Anti-Israel Vandals Hit Boston’s Emerald Necklace

Plus, how the Washington Post failed in editing A.G. Sulzberger; Ivy antisemitism

Olmsted Park, part of Boston’s famed “Emerald Necklace” of parkland designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, has been defaced with a series of at least five painted anti-Israel statements on park walkways, stonework, castings, and lampposts.

It was perfect weather today for a walk in the park, but the experience was marred by the crime. It’s not only an offense against the historic and beautiful landscape, but it’s a crime that sends a message to Jewish or Israeli passersby, that there’s an anti-Israel activist group at large in the city with no respect for the rule of law.

Elbit is an Israeli defense and medical company with offices in the U.S. that has been targeted with criminal violence by anti-Israel activists.

Back in May, when I encountered similar graffiti in the same area of the park, I called the Emerald Park Conservancy, the State Police, and the Boston Police to complain and report the crime. The time and hassle of doing that is its own imposition.

Grafitti in Olmsted Park in May 2024.

If people want to advocate for the Palestinian Arab cause by working through the political process, let them go ahead. Boston has a city counselor, Tania Fernandes Anderson, who reposted a call for a day of mourning when Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was eliminated. 

Yet vandalizing a park transgresses the bounds of lawful political advocacy, turning a space intended for peaceful recreation into a place where passersby are instead subjected to unwanted political messages.

.

I hope the authorities in charge of the park will make it a priority to denounce the crime, remove the vandalism, and find and punish the perpetrators, rather than tolerate anti-Israel lawbreaking that mars a precious park.

A.G. Sulzberger on Trump:  The publisher of the New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger, has a long article in the Washington Post accusing Donald Trump of “aggressive and sustained efforts to undermine the free press.” He also says, “I have no interest in wading into politics. I disagree with those who have suggested that the risk Trump poses to the free press is so high that news organizations such as mine should cast aside neutrality and directly oppose his reelection….I am not advising people how to vote.”

The Times is taking heat from the likes of Bill McKibben, an environmental activist and  former president of the Harvard Crimson, who tweeted recently, “My problem with the @nytimes election coverage is not mainly the dopey op-eds It's that on one substantive story after another--Egyptian payoffs, Arlington cemetery, etc--they've failed to do the serious investigative work they're capable of. Trump effectively gets a pass.” 

The thought that the New York Times has been giving Donald Trump a pass makes me laugh, but some people think that. 

Sulzberger says “would-be strongmen” have a “playbook” that includes, “Create a climate hospitable to crackdowns on the media by sowing public distrust in independent journalism.” It seems to me that the Times is creating plenty of distrust on its own, without needing a whole lot of help from Trump.

Sulzberger writes, “Today, trust in the news media sits at historic lows in much of the world — a decline helped along by the flood of misinformation, conspiracy theories, propaganda and clickbait unleashed on social media.” There’s no acknowledgement whatsoever that the erosion of trust in the news media might have anything to do with the media’s own complacency, ideological conformity, and rush to define certain ideas—say, the Wuhan lab leak theory, or noncitizen voting—as misinformation or a conspiracy theory.

Sulzberger needn’t worry. The previous Trump term was the best thing that happened to the New York Times Company in years; the stock price went from roughly $12 when Trump was elected to roughly $50 when Trump left office; it’s languished in that neighborhood during the Biden-Harris administration. Sulzberger’s piece doesn’t acknowledge that, either. Maybe the opinion editing at the Washington Post isn’t what it used to be in the Fred Hiatt era. Far from undermining the free press, Trump made the Ochs-Sulzberger family billions of dollars. It’s been a similar story at National Public Radio, which has suffered financially in the Biden-Harris era but prospered under Trump.

Anyway, there may be plenty of good reasons to vote against Trump, but “he might be bad for the New York Times” is not a reason for which there is a lot of evidence. I actually feel a little bad for A.G., because the Washington Post editors probably all figure they might want a job from him someday, so they might not have pressed him with the sort of skeptical editorial questions that improve an article. Instead the Post did him a disservice by publishing it with big holes that made Sulzberger look silly.

The next time A.G. Sulzberger has a piece he wants to park somewhere other than his own newspaper, we’d be happy to provide him with a thoughtful, rigorous, skeptical edit here at The Editors. Sincere offer.

