitute "Criticism of Israel's Treatment of Palestinians?"
Federal judge Timothy Savage seems to think so.
I just read Judge Timothy Savage's opinion dismissing Professor Amy Wax's discrimination counts in her lawsuit against the University of Pennsylvania. One of Professor Wax's arguments was that Penn applied different disciplinary standards to her speech, which the university deemed racist, than to antisemitic speech by other Penn faculty and employees.
Judge Savage rejects this aspect of her claim for a variety of reasons, one of which I found pretty shocking, to wit: Judge Savage argues that the professors and other Penn employees Wax compares herself to "were not antisemitic; they were critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinians."
Put aside the issue of whether these statements were in fact antisemitic in a way comparable to the racism charges leveled against Wax. Most of them had nothing to do with criticism of "Israel's treatment of the Palestinians."
Professor Wax's complaint alleged:
(1) Professor Ann Norton faced no discipline after denying that Hamas committed sexual violence against Israelis on October 7, and also after tweeting that "Young Jews" are persuaded that "they are always already victims."
(2) Professor Huda Fakhreddin endorsed the view that Israelis [civilians] are "legitimate military targets", and brought antisemitic speakers to campus, and not only faced no discipline, but was assigned to teach a class "Resistance from PreIslamic Arabia to Palestine."
(3) Professor Ahmad Almallah, a Palestinian poet and artist in residence and lecturer at Penn, led a rally in Philadelphia where he chanted "There is only one solution: intifada revolution," and faced no discipline.
(4) Penn declined to sanction employee Dwayne Booth, an employee of Penn for posting cartoons depicting Jews as Nazis drinking the blood of Palestinians.
(5) A Penn librarian received no discipline for posting "I love Hamas."
(6) Penn Health employee Ibrahim Kobeissi faced no discipline after denying sexual assault by Hamas on October 7, suggesting Netanyahu orchestrated October 7, and referring to members of Congress as "retards" for supporting Israel.
Federal judges are not in an especially good position to be referees as to whether such sentiments reflect antisemitism or not, though, like the comments that led to Wax's discipline, they certainly are offensive to a large body of Penn constituents. On the other hand, they did not directly concern internal Penn matters or Penn students, as Wax's comments did.
But my point is not whether the parallels alleged by Wax are valid in a legal sense in a discrimination claim.
Rather, I want to emphasize the oddity of Judge Savage's blanket description of these comments as merely "critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians." That's just wrong.
I suppose of few of the items above could, interpreted generously, be seen in that light, even if, e.g., depicting Israelis as drinking Palestinian blood isn't exactly either contributing to rational debate nor showing concern for reusing traditional antisemitic imagery.
But saying that young Jews are brainwashed into thinking they are victims, denying undeniable (!) sexual violence by Hamas on October 7, expressing support for Hamas, expressing approval of targeting Israeli civilians… none of those constitute criticism of Israel's actions vis a vis Palestinians.
I find this particularly interesting, because it reflects something I see on social media all the time.
Person A: Malevolent Jews, playing their traditional role of undermining all humane values, are supporting the modern child-sacrificing Moloch, the State of Israel.
Person B: That's well-beyond the realm of reasonable debate and into blatant antisemitism.
Person C: Stop trying to censor Person A for criticizing Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
In other words, it's not that much criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, it's that any claim that a statement that is in any way related to Israel is antisemitic is immediately dismissed, i.e., that no statement that is at least indirectly targeted at Israel can be antisemitic.
So it's not that Judge Norton's bizarre dismissal of Wax's allegations as only being about Israel's treatment of Palestinians, despite in some cases neither Israel nor Palestinians being mentioned, is unusual, it's that I expect more from a federal judge than from Twitter trolls.