65% of Muslim students either hate Jews or Israel.

August 27, 2024 by Daniel Greenfield

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/survey-shows-majority-of-muslim-college-students-hate-jews; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

[Order Daniel Greenfield’s new book, Domestic Enemies: HERE.]

Campus antisemitism is a problem, but reports focus on the experiences of Jewish students rather than the identity of the perpetrators. Media reports hesitate to name anyone. Jewish organizations zero in on campus hate groups like Students for Justice in Palestine, but that only tells us so much about why antisemitism has become so widespread at certain universities.

Brandeis University’s Center for Modern Jewish Studies recently conducted a survey asking college students about their views of Jews and Israel. And the results are revealing.

66% of students, the vast majority, did not hate Jews or Israel.

While leftist students only make up 14% of overall students (less than the 17% who identify as conservative), they make up a full 43% of students who are hostile to Israel. The remaining 46% of those hostile to the Jewish State identified as “liberal”. The activists associated with campus encampments and other forms of harassment are a small minority of leftist extremists who have used student organizations and political complicity to wield disproportionate power.

Liberal Jews have embraced diversity as the solution to hate, but diversity causes antisemitism.

White students were surveyed as the least likely to hate Jews. Twice as many black, Hispanic, and Asian students as white students ranked as “hostile to Jews”. While black students were slightly ahead in the small “extremely hostile” group, Asians were slightly more hostile to Jews than any other minority group. This may reflect academic competition between Jewish and Asian students, Chinese government support for Hamas or some Muslim students being grouped together with Asians.

Only 10% of white students were hostile to Jews, however 23% of Asian, 22% of black and 22% of Hispanic students were hostile to Jews. That meant they agreed with statements such as “Jewish people talk about the Holocaust just to further their political agenda” and “Jews should be held accountable for Israel’s actions”. 26% potentially held favorable views of Hamas.

And that brings us back to the question of which group of students hates Jews the most.

Christian students were overall the least hateful toward Jews and Israel. (4% of Christians were more antisemitic than the average but this may reflect the inclusion of some minority students or the impact of ‘Groypers’ and other social media influencers like Candace Owens.)

72% of Christian students, 65% of atheists and agnostics and 60% of ‘other religion’ students were not hostile to Jews or Israel, so the majorities of every belief system were not antisemitic.

Muslim students were the only group where the numbers were the exact opposite.

65% of Muslim students either hated Jews or Israel. Only 29% were non-hostile.

These numbers represent a complete break from those of any other group. Not a single group on campus, even leftists, hates Jews nearly as much as Muslims do.

Revealingly, more Muslims hate Jews than hate Israel.

36% of Muslim students, over a third, hated Jews, 29% hated Israel, and 6% hated both making it clear that this is not about politics, territory or Gaza: it’s really about Islamic antisemitism.

The wholly artificial distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism falls apart here, as it has throughout the general normalization of assaults and harassment of Jews after Oct 7.

Not even a third of Muslim students were tolerant of Jews. What does this mean on campus?

While hard data on Muslim demographics at universities with the largest antisemitism problems are hard to find and even more difficult to break down, we know that Muslim student populations have increased sharply, in some cases doubling within a decade. Muslims now make up 2% of the students at the University of California, 3.7% of Yale’s undergrads, 2.4% of Princeton seniors, 2.7% of students at the University of Michigan, and 3.6% at colleges overall.

These may be relatively small percentages (and some are out of date) but they represent over 75,000 students concentrated at key campuses. A previous survey found that encampments and other pro-terrorist activity had been concentrated at elite universities. Some of those same universities draw in large numbers of Jewish and Muslim students. What does it mean when a disproportionately antisemitic group grows its share of the student population?

The growing Muslim student demographics lead directly to hostile campuses for Jews.

At Harvard, the number of Muslim students in the freshmen class increased from 2.6% in 2013 to 3.9% in 2021. During that same period, the number of Jewish students fell by 2%. Would the harassment of Jewish students at Harvard have played out the same way if the number of Muslim students hadn’t been rising and the number of Jewish students wasn't falling?

