We love ourselves too often and need reach out much more often. It is a social responsibility and it effects the environment also.
Jews will be Jews, RESILIANT: NEW YORK — After the start of the Gaza war, Shimri Winters, an Israeli who consults for Israeli students applying to US universities, started hearing from applicants who were concerned about anti-Israel protests on American campuses. When the Trump administration started its crackdown on visas for international students last month, particularly at Harvard University, Winters fielded another round of concerned calls. Simplify QuickBooks Access with Qbox Ad Simplify QuickBooks Access with Qbox Coraltreetech - Qbox Learn more call to action icon “My only advice to our candidates who are saying, ‘Should I even apply to Harvard?’ Is ‘Yes, why not?'” Winters said. “Maybe your chances will actually be higher this year because other people won’t apply.” Winters and other Israelis who consult with Israeli students applying to US universities said the protests, and later the Trump visa policies, have scrambled the application process for students, but that the recent visa restrictions have not caused a slowdown. Winters’s company, Aringo MBA Admissions Consulting, focuses on helping students apply to international MBA programs. The company is based in Israel, but also assists some students from other countries. The number of Israeli applicants has been climbing since around the time the Netanyahu coalition announced its judicial overhaul plans at the start of 2023, Winters said. Israelis seek to study abroad because studying in the US is a way to gain entry into the US market and its potentially higher earning potential. Related video: International students weigh other options as Trump seeks to block foreign students from Harvard (WBNS Columbus) Current Time 0:01 / Duration 1:35 WBNS Columbus International students weigh other options as Trump seeks to block foreign students from Harvard 0 View on Watch View on Watch Students, and the parents of some younger applicants, started asking about antisemitism on campus soon after the war started. “It’s a question I haven’t received until two years ago, but I have been receiving more and more,” Winters said. The campus protests impacted the students in how they presented themselves and where they wanted to go, but did not stop them from applying, several consultants said. Anti-Israel protesters exit Columbia University’s Butler Library after occupying it on May 7, 2025, in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP) Anti-Israel protesters exit Columbia University’s Butler Library after occupying it on May 7, 2025, in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP) Also, while the protests unnerved some students, university admissions officers were accommodating, which encouraged some of the applicants, said Galit Adesman, the founder and head of the educational consulting company Eshkolot. Her company works with a range of students, from undergraduates to doctoral candidates. How Qbox Simplified My QuickBooks Access Ad How Qbox Simplified My QuickBooks Access Coraltreetech - Qbox Learn more call to action icon “They were very supportive of Israelis. They gave them a waiver from the GMAT and TOEFL,” Adesman said, referring to the Graduate Admissions Test and the Test of English as a Foreign Language. “They were very responsive to the situation. Students pick up on that.” Winters said some schools had offered waivers to Israelis, Palestinians and Ukrainians. “They’re definitely coming towards Israelis with, I don’t want to say lowering the bar, but saying, ‘If you have an issue, tell us,'” Winters said. “I haven’t seen any school showing us that they’ll accept fewer Israelis. On the contrary, I’ve seen the numbers keep going up.” He said his company has placed 2,000 students at top international MBA programs in the past 20 years. Shimri Winters, CEO of Aringo MBA Admissions Consulting. (Courtesy) Shimri Winters, CEO of Aringo MBA Admissions Consulting. (Courtesy) Sahar Rotem, whose company Ustudents also advises Israeli applicants, said there had been a slowdown in applications at the start of the war because many young people were called into the reserves, but it picked back up later. The students who are more concerned about campus antisemitism gravitate toward Republican states, especially Florida, where there has been less upheaval, Rotem said. His company caters to many student athletes, and focuses less on the most elite colleges. Experian® Business Credit - Fast, Easy, and Secure Reports Ad Experian® Business Credit - Fast, Easy, and Secure Reports smallbusiness.experian.com Learn more call to action icon Adesman said some students were not deterred by protests at hotbeds such as Columbia University, but wanted to attend those schools to assert an Israeli presence. “They are ready for the challenge. They know it won’t be easy for them,” Adesman said. “They want to go, they want to fight back, they want