Oxford is Having a Cruel Laugh at the Expense of Jewish Students

Oxford bent over backwards to acknowledge heightened racial tensions during the recent riots, but this felt like a cruel joke to Jewish students, coming from a university that has never recognised the open targeting of Jews since October 7th, according to an anonymous writer in the Jewish Chronicle. Here’s an excerpt.

By the time this is published, two full weeks will have passed since Oxford University issued an urgent communication to its members. The email expressed a deep and justified worry for students and staff “particularly affected” by racism and Islamophobia. The university’s stance against “racism, discrimination or abuse” was clear, “regardless of race, religion or ethnicity”, and none other than the Vice-Chancellor signed off on it.

Yet, after the events of last year, this communication rang hollow. It felt like a cruel joke at the expense of Jewish students.

This last academic year, which started just two days after October 7th, was marred by a climate of racial abuse and discriminatory behaviour directed at Jews. You could witness it in classrooms, where Israeli students were subjected to invasive interrogations by professors in front of their peers simply because of their nationality.

It was evident in student groups, where a student declared they “refuse to sit with Zionists”, a thinly veiled euphemism for Jews. It surfaced in colleges, where a mob mentality took hold, targeting Jewish students who dared to voice their concerns over motions laced with antisemitic undertones – which passed with little resistance.

And let’s not forget the faculty members who could barely contain their pride over Hamas’s violent actions, or the welfare officers who blamed Jewish students for feeling abused when they were called Nazis.

Some of these incidents were documented in an open letter to the university’s administration, which contains more than 100 instances of antisemitic behaviour.

But what the public may not realise is just how deeply ingrained racial bias is within that administration – a bias made glaringly obvious by the so-called “urgent” communication.

First, while the university has issued sporadic and vague statements condemning antisemitism, neither in official communications nor in its interactions has it ever acknowledged the sharp and sudden rise in antisemitic rhetoric and behaviour at Oxford.

Imagine enduring an entire academic year in which Jewish students are openly targeted at other prestigious institutions – including your own – without a single word from your university acknowledging the prevalence or severity of the issue.

Second, even in those vague statements condemning antisemitism, whether in official letters about protests or about the war, it was never given the space to stand alone. Unlike the communication regarding the riots, antisemitism was always bundled together with Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian discrimination.

Anti-Israeli discrimination, which reached extreme levels throughout the year, wasn’t even acknowledged. 

Despite this year marking a new high for antisemitism, the university only agreed to consider adding a few sentences about the issue, and even then, only if paired with mentions of Islamophobia and other forms of racism.

The university’s unwillingness to acknowledge antisemitism as a standalone problem renders its Jewish members invisible. 

Worth reading in full.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

16 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mikehovit
mikehovit
1 year ago

Im too simple to take in all the past complexities, so I look to the future and at the endstate.
Is the endstate a ‘2 state solution’?
If yes, then the first step is for both sides to formally recognise this. If the don’t, then politics is pointless; let war continue until they do.
If no, then what? Only ‘in a nutshell’ answers please. Practical answers; no lectures.

MajorMajor
MajorMajor
1 year ago
Reply to  mikehovit

As far as I understand the two state solution is not a practical option, due to the fact that the – openly declared – aim of Hamas is to exterminate all the Jews.
Hamas considers all of the land of Israel theirs (hence the “from the river to the sea” slogan). Their aim, as far as they are concerned, cannot be achieved for as long as there are any Jews left.
I don’t know what the solution to this conflict is.
(Disclaimer. that’s just my understanding. I have neither Jewish nor Arab ancestors or relatives.)

RW
RW
1 year ago
Reply to  MajorMajor

The people who lived in this area when it was still under Ottoman rule and had only a nominal Jewish population (<<10%) or rather, their descendents, don’t want to share any of it with all the (originally largely European) Jews who migrated their after the Brits had conquered it in 1918 and had announced that a Jewish state was to be established there. OTOH, while this is reportedly no longer the official policy of the government of Israel, influential segments of the Jewish population believe this is their land awarded to them by God and want to subdue and eliminate whoever’s presently living there, just as their ancestors did according to the biblical stories reporting this.

RW
RW
1 year ago
Reply to  mikehovit

The most serious with that problem is Jerusalem which is a holy place to both Muslims and Jews. The original UN partition plan envisionend Jerusalem as internationalized city not belonging to any state. This satisfied no one and hence, warfare immediately started once the British occupation/ mandate troops had pulled out.

Further, both groups principally want all of this territory because both believe it’s their ancestral homeland.

Ron Smith
Ron Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  RW

An intractable issue!

Matt Dalby
Matt Dalby
1 year ago
Reply to  RW

To sum up the problem is religion and the fact that different religions make competing claims. Without religion, and the exclusive claims that arise because of it the 2 groups would of reached a compromise solution decades ago and despite differences in language would of started to merge together through intermarrying.
This isn’t meant to draw any kind of moral equivalence between the barbaric events of 7 October and Israel’s justified response that has tried to minimise civilian casualties.

john ball
john ball
1 year ago
Reply to  mikehovit

Following the Oslo Accords negotiators more or less reached a full agreement on the establishment of a separate Palestininan state but part of this entailed a recognition of Israel’s right to exist, which has been acceptable to Egypt, Jordan and UAE, but in the end Arafat refused to sign maybe knowing his life would be in danger.This rejection was repeated on many subsequent occasions, most vividly in 2008. On that occasion, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered them 94% of the West Bank, with 6% of Israeli land to make up the difference; East Jerusalem as their capital; the Old City of Jerusalem handed over to the international community;and a tunnel connecting the West Bank and Gaza.