At Yale, the number of Muslim students doubled from 1.5% in the oughts to over 3% in the previous decade. During this same period, the Jewish student body also declined.

Muslim immigration, sharp population growth and foreign students are changing campus demographics. A decade ago, there were twice as many Jewish students as Muslim students at UCLA. The numbers are likely reversed now. This helps explain what happened on campus.

The sustained harassment of Jewish students is not just ideological, it’s racial and religious.

Ideological leftist opposition to Israel has come together with the traditional Islamic antipathy to Jews, and the propensity toward dislike of Jews among more ‘diverse’ minority groups in an alliance of hate. Political extremism, support for terrorism, and antisemitism have come together in a toxic atmosphere where Communist and Hezbollah flags fly side by side, and black nationalists and third worldist academics explain why Hamas and Oct 7 are progressive.

Muslim students and Islamist organizations tie together an alliance between white leftists who want to destroy America, Europe and Israel, as well as some black, Latino and Asian students who ethnically and racially detest Jews by drawing on the destructive tendencies of both worlds.

Where white people have learned to feel guilty about hating others, minority ethnic nationalists take pride in their racism. Critical race theory, third world discourse and orientalism are just ideological permission structures for bigotry. The moral inversion of terrorism turned the Marxist and then Islamic perpetrators into victims and the victims into perpetrators who had it coming.

Islamic nationalism, hate and even genocide are portrayed as moral because they are the work of the oppressed even if the oppressed are a racist, totalitarian majority of over a billion people persecuting not only Jews and Christians, but also Buddhists, Hindus and nearly every religion.

While anti-Zionist discourse pretends that Israel was created and sustained by a few European immigrants, the majority of Israel’s population (and the vast majority of its nationalist voters who have kept Netanyahu in power) are Middle Eastern Jewish refugees fleeing Muslim oppression.

Muslim antisemitism is why Israel exists and why it’s still subjected to Islamic terrorism.

The same hate faced by Jewish students on campus has led millions of Jews to flee Muslim countries to Israel, America, France and other parts of the free world. That hatred is not a response to Gaza, to the Six Day War or to any event more recent than the rise of Islam.

Islamic antisemitism is at the heart of the Koran and Islamic scripture. Islam was born in part out of the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arabia. And it teaches that Jews are its primal enemies.

Muslim students are far more hostile to Jews than any other group of students because of religious prejudice. That prejudice has been around for over 1,000 years of Islamic oppression and will not disappear no matter what negotiations take place in the Middle East.

Liberal Jews have long championed diversity, but a diverse population is statistically more antisemitic. Combining diversity with a free pass for bigotry aimed at ideologically deserving white people and Jews is turning university campuses into no-go zones for Jews.

And what’s true of campuses is also true of American cities.

The multicultural and immigration policies of liberal Jewish organizations led directly to this crisis. It’s time for them to look at the numbers and do the math before it’s too late.

_______________________________________________________________

Keffiyeh is the Arabs’ Swastika; And leftists are wearing it proudly.

[Order a copy of Robert Spencer’s forthcoming book, "Muhammad: A Critical Biography, by clicking here.]

Like everything that is “Palestinian,” the keffiyeh comes from somewhere else. Its name is derived from an Italian word, cuffia, or headdress. It originated among the Bedouins as a protection from the sun, and not just Palestinians, or Arabs in general, wear it; Kurds and Yazidis sometimes sport it as a non-political statement. Nevertheless, the close identification of this headdress with the Palestinian jihad against Israel has made it unmistakable: the keffiyeh is today what the broken cross of National Socialism was in the 1930s and 1940s. It is a symbol of an irrational and violent hatred of Jews, and a determination to destroy them.

On Saturday morning, yet another incident made this clear. The man went to the Beth Yaacov synagogue in the seaside French resort of La Grande-Motte, where he set two vehicles on fire. The fire spread to the doors of the synagogue and injured a police officer. A French intelligence official stated: “The suspect is Arab with a Palestinian flag tied around his waist and a handgun on his belt.”