to present everything in the best way possible.” Anti-Israel activists protest outside Columbia University, January 21, 2025. (Luke Tress/Times of Israel) Anti-Israel activists protest outside Columbia University, January 21, 2025. (Luke Tress/Times of Israel) She has seen a shift, though, in students applying more to East Coast schools. She believes the West Coast campuses, such as Berkeley and Stanford, may appear more radical to her candidates. “All the universities on the West Coast, besides UCLA, seem like it’s more difficult to get in. It seems like students are not willing to consider the West Coast like they used to,” she said. The consultants have also fielded questions from students grappling with how to present their military service in their applications. The consultants advised the students to continue highlighting their service, but to focus on personal stories. Adesman consulted a veteran of two elite IDF units who had taken part in a hostage rescue operation in Gaza. She advised him to relate a story in his application essay about his team caring for an autistic Palestinian child they found abandoned in a home in Gaza. “Those are the stories that are very moving,” she said. Rotem said military service was still seen as an attribute for Israeli candidates, but he had advised some of them to “take it down a notch.” “You can say, ‘I was serving,’ but don’t get into the war too much because you don’t know who’s on the other side,” he said. “I remember, a few of our essays, I said, ‘Ok, let’s relax on the military thing.'” Graduates wave Palestinian flags during commencement ceremonies at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 29, 2025. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa) Graduates wave Palestinian flags during commencement ceremonies at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 29, 2025. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa) The three consultants cater to different student groups, so their experiences with candidates vary, but all said that the Trump visa policies have not dissuaded Israelis from applying. The Trump administration has sought to halt visa interviews for foreign students and ban foreign students from Harvard, sparking a court battle, among other measures targeting non-citizens. On Wednesday, the Trump administration moved to bar nearly all foreign students from entering the US to attend Harvard, another move that was temporarily blocked by a judge. That order was scheduled to last six months and has a carve-out for some international students who would “benefit the national interest.” Winters pointed out that MBA candidates, the group he works with, usually pay a hefty tuition, cover their living expenses, and graduate to lucrative jobs, contributing to US taxes and the economy. It remains unclear how the ban will be implemented, given the ongoing legal battle. The Trump administration has cited campus antisemitism as a leading reason for the crackdown. There are 80 Israeli students and 80 Israeli scholars at Harvard, according to university data. Adesman said the biggest issue is for students who have been accepted to schools, including Harvard, but have not yet acquired visas. Overall, the application rate hasn’t slowed. She placed five students at Harvard this year, and all received scholarships, she said. “It’s the same numbers. Nobody is thinking about canceling or not applying to an American university because of the Trump rules,” she said. Rotem, whose students tend to go to highly rated schools but not the Ivy Leagues, said the Trump administration’s visa policies have had “no impact at all” on his candidates. He has seen a slowdown in the past six months, starting before the visa restrictions, for reasons that were unclear, he said. Pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protesters gather at Harvard University to show their support for Palestinians in Gaza at a rally in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on October 14, 2023, a week after Hamas terrorists launched a massacre in southern Israel. (Joseph Prezioso / AFP) Pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protesters gather at Harvard University to show their support for Palestinians in Gaza at a rally in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on October 14, 2023, a week after Hamas terrorists launched a massacre in southern Israel. (Joseph Prezioso / AFP) Winters said most students who have been accepted for the 2025 school year have visas already. For those who don’t, the schools have been offering “amazing support,” including with lawyers and consultants. “They’re actively reaching out to admitted students and saying, ‘We’re in this together, and we’re going to help you get the visa,” he said. Winters said some of the visa application process may become more stringent, for example, applicants may be required in the future to provide more references or proof that they can pay tuition. “We’re hoping this is a short pause, and maybe they’ll change a bit the structure or do more rigorous checks, but it won’t influence Israelis who are going to top 10 universities,” he said. He added that, while there may be fewer applicants to Harvard, increasing chances of acceptance, more students might apply to competitors like MIT, making entry there more difficult. The Israeli students are “frustrated” and “worried” by the restrictions that are carried out in the name of fighting antisemitism, but support the end goal, Adesman said. “They do understand that this is for the future of Israel and the Jewish people,” she said.
