One of the oldest hatreds in the world is what Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904), the founder of the League of Antisemites in Germany, called Anti-Semitism. This is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as ‘opposition or hostility to Jews.’ This has taken on many forms, including anti-Judaism in ancient times and the Middle Ages, racist anti-Semitism in the 19th and 20th centuries, and its latest mutation, Anti-Zionism, what Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks called New Anti-Semitism. In this essay, we will present a survey of Anti-Semitism in Oxford, followed by delving into the question posed in this talk: how do find meaning in a history of persecution, Anti-Semitism and exclusion.
Middle Ages
Jews were invited to settle in England from Ruel, Northern France in 1066 with the Norman Conquest. There is no evidence of Jews living in England during Roman times, though there were like traders and merchants. This period came to an abrupt end in 1290, when the edict of expulsion was made by Edward I. During this time, Jews had no rights: were subject to a blood libel in Norwich in 1144, massacre in London in 1189, massacre in York in 1190, were excluded from the Magna Carta in 1215, and forced to wear badges made from felt in the form of the tablets in 1222. After being forbidden from lending on interest in 1275, decimating the community, the coin clippings allegations in 1279, the expulsion followed in 1290. Oxford had its own cases: a deacon who converted to Judaism to marry a Jewess was burned alive outside the gate of Osney Abbey in 1222, the first known case of such a punishment for heresy, and a Jewish child, who was condemned for having mocked the healing powers of St. Frideswide in 1189, was found hanging the same day or night in the cellar of his family home. Furthermore, their cemetery was seized by Royal decree, through the local sheriff, for the building of a hospital, in 1231, after it had been purchased by the Oxford Jewry for burial in 1177, and in 1266 a cross was erected on the funeral procession route with the script ‘guilty Jews on its base. Despite the various histories of the University of Oxford, the expulsion of Jews from the city of Oxford in 1290 seems not to have been a subject of note. Nevertheless, much of the university is built on land that was formerly part of the Jewry, including Christ Church, Pembroke, Magdalen, Botanic Garden and Merton. Balliol benefited for centuries from Jewish owned land.
16th century
In the 17th century, Isaac Casaubon, a French Huguenot scholar, befriended Jacob Barnet, a Jewish person known as "Jacob the Jew," in Oxford around 1609. Casaubon, impressed by Barnet's knowledge of Hebrew texts, hired him as a tutor and later as a personal secretary. Barnet faced pressure to convert to Christianity, and the university planned a grand ceremony for his conversion, but he ultimately fled Oxford, was arrested, imprisoned at the Bacardo prison where he was tormented by fellows at the university for having decided not to convert to Christianity, and later exiled.
19th century immigration
In the turn of the 20th century, minutes of the Waynflete Society of 1899 records papers delivered with solutions to the problem of poverty-stricken Jewish refugees arriving in England from Europe. The background was, in the 19th century, 4,750,000 Jews lived in the Russian Pale of Settlements, located in the fifteen westernmost provinces, across 350,000 square miles, bounded with restrictions and regulations. A Jew in the army could not rise beyond private, most professions were closed to him, and places where he was allowed to live were strictly limited. St. Petersburg and Moscow were barred, as most big cities. Only richer merchants, university students, long-serving soldiers, dentists, surgeons and skilled artisans were allowed into the big towns. This caused hundreds of thousands to leave the Russian empire: Between 1870 and 1880, around 350,000 Jews emigrated, the majority to America. By 1888 Sir Robert Giffen testified to the House of Commons’ Select Committee that about 40,000 people were leaving every year. The amount coming to England is indicated by the relief given by the Board of Guardians. The Board of Trade reckoned that between 1881 and 1886 the number of Polish and Russian immigrants in England rose by 50 percent. In 1881 there were 15,000 alien Jews in the whole of England and Wales, three quarters of them in London, Manchester and Leeds. In the next ten years it rose to just over 50,000 and by 1901 doubled again to 95,000, before being stemmed by the Alien Act in 1906. Thus, with an average of 4,000 a year, over a twenty year period, the Jewish population had increased by some 600 per cent. All-together around 200,000 came to settle in England, either by choice or necessity.