Surveillance video, however, showed that he was also wearing a keffiyeh, and that was no surprise at all. Wearing the keffiyeh is an indication today that one stands for the principle that is so succinctly and clearly enunciated in the ubiquitous battle cry “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” As all of Israel lies between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, this is a call for the total destruction of the Jewish state and a new genocide of the Jews.

The association of the keffiyeh with this genocidal cause began about ninety years ago. Initially, some Jews who moved to British Mandatory Palestine donned the keffiyeh, as they saw it doing so as part of trying to fit in with their neighbors. However, during the 1936-9 Arab Revolt against British rule, Arab commanders ordered Arab men to wear the keffiyeh as a symbol of their “resistance.”

In a report to the British Foreign Office, Harold MacMichael, the British Mandatory High Commissioner in Palestine, wrote: “This ‘order’ has been obeyed with surprising docility and it is not an exaggeration to say that in a month eight out of every ten tarbushes in the country had been replaced.” Keffiyeh-wearing jihadis murdered around 500 Jews, and the Jews of the region, as they were the targets of those who were wearing the keffiyeh, stopped wearing it themselves.

No one at the time of that uprising called the Arabs “Palestinians.” The Palestinian people, as a distinct ethnicity and nationality, was invented by the KGB and Yasir Arafat in 1964. According to Ion Mihai Pacepa, who had served as acting chief of Cold War–era Communist Romania’s spy service, “the KGB destroyed the official records of Arafat’s birth in Cairo, and replaced them with fictitious documents saying that he had been born in Jerusalem and was therefore a Palestinian by birth.”

Arafat and his fellow jihadis worked to popularize the propaganda fiction that the “Palestinians” were a people who were distinct from the other Arabs of the region, the keffiyeh became the national symbol of the spurious new people. Arafat cemented the link by making a black-and-white keffiyeh with a fishnet pattern his personal trademark. Wearing the keffiyeh became a symbol of one’s “solidarity” with the struggle of this new and yet supposedly indigenous people, and so it has remained to this day.

The association of the keffiyeh with the Palestinian Arab jihad has become so universally accepted that it is now commonplace to see leftists who are not “Palestinians” or Arabs wearing it to demonstrate their loyalty to the left’s cause du jour. Arabs and Kurds who wear it today will likewise be assumed, especially in the West, to be expressing their support for the jihad against Israel, even if that thought never crossed their mind.

The Palestinians as a people were invented in order to be used as a weapon against Israel. Instead of fighting to destroy the world’s only Jewish state in order to establish a twenty-third Arab state, the Palestinians were a people even smaller in numbers than the Jewish people, fighting for their indigenous homeland. Instead of being given refuge and starting new lives in neighboring Arab lands, the Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 remain perpetual refugees. So do their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, longing for a fictional homeland that none of them have ever seen. Aside from the jihad against Israel, these new people have no existence.

It is fitting that the symbol of this fake nationality would be a headdress that has been appropriated from elsewhere, and which Palestinian Arabs themselves did not wear for the most part until less than a hundred years ago. Nonetheless, the association is now unbreakable. The person who put on a keffiyeh is now endorsing Jew-hatred, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. The keffiyeh is this century’s Nazi symbol.

_____________________________________________________________

Whitewashing Muhammad: A steady diet of propaganda for kids on campus.

Nothing can inflame the Islamic community in some parts of the world more quickly than perceived insults of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. Few people in history, if any, command this kind of ardent loyalty. This loyalty has been playing out again of late in India.

Muslims in India are demanding the arrest of a Hindu leader over what the Free Press Journal recently delicately termed “disparaging remarks about Prophet Muhammad and his wife Ayesha.” The situation was extremely tense, for “the Raza Academy, a Sunni group, which was among the groups that met the DGP [the Director General of Police], has asked Muslims to observe Friday as ‘Day of Protection in the Honour of the Prophet.’” Another Islamic group complained that the Hindu leader had not yet been arrested, despite the fact that India is not a Sharia state, and warned ominously that there could be a “serious law and order problem in society” if he were not arrested.