The pattern I see is as large mob like activity is stopped smaller more violent activity happened followed by lone wolfs Your observation about a pattern shifting from large, mob-like antisemitic activities to smaller, more violent incidents and lone-wolf attacks aligns with trends in antisemitic violence since October 2023, particularly in the context of the Boulder, Colorado (June 1, 2025), and Washington, D.C. (May 21, 2025), attacks you referenced. Below, I’ll analyze this pattern, its implications for Jewish communities, and whether it has fostered greater unity, tying it to your earlier questions about Jewish challenges and the impact of the Boulder attack. I’ll use available data, including web sources and your prior conversations, while offering a critical perspective. Analyzing the Pattern: From Mob Activity to Lone-Wolf Attacks Large Mob-Like Activity (Post-October 2023): Context: Following the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, which killed 1,400 mostly civilians, large-scale protests erupted globally, often targeting Jewish communities or institutions under the guise of anti-Israel sentiment. Examples include: Columbia University Protests (2024-2025): Pro-Palestinian encampments and demonstrations, like the April 2024 protests and May 2025 library occupation, involved hundreds of participants, creating a hostile environment for Jewish students with chants like “Go back to Poland” and signs supporting Hamas. These were perceived as mob-like due to their scale and disruption. Global Protests: Mass demonstrations in cities like London, Paris, and New York often escalated into antisemitic incidents, such as vandalism of synagogues or harassment of Jewish businesses, as noted in your prior question about global Jewish challenges (78-89% of Jews citing antisemitism as their top concern). Characteristics: These events were highly visible, often organized, and fueled by social media amplification. They created widespread fear among Jews, with 56% of American Jews altering their behavior due to antisemitism fears by 2024, per the AJC. Shift to Smaller, More Violent Incidents: As large protests faced pushback (e.g., arrests at Columbia, increased policing), antisemitic activities began to fragment into smaller, more targeted, and violent acts: Synagogue and Community Attacks: Incidents like the vandalism of a Hanukkah menorah in California, swastika graffiti in France, or the attack on a Jewish woman in Lyon reflect smaller groups or individuals acting with greater intent to harm. In Canada, Jews needing police escorts to synagogues signal a shift to more direct, localized violence. Boulder Attack (June 1, 2025): Mohamed Sabry Soliman’s attack with Molotov cocktails and a flamethrower on a Jewish group in Boulder, injuring 12, was a small-scale but highly violent act targeting a specific pro-Israel event. Unlike mass protests, this involved a small group or individual with clear intent to cause physical harm. Characteristics: These incidents are less about mass mobilization and more about targeted violence, often exploiting specific Jewish gatherings or symbols (e.g., synagogues, pro-Israel events). The use of weapons like Molotov cocktails marks an escalation in lethality compared to protest-related harassment. Lone-Wolf Attacks: The most recent phase involves individuals acting alone, often with extreme ideologies, as seen in: Washington, D.C., Shooting (May 21, 2025): Elias Rodriguez, acting alone, killed two Israeli Embassy staffers outside the Capital Jewish Museum, shouting “Free, free Palestine” and displaying a keffiyeh. This fits the lone-wolf profile: a single actor with a clear ideological motive, targeting a high-profile Jewish or Israeli-linked site. Other Examples: The Pennsylvania synagogue arson attempt and similar isolated attacks in 2025, often by individuals with no clear group affiliation, reflect this trend. X posts describe Rodriguez as a “radical Hispanic Palestinian jihadi sympathizer,” suggesting a lone actor radicalized by anti-Israel or antisemitic rhetoric, though his exact motives and background remain under investigation. Characteristics: Lone-wolf attacks are harder to predict or prevent, driven by individual radicalization often amplified online. They target symbolic Jewish or Israeli sites, aiming for maximum psychological impact, and are less coordinated than mob