Ivy Antisemitism Action: One could have a whole newsletter exclusively devoted to Ivy League antisemitism. My goal here is to keep ahead and on top of that story but not to let it overtake everything else, but there is a lot going on right now, so let me summarize a few high points, or low points.

At Columbia, thirty Jewish faculty members have signed a really loathsome letter denouncing the latest report of the Columbia Antisemitism Task Force.The letter is worth reading as an example of just how low some Columbia professors will sink. Students at Columbia should take careful note of the signers of the letter and avoid their classes. The letter claims:

the report does much more than detail incidents of alleged antisemitism: the Task Force is actually helping to build a case against our university, one aligned (even if unintentionally) with a broader right-wing movement to weaponize charges of antisemitism in the interest of not only suppressing political speech critical of the state of Israel but also of undermining the legitimacy and autonomy of democratic institutions, including universities, public K-12 schools, and unions. 

More: 

 the report denounces posters demanding “Zionist donors to keep your hands off our university” for promoting a pernicious trope about Jewish money and control – but neglects to note that, in fact, pro-Israel donors to Ivy league schools including Columbia were quite publicly pulling – or threatening to pull – funds if universities that didn’t crack down on protesters as they demanded.

The report inveighs against protesters burning an Israeli flag. Certainly students attached to Israel might object. Still, it is protected political speech. More important for the Columbia context – and the goal of rebuilding trust and fostering open exchanges of ideas – the university must be capable of imagining what that same flag represents to Palestinians on campus…

Among its recommendations, the report, tellingly, lists the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as a resource. We strongly discourage the University from engaging or making use of resources from the ADL. Widely recognized as a right-wing advocacy organization, the ADL is a main driver in the US of the very same kinds of confusion, conflation, and misinformation around antisemitism that mar the Task Force’s report. It has a record of supporting lawmakers and causes that oppose equality and social justice.

I am willing to give undergraduate Israel-haters some latitude; by definition, undergraduates are still learning and haven’t yet fully figured things out. The signers of this Columbia letter, though, are grownups. They should know better.

At Brown, the Brown Jewish Alumni and Friends Steering Committee has put together a strong case against divestment. “The purpose of the endowment is to support and further student and academic advancement at Brown, not to support and further the machinations of foreign, anti-American, terror-supporting political factions….You must decide whether Brown stands beside a small group of bigots and antisemites or speaks on behalf of all of its students and constituents.  You must decide whether this hallowed institution values institutional neutrality or uses its endowment as a tool for partisan politics.  You must decide whether Brown values the safety of its Jewish students or will toss them to the wolves.” The document is worth a look as an example for alumni and faculty at other institutions confronting this issue.

And at Harvard, the Crimson has its own report on the Jew-hating mob that I wrote about Friday. It’s worth comparing to my report. For example, the Crimson reports “more than 80 pro-Palestine protesters rallied.” I said “The event attracted a crowd of only 30 or 40 participants.” I have extensive video and photos of the event, and I can count. It’s worth remembering for future Crimson coverage of anti-Israel activity that the Crimson doubles the crowd sizes. 

The Crimson reports that “The rally was largely peaceful,” but the Crimson doesn’t report the slogans chanted by the group, which included nonpeaceful slogans such as “There is only one solution, intifadah, revolution,” and “if we don’t get it, shut it down,” and “globalize the intifadah.”

Anyway, it’s a worthwhile caution against relying only on the Crimson for coverage of Harvard anti-Israel activism. What the student newspaper describes as a “largely peaceful” group of 80 was in fact, as I counted with my own eyes and heard with my own ears, a group of 30 to 40 people chanting slogans that could be interpreted as violent threats or calling for wiping Israel off the map.

Recent work: “New York Times Illustrates Campaign Donation Story With Jewish Stars, Yarmulke,” is the headline over my latest piece for the Algemeiner. Please check it out over at the Algemeiner if you are interested.

Thank you: The Editors is a reader-supported publication. If you are a Zionist donor who has pulled your money from an Ivy League university and thus can spare the $8 a month or $80 a year, or if you simply appreciate clean parks or skeptical editing of opinion pieces, even those opinion pieces with Sulzberger bylines, please become a paying customer today. It will sustain our independent journalism, support our growth, and ensure your continued access.