Corky Ringspot
1 year ago
Reply to  mikehovit

As MajorMajor says, a two-state solution was an idea that was only accepted by one side – Israel – when first put forward a long time ago. It would seem that the inflexibility of the Arabs has been the sole reason that it has not been possible. To quote the authors of ‘The War of Return’ (All Points Books, 2020): ‘…as soon as the result of the UN vote became known, Hajj Amin al-Husseini (former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) declared that the Arabs neither recognized the partition resolution nor intended to respect it. His brother, Jamal al-Husseini, vowed that “the blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East”. Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam (Assam Pasha), the secretary-general of the Arab League, stormed out of the General Assembly hall and warned the Jews that “up to the very last moment, and beyond, they [the Arabs] will fight to prevent you from establishing your State. In no circumstances will they agree to it.” [Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab–Israeli War, 26, 42]
These are all pro-Israeli sources however. Such statements by such significant players seem conclusive to me, but I’m sure other interpretations are possible.

Ron Smith
Ron Smith
1 year ago

My weekend at Notting hill carnival:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWFqo72FJGU

RW
RW
1 year ago
Reply to  Ron Smith

I watched this but to be honest, I thought it was pretty stupid. A street party of this enormous size will invariably be a huge nuisance to anyone who’s in the area for any reason who doesn’t want to take part in it. As invariably, assaults, pick-pocketing and similar crimes will happen during it in some numbers because the sheer number of people attending makes policing the event essentially impossible. All of this drug crime could be eliminated virtually overnight when the idiotic endeavour to prosecute people for poisoning themselves for their own entertain would finally be halted (Why-oh-why do all these really stupid American ideas stick with such an obstinacy?). NB: This is not an argument in favour of the event. I can completely understand why people are less-than-fascinated with hundredthousands of intoxicated people celebrating their sexuality in the street for days while being accompanied with sub-par pseudomusic played at an enormous volume and – as icing on the cake – this being referred to as some form of “wortwhile culture” and I certainly wouldn’t want something like this in my neighbourhood. But I’d be honest about that instead of focussing on relative fringe events and crimes invented for… Read more »

Ron Smith
Ron Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  RW

Yes growing up around Brecon we have the Brecon Jazz event every August. Last time I went was in 2011 and they had the events scattered around the town and not concentrated in the centre. That seemed better for the locals living in the centre, like my mother.

CGW
CGW
1 year ago

This is a report from an anonymous writer in the Jewish Chronicle, so very possibly/probably biased. Has anyone checked its veracity with Oxford University? The report states that the Vice-Chancellor’s position was “against racism, discrimination or abuse, regardless of race, religion or ethnicity”, in which case I have difficulty believing the new academic year was “marred by a climate of racial abuse and discriminatory behaviour directed at Jews”, where “Israeli students were subjected to invasive interrogations by professors in front of their peers simply because of their nationality” and where “faculty members could barely contain their pride over Hamas’s violent actions”. Pride of Hamas? In UK, where support of Israel is practically unquestionable? However, as RW points out above, The people who lived in this area when it was still under Ottoman rule and had only a nominal Jewish population (<<10%) but, after constant Jewish influx, in 1948 the area was declared to be the State of Israel and, since 1967, the majority of Palestinian inhabitants have been confined (essentially imprisoned) in two ridiculously small areas of the country: Gaza and the West Bank. As everyone is surely aware, Gaza is now a huge heap of rubble, suffering daily bombing… Read more »

sskinner
1 year ago

mentions of Islamophobia and other forms of racism.”
Islam is not a race and a fear of something dangerous is justified.

iconoclast
1 year ago

What is wrong with Islamophobia or with being Islamophobic? Absolutely nothing. Why? A phobia is a fear and this one is a fear of Islam. This is a religion which under the Moors conquered much of Europe – which at that time included North Africa – believing that all infidels [non-believers] should be put to the sword – with an option of converting to Islam. With the exceptions of Spain and Portugal, that conquered former European territory has never been restored as part of what is now considered to be Europe. The Crusades, to recover the Holy Land to Christendom, were unsuccessful. Just to be clear – infidels are everyone who is not Muslim – so that is most of you and me. Islamic civilisation developed and expanded during its Golden Age from C7th to C15th, extending from Spain, across other parts of Europe to Central Asia and India. Portugal and most of Spain was a Calphate. Why are these Muslim knife attackers reported to be going for the throats of their victims now? It is a throwback to the method of putting infidels to the sword. Of course not all Muslims living in the UK want to put us… Read more »

iconoclast
1 year ago
Reply to  iconoclast

not all Muslims living in the UK want to put us all to the sword 1) I could be wrong. I doubt there is going to be a poll by a polling company to ask the question. 2) This is apparently what the Qu’ran says: وَٱقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُم مِّنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ ۚ وَٱلْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ ٱلْقَتْلِ ۚ وَلَا تُقَـٰتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ ٱلْمَسْجِدِ ٱلْحَرَامِ حَتَّىٰ يُقَـٰتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ ۖ فَإِن قَـٰتَلُوكُمْ فَٱقْتُلُوهُمْ ۗ كَذَٰلِكَ جَزَآءُ ٱلْكَـٰفِرِينَ ١٩١ Kill them wherever you come upon them1 and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out. For persecution2 is far worse than killing. And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there. If they do so, then fight them—that is the reward of the disbelievers. 3) And another series of translated quotes: In a recent issue of the Chronicle, Vern Smalley claims that “nowhere in the Koran does it say to kill infidels.” This is untrue.The Koran (translated by Dawood in Penguin Classics series) says, “When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (Sura 9:5). “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads” (Sura 47:4). “Prophet, make war… Read more »

iconoclast
1 year ago
Reply to  iconoclast

I don’t suppose anyone is going to be prosecuted for printing and selling copies of the Qu’ran any time soon.