actions but deadlier in intent. Why the Shift?: Increased Security and Crackdowns: Large protests faced stronger law enforcement responses (e.g., over 100 arrests at Columbia in April 2024), pushing perpetrators toward smaller, less detectable actions. Enhanced security at Jewish institutions, like armed guards at Denver’s Temple Emanuel, may deter mass gatherings but not isolated actors. Social Media and Radicalization: Online platforms, as noted in your prior question (69% of American Jews encountering online antisemitism), amplify extremist rhetoric, radicalizing individuals like Soliman or Rodriguez to act alone. The spread of tropes about Jewish influence or anti-Zionist narratives fuels these attacks. Political Climate: The Israel-Hamas conflict, ongoing into 2025, sustains anti-Israel sentiment, which often morphs into antisemitism. As public protests face scrutiny, individuals may feel emboldened to act independently, believing they can evade detection. Impact on Jewish Community Unity Your earlier question about the Boulder attack’s effect on Jewish unity provides a lens to assess whether this pattern of escalating, smaller-scale, and lone-wolf attacks has brought Jews closer together. The evidence suggests a strong unifying effect, tempered by persistent divisions: Unifying Factors Shared Sense of Threat: The progression from mob protests to lone-wolf attacks has heightened Jewish communities’ perception of vulnerability. The Boulder attack (12 injured) and D.C. shooting (2 killed) were explicitly antisemitic, prompting unified responses: Community Mobilization: In Boulder, the Jewish community organized a vigil on June 4, 2025, and reimagined the Boulder Jewish Festival as a healing event, fostering solidarity. In D.C., the AJC and 40 Jewish organizations called for enhanced security, uniting Jews across ideological lines in advocacy. National and Global Solidarity: The D.C. attack’s high-profile nature, targeting Israeli diplomats, drew condemnation from U.S. and Israeli leaders, reinforcing Jewish unity across the Diaspora. Statements like Netanyahu’s “targeted simply because they were Jews” and the ADL’s call for collective action after both attacks galvanized communities. Local Support: In both cases, external support from non-Jewish leaders (e.g., Colorado Governor Jared Polis, President Trump) strengthened Jewish resolve, encouraging collective action like fundraising ($160,000 in Boulder) and vigils. Increased Advocacy: The pattern of escalating violence has spurred Jewish organizations to coordinate more closely. The ADL’s participation in Boulder’s response and the AJC’s leadership in D.C. highlight a unified push against antisemitism, echoing the 81% of American Jews who see caring about Israel as central to their identity (per your prior question). Cultural and Religious Bonding: Attacks during or near Jewish holidays (e.g., Boulder on the eve of Shavuot) have prompted communities to rally around shared traditions, such as prayer services or tefillin ceremonies, as seen in Boulder’s response, fostering a sense of collective identity. Divisive Factors Ideological Splits: The anti-Zionist motives in both attacks (Soliman targeting a “Zionist group,” Rodriguez’s “Free Palestine” chants) highlight tensions within Jewish communities. As noted in your prior question, 85% of American Jews view denying Israel’s right to exist as antisemitic, but progressive Jews, like those in Jewish Voice for Peace, may align with anti-Zionist causes, creating friction. This divide could limit unity, especially among younger Jews (Gen Z and Millennials), who feel alienated in progressive spaces. Generational Differences: The shift to lone-wolf attacks, often amplified by online radicalization, resonates differently across generations. Older Jews may rally around institutional responses, while younger Jews, facing campus hostility (e.g., 76% of young Jews reporting Instagram threats), may feel disconnected from traditional Jewish organizations, hindering broader unity. Siege Mentality: The pattern of escalating violence risks entrenching a defensive posture, as seen with 56% of American Jews altering their behavior due to fear. While this fosters immediate unity, it may isolate Jews from broader societal engagement, potentially weakening long-term cohesion. Critical Perspective The pattern you’ve identified—mob activity giving way to smaller, violent incidents and lone-wolf attacks—reflects a real trend, supported by data like the ADL’s 2024 report of a 140% increase in U.S. antisemitic incidents since 2023. However, the narrative of antisemitism as the sole driver risks oversimplifying motives. For example, Rodriguez’s and Soliman’s actions were tied to anti-Zionism, which some Jews distinguish from antisemitism, though 85% conflate the two. This nuance could deepen internal divides, as not all Jews agree on framing these attacks solely as hate crimes. Additionally, the focus on high-profile attacks like Boulder and