Immigration was caused because of a number of factors. In 1881, the assassination of Tsar Alexander II on 1st March, was blamed on the Jews, leading to the appointment of his son, Alexander III, together with his former tutor and chief lieutenant Constantine Petrovich Pobyedonotzev, called also The Grand Inquisitor. Pogroms subsequently took place across Southern Russia, that began in April in Elizabethgrad, spread to Kiev, reaching Warsaw by the summer of 1881. The pogroms however were mostly suppressed, as Alexander III reminded that Jews were under the protection of the general laws, lasting for twenty years until the Kishiniv massacres in 1903. Meanwhile, a proclamation was made on 29th April, 1881, to establish and safeguard the rein of government and eradicate ‘hideous sedition.’ This referred to anybody who challenged the political or religious orthodoxies of the regime. This was aimed particularly at Jews, who followed a different religion than the Greek Orthodox church, and seen to have ‘dominated’ commercial life of the country.
The trigger for immigration, however, came principally because of the anti-semitic May Laws. On 3rd May, 1882, ‘Temporary Laws’ came into effect whereby people had to prove to the authorities’ satisfaction that they had been living on their land before 3rd May, 1882. Since Jews were not allowed to own land or house, they were leaseholders, and very often the terms were verbal, not written, leaving them with nothing to show, expelling them from the villages they had lived all their lives to the towns. This inevitably caused the town to be overrun by thousands of poor, homeless and hungry Jews looking for work. Pobyedonotzev was planning with these laws for a third of Jews to emigrate, a third to convert and a third perish. It was in this context that a mass wave of Jewish immigration arrived to England, many tricked by unscrupulous companies into thinking they were on their way to America. This led to a wave of Anti-Semitism in England.
A Royal Commission was set up by the British Government in 1902, which lasted 16 months, interviewing 175 witnesses, including local government officials from Whitechapel and Stepney, Board of Trade experts, leaders of the Jewish community, trade union spokesmen, but very few immigrants. Those interviewed were picked by Arnold White to show them as dirty and undesirable. He referred to them as ‘like a drop of prussic acid in a glass of water.’[1]
It was in this context a discussion took place at the Waynflete Society of 1899/1900 with papers delivered with solutions to the problem of poverty-stricken Jewish refugees arriving in England from Europe. The open hostility to Jewish immigrants was manifest. The Bursar and Fellow of the College, Revd C. R. Carter, proposed extermination or intermarriage to solve the problem. Hubert Maitland Turnbull (c. 1894-1900) thought ‘Jews have not grit, no real pluck.’ A Mr. Smith suggested a European coalition should be formed to cart them off to Palestine. A more positive note was struck by Mr. Treherne (possibly a guest), who spoke up for the immigrants as deserving charity.
20th century migration
A further wave of internal migration of Jews took place in light of the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s. Anti-Semitism swept through the city of Oxford, before and during the Second World War, in light of the increase in size of the Jewish community in the city. Anti-Semitism in Oxford took the form of a negative attitude towards Jewish refugees, whom fled from London to escape the bombing. The Jewish population of Oxford had risen noticeably during the Second World War, as a result of the evacuation of Jewish mothers and children, blind persons, hospital patients and others from London. Reflecting the growth, instead of approximately 30 families before the war, over 200 people attended synagogue on Yom Kippur in 1939.
In the same year, it was believed there were some 200 London children in Oxford and more in the surrounding districts. During this time, numerous organisations were founded and flourished in the city and the university. This included: the Oxford University Jewish Society (OUJS); Oxford Zionist Society (formed in 1939); Oxford Women’s Zionist Society (November, 1940); Theodor Herzl society; Federation of Women Zionists (FWZ); Jewish National Fund (JNF); The Jufra Club, which served during the war as rallying point for German-Jewish women and girls, chaired for its first two years, until April, 1941, by Mrs. Ettinghausen; Oxford Jewish Youth Club (November 1940); and The Jewish Religious Union (January, 1941). In December, 1939, the local branch of the Federation of Women Zionists merged with the Oxford Zionist Society.
A Jewish Voluntary Choir was formed in Oxford in December 1940, conducted by Mr S. Alman, the musical director of the Hampstead Synagogue. Other groups formed within the community, including a knitting party, organised by Mrs J.J. Marks in April, 1941, which met every Monday evening. In January 1940, Rev J. Weinberg formed a Young People’s Social Circle, which met every Sunday evening in the Vestry Room of the synagogue. Aware of the difficulties facing Jews in Europe, a Sefer Torah, rescued from Germany, was deposited at the Oxford synagogue in November 1939, used for the first time during a special service to mark the anniversary of Kristallnacht.