Why would perceived insults to Muhammad so enrage some Muslims that they would issue not-so-veiled threats of violence? This question vexes Westerners, including observant Christians, as they would never start wrecking buildings and burning things down because of insults of Jesus. Islamic apologists, however, have stated that this is because of the weakness of Christians’ faith; if Christians really loved Jesus, they say, they wouldn’t stand for his name being besmirched.

Many Muslims also maintain that Muhammad himself had such a singularly wonderful personality that insults of him are particularly upsetting. The Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research states: “God combined in Muhammad the most illustrious qualities, as evidence that he was in fact authorized by the Divine. His character sparkled from every angle, and this was noticed both by those who experienced him firsthand and those who later read his biography. They all found in Muhammad a lifestyle of extraordinary sincerity, conviction, and virtue that posed a formidable challenge to any doubter in his prophethood.” Another Islamic organization agrees: “He is the embodiment of the perfect human being." There are so many things we can learn from him. His whole life serves as a guide for us.”

Western non-Muslim scholars have abetted this impression. Karen Armstrong, in her acclaimed “Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet,” claims fancifully that Muhammad “abjured violence and pursued a daring, inspired policy of non-violence that was worthy of Gandhi.” Another scholar, Eric Ormsby, has written fondly that Muhammad “loved to laugh, we are told, to the extent that when he did laugh – admittedly, not often – he did so ‘until his back teeth showed’. These are charming reports; they make a figure remote in time and place startlingly present and credible.”

Both Armstrong and Ormsby, however, were being astonishingly disingenuous. Muhammad never abjured violence. Islamic tradition states that not only did Muhammad lead jihad warriors into battle on numerous occasions; he also ordered the assassinations of several people for the crime of making fun of him, and rewarded the killers.

And as for Muhammad’s hearty laugh, “Muhammad: A Critical Biography” tells the full story that Ormsby omits, or may not know. According to the earliest Islamic traditions, Muhammad was laughing not at a marvelous joke or quip, but because he ordered one of his expert archers to shoot an enemy warrior, whereupon the enemy “fell down, exposing his buttocks.” The archer recounts: “I saw the Messenger of God laugh then, until his teeth could be seen.” Another version of the story, which situates it as taking place during a different battle, has a couple of bystanders discuss the incident after Muhammad’s archer shoots the rival warrior: “I asked: ‘What made him laugh?’ He replied: ‘What he did to the man!’”

Ormsby’s “charming” tale thus turns out to be Muhammad exulting in the humiliation and destruction of one of his enemies. This is in keeping with the aggressiveness and bellicosity that runs through the Islamic accounts of Muhammad’s life. It is therefore no surprise that the believers in Muhammad in India and elsewhere would so quickly threaten violence when their prophet was insulted. After all, that was how he himself behaved, and he is, according to the Qur’an, the Muslims’ “excellent example” (33:21), to be emulated in all possible circumstances.

Armstrong and Ormsby, however, represent the dominant view of Muhammad among Qatar-funded U.S. academics today. It’s no wonder, in light of that fact, that American universities have become hotbeds of support for Hamas, Hizballah, and other jihad terror groups. Kids on campus for over a generation have been fed a steady diet of propaganda, and it’s bearing fruit. “Muhammad: A Critical Biography” is a corrective.

____________________________________________________________

Video: Mosab Hassan Yousef – My Father Founded Hamas; Groomed for a legacy of terror.

[Order David Horowitz’s new book, America Betrayed, HERE.]

Born in the West Bank to a Hamas founder, Mosab Hassan Yousef was groomed for a legacy of terror. But he made the dangerous choice to reject violence and escaping the oppression and bloodshed inflicted by Hamas. Now in the U.S., he warns that the ambitions of the Muslim Brotherhood threaten Western civilization. If we let them succeed, it could mean the fall of America and the West.

Check out this important video below:

____________________________________________________________