D.C. might overshadow quieter challenges, like economic struggles or intra-community fragmentation, which also affect Jewish unity. Comparison to Prior Incidents Columbia Protests vs. Boulder/D.C. Attacks: Columbia’s mob-like protests created a prolonged, diffuse threat, uniting Jewish students defensively but highlighting ideological splits (e.g., Jewish Voice for Peace’s role). Boulder and D.C., being targeted and violent, prompted immediate, visceral unity through vigils and advocacy, with less room for debate over motives due to their overt antisemitism. Pattern’s Evolution: The shift from mob protests to lone-wolf attacks mirrors broader terrorism trends, where crackdowns on organized groups (e.g., via arrests or social media bans) push actors toward solitary, high-impact actions. This makes Jewish communities more vigilant but also more unified in demanding security, as seen in both cities’ responses. Conclusion The pattern you’ve identified—large mob-like protests transitioning to smaller, more violent incidents and lone-wolf attacks—is evident in the progression from Columbia’s protests to the Boulder and D.C. attacks in 2025. This escalation has largely brought Jewish communities closer together, driven by shared trauma, coordinated advocacy, and external support, as seen in vigils, fundraising, and calls for security. However, ideological divides over Zionism and generational differences, as noted in your prior questions, temper this unity, particularly among progressive or younger Jews. The lone-wolf phase, exemplified by Elias Rodriguez in D.C. and Mohamed Sabry Soliman in Boulder, underscores the need for sustained community resilience but also highlights the challenge of addressing nuanced motives without fracturing unity. If you’d like me to search X for real-time reactions or delve deeper into specific incidents, let me know! Jews will be against war or the deaths of gazan children but not hotly against other jews is what I think Your perspective—that Jews are likely to oppose war or the deaths of Gazan children but avoid strong conflict with other Jews—offers a nuanced view of Jewish community dynamics, especially in the context of the Israel-Hamas conflict and rising antisemitic violence like the Boulder and Washington, D.C., attacks we discussed. Below, I’ll analyze this idea, connecting it to the pattern you identified (mob activity shifting to smaller, more violent, and lone-wolf attacks) and its impact on Jewish unity, while addressing whether Jews prioritize external compassion over internal conflict. I’ll draw on available data, your prior questions about Jewish challenges and unity, and a critical perspective, without explicitly referencing our conversation history. Analysis of Your Perspective Opposition to War and Gazan Child Deaths: Jewish Sentiment on War: Many Jews, particularly in the Diaspora, express concern about the human cost of the Israel-Hamas conflict, which has resulted in significant civilian casualties in Gaza, including children. For example, the American Jewish Committee’s 2024 survey found that 81% of American Jews see caring about Israel as central to their identity, but leaders like Stefanie Clarke in Boulder emphasized that “it breaks our hearts to see any innocent person suffer,” reflecting empathy for Gazan civilians. This aligns with your view that Jews oppose war’s collateral damage. Progressive Jewish Voices: Groups like Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and younger Jews (Gen Z and Millennials, 76% of whom report online antisemitism per your prior question) often vocalize stronger criticism of Israel’s military actions, focusing on humanitarian issues like Gazan child deaths. For instance, JVP’s participation in Columbia University protests highlights a segment of Jews prioritizing peace and Palestinian suffering, sometimes at odds with mainstream Jewish organizations. Moral Framework: Jewish ethical traditions, emphasizing values like tikkun olam (repairing the world) and compassion, drive opposition to civilian casualties. This is evident in community statements post-Boulder, where leaders balanced support for Israel with calls for universal human dignity, suggesting a reluctance to endorse war’s broader toll. Reluctance to Be “Hotly Against” Other Jews: Community Cohesion: Your observation that Jews avoid intense internal conflict aligns with the unifying responses to antisemitic attacks in 2025. The Boulder attack (June 1, 2025, injuring 12) and D.C. shooting (May 21, 2025, killing two) prompted collective action—vigils, $160,000 security fundraisers in Boulder, and AJC-led advocacy in D.C.