Anti-Semitism in Oxford during WWII
This increase in the presence of Jews to Oxford led to an increase in Anti-Semitism. This occurred, most conspicuously, surrounding the circumstances related to obtaining kosher meat and its distribution. In the beginning of December, 1939, a committee was appointed by the community to examine the question of the supply of kosher meat. This was still an issue in November 1940, reflected in a notice in the Jewish Chronicle: Letter from ’Oxford Evacuee’ re kasher meat. Better than merely ‘discussing’ the matter, could have invited a kasher butcher to open a shop. Orthodox Jews have to await parcels of meat from Birmingham and it is distressing to find Jewish women having to buy ‘trefa.’
In March 1941, the Oxford community was thought to number 5,000 and was assured of a supply of kosher meat. Thanks to Jewish Chronicle for the publicity, one of Oxford’s leading non-Jewish butchers, Mr R.A. Butterfield, had arranged for official consent for shochetim (ritual slaughterers) to slaughter at the Oxford City abattoir. Around a thousand registrations at Mr Butterfield’s establishment at the Central Market, a figure more or less maintained throughout the war, saw part of the market portioned off as a kosher meat shop with Jewish supervision. About 150 fowls were sold every week. By May, due to difficulty in obtaining live fowls, the figure had reduced by more than half. On 3 October 1941, it was reported that good relations with the Town Hall authorities was shown by the opening of the Market on Sunday, the eve of the New Year, for the first time in the history of the Market, so that Jews could have access to the butcher shop. The request was made by the local minister.
Queues for kosher meat
On 10 October 1941, it was reported by a letter from ‘Oxford Evacuee’ that there are queues for kosher meat but under control. On 17 October 1941, a letter from ‘Another Customer’ says that the ‘scenes at the kosher butchers are causing anti-Semitism. Obviously, it continued, it has been difficult for a community of 30 souls to be swollen suddenly to 2,000.’ On 24 October 1941, once again, a letter from Joseph Hirsch reported that as a member of the Oxford Jewish Congregation he wrote to the Committee on July 28 pointing out the unsatisfactory state of meat distribution. The letter was not acknowledged, however, nor a second letter to the wardens. He writes: ‘some people are buying trefa meat because of difficulty of buying kosher meat. He has been informed that some are buying trefa meat and koshering it.’ On 31 October 1941, it was reported in a letter to the Jewish Chronicle regarding the growth of anti-Semitism in Oxford, referred to in sermon in synagogue during Kol Nidrei. It stated that scenes at the kosher butcher are a cause, and reflected in advertisement columns of the local press.
Public relation problems
In Jews of Oxford, on this subject, it omits the subject of Anti-Semitism in this regard, saying rather: ‘There were public relation problems, gradually solved, in the large Jewish queues in the narrow alleys of the Covered Market, and the customers themselves complained that the shop was not kept in a clean state and that fowls were killed in the shop in the presence of women and children.’
Anti-Semitism in England during the war
Causes - press / refugees / housing shortage / middle class
In Jews of Oxford, it records there was a great deal of Anti-Semitism in England during the war. A few factors played a role in this: firstly, the press reported more in black market cases involving Jews than Jewish servicemen and deaths in service. These cases were reported also in the Oxford press. A further cause appears to have been the internment of enemy aliens in summer 1940, even though the Oxford Times was retrospectively hostile to many aspects of the mass internments. In August 1940, a lorry driver was charged with creating disaffection by telling soldiers: ‘You are mugs to fight for two bob a day, while enemy aliens are living in luxury in the Isle of Man.’
This spilled over into Oxford: In January, 1941, the Mass Observation Unit reported ‘there is a lot of Anti-Semitic feelings in Oxford, particularly towards the middle-class refugees, but not the working class.’ Hostility facing Jews in Oxford involved also classic Anti-Semitic motifs. In October, a prominent Zionist official claimed to have been lured into a field by a soldier and told: ‘You are a Jew and you and your like will be turned out of Oxford. Now hand over all the money you have.’ A factor was housing shortage. Working class people were losing their accommodation to better paying middle class refugees. The issue was the influx of refugees, mostly Jews, but others also, to Oxford, doubling between December, 1939 and December, 1940 to 2,000, of whom 275 males and 702 females were enemy aliens. This led to the problem of overcrowding and tension.