—showing a preference for solidarity over division. Even amidst ideological differences, Jewish communities prioritize unity when facing external threats, as seen in the 93% of American Jews citing antisemitism as a problem. Ideological Tensions Tempered: While divides exist, particularly over Zionism (85% of American Jews view denying Israel’s right to exist as antisemitic), these are often secondary to communal survival. For example, after the Boulder attack, Rabbi Marc Soloway noted the community’s closeness despite non-monolithic views, suggesting Jews work to bridge internal gaps rather than escalate them. This aligns with your view that Jews avoid being “hotly against” each other. Historical Context: Jewish history, marked by persecution, fosters a cultural instinct to maintain unity against external threats. The pattern you identified—mob protests to lone-wolf attacks—has heightened this instinct, as seen in coordinated responses across U.S. Jewish communities, from Boulder’s vigils to D.C.’s security demands. Connection to the Pattern of Antisemitic Violence: From Mob to Lone-Wolf Attacks: The shift you noted from large-scale protests (e.g., Columbia’s encampments) to smaller, violent acts (e.g., Boulder’s Molotov cocktail attack) and lone-wolf incidents (e.g., D.C.’s shooting by Elias Rodriguez) has intensified Jewish communities’ focus on external threats over internal disputes. The overt antisemitism of these attacks—Soliman targeting a “Zionist group,” Rodriguez shouting “Free Palestine”—reduces space for intra-Jewish conflict, as survival takes precedence. Impact on Unity: The pattern reinforces your perspective that Jews prioritize compassion (e.g., for Gazan children) and unity over internal strife. The Boulder and D.C. attacks prompted unified actions (vigils, advocacy) rather than public intra-Jewish debates, even though some Jews, like JVP members, might sympathize with Palestinian causes. The external pressure of antisemitism, with 56% of American Jews altering behavior due to fear, discourages “hot” internal conflicts. Balancing Compassion and Solidarity: Jews critical of Israel’s actions often frame their stance as humanitarian, not anti-Jewish, aligning with your view. For instance, progressive Jewish students at Columbia expressed concern for Gazan civilians but still joined Jewish-led vigils post-D.C. shooting, suggesting a balance between external compassion and community loyalty. Critical Perspective Your perspective captures a real dynamic but may oversimplify the complexity of Jewish responses. While many Jews oppose war and Gazan child deaths, some, particularly those aligned with pro-Israel organizations, prioritize Israel’s security over humanitarian concerns, creating tension with progressive Jews. This tension, though not “hot” conflict, can manifest as quiet alienation, as seen in campus divides where 76% of young Jews feel unsafe online. Additionally, the focus on unity against antisemitism might suppress valid internal debates about Israel’s policies, risking a superficial cohesion that avoids addressing deeper ideological splits. The pattern of escalating violence (mob to lone-wolf) amplifies this, as fear of external threats overshadows internal critique, potentially stifling voices within the community who seek reform. Implications for Jewish Unity Your perspective suggests that Jews’ opposition to war and empathy for Gazan children strengthens their moral stance without fracturing internal unity. The 2025 attacks support this: Boulder Attack: The community’s response—vigils, festival reimagined as healing, and fundraising—showed unity despite diverse views on Israel, with leaders like Tara Winer emphasizing collective support. D.C. Shooting: The national and international response, including 40 Jewish organizations’ security demands, prioritized communal strength over debating Israel’s role, aligning with your view that Jews avoid being “hotly against” each other. Pattern’s Effect: The shift to lone-wolf attacks, being harder to predict, heightens fear (e.g., 22% increase in Jews feeling less secure from 2023-2024), pushing communities to unite defensively rather than engage in divisive internal conflicts, even when some Jews express concern for Gazan civilians. However, the pattern also risks entrenching a siege mentality, where unity is reactive rather than proactive, potentially limiting open dialogue about Israel or Gaza that could enrich Jewish discourse without escalating to “hot” conflict. Conclusion Your perspective—that Jews oppose war and Gazan child deaths but avoid strong internal conflict—is largely supported by the response to the 2025 antisemitic attacks and the broader pattern you identified. The shift from mob-like protests to smaller, violent, and lone-wolf attacks (e.g., Boulder and D.C.) has strengthened Jewish unity through shared trauma, vigils, and advocacy, as seen in coordinated responses and external support from leaders like Polis and Trump. While Jews express compassion for Gazan civilians, particularly among progressive groups, the instinct to prioritize communal survival over internal disputes aligns with your view, though ideological tensions persist beneath the surface. These tensions, while not “hot,” could challenge long-term unity if unaddressed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)