As a response to Anti-Semitism, in July 1943, a conference on anti-Semitism was held at Oxford Union Society’s Hall on Saturday. Forty delegates represented trade unions and other organisations, though no Jewish organisations were invited. The Very Rev Dean of Christ Church presided. Speeches were made by Rev R.R. Martin, Rural Dean of Oxford, Mr Bellinger, Chairman of the Oxford Trades & Labour Council, and Mrs Corbett-Ashby, Vice-president of the Liberal Party. Anti-Semitism was predicted by the Mass Observation Unit reports during the war that admittance of too many Jews will trigger Anti Semitism, playing a role in limiting immigration.
Anti-Semitism at Oxford post WWII
Antisemitism at the University of Oxford has different forms. There are two main periods in this regard: the period of exclusion when Jews were not allowed to study at Oxford, along with Catholics and other non-Christians. This lasted from the beginning of the university in the 13th century, until 1856, when it was no longer necessary for students to accept the articles of the Christian Faith to graduate, and fellows in 1871. For Jews to be appointed fellows prior to 1871, they would have to convert to Christianity, unless there were especially invited for their knowledge of Hebrew to assist with teaching or cataloguing Hebrew books at the Bodleian Library. Nevertheless, even after 1856, opposition to Jews appointed as fellows persisted.
Controversy surrounded the appointment of Albert Einstein at Christ Church in the 1930s, Isaiah Berlin suffered from Anti-Semitism in this regard, as did Hans Krebs, surrounding his admission into a Common Room. In A history of Magdalen College, by Professor Lawrence Brockliss, it discusses resistance to appointing Jewish Fellows at the college (p. 595): ‘In a private letter of June 1948, Bruce McFarlane expressed surprise but no misgiving that four conscientious objectors, not to mention an Arab, a German and a German Jew, had been elected to fellowships that year: ‘the College is becoming almost excessively unorthodox. We only need a Chinese and an Indian to complete the transformation.’ He was first Jew to be appointed a fellow at All Souls college in 1930, and fifth to be appointed to an Oxford college.
The main change at Oxford occurred during the Second World War, when Oxford led in the effort amongst universities in taking in German Jews. Nevertheless, strains of Anti-Jewish and other ‘alien’ sentiments persist, as expressed above in 1948 at Magdalen College. This continues to be manifest in subtle manifestations up into the 21st centurn, as for example in 2000, when a Jewish student standing in the middle of the Sheldonian theater wearing a head covering (kippah) was told to stand at the back, so he would not appear in the pictures in the middle of the hall.
Faith spaces
At the same time, while almost every college has a chapel, the university policy is not to support other faith spaces at Oxford. In 2016, however, the Vice Chancellor of the University Andrew Hamilton took the university a major step forward by providing a prayer room for Muslim students, alongside the £100m Oxford University Islamic centre, near Magdalen College, which also provides prayer space for Muslim students at the university, this has not been done for Jewish students. As recently as 2025, the University argued that no such facility is necessary for Jewish students, despite a proposal supported by Jewish students and faculty for the university to support a suitable space on George St, and that the official policy is still that the university does not support non-Christian faith spaces. Another argument was that the Muslim prayer room is for prayers only and there is no other space available for Muslim students to pray at Oxford, as the other spaces are closed to students. In reality, the Oxford University Islamic Society website states: ‘The OUISoc has got its own dedicated prayer room located in the Robert Hooke building. This is open 24/7 to all students, and many events throughout term will also be hosted here.’ The Islamic centre also conformed many students attend the Friday prayers. In addition, New College provides also a Muslim prayer room.
This opposition to providing a faith space for the Jewish students was reinforced in 2025 when a crisis in funding occurred for support of the Slager Jewish student centre and prayer hall on George St, which had become a hub for Jewish life at the university since 2006. Despite its opening in the presence of a Pro-Vice Chancellor, heads of college, faculty and students, this discrimination between faiths at Oxford remains, maintaining that faith spaces for Jewish students must be supported from outside the university. This is indeed a policy articulated in a History of Magdalen College but, while it has evolved regarding other faiths, remains in relation to Jewish students.
The argument is that the Jewish community have plenty of resources and there is already a community synagogue that supports Jewish students. Of course, there are many local churches that supports Christian students, and local mosques, and an Islamic centre that supports Muslim students, but for some reason, discrimination against Jewish students persists, despite a Jewish student wide petition proposing for this to change. The discrimination is also apparent within the Oxford University Student Union where effort for the university to support the Jewish student centre was rebuffed with the argument that the university doesn’t support other ‘fringe’ religious groups at the university, like the black Christian student community, who may also like to have their own space for worship. This discrimination is embedded at the university to such a degree that, while some faculty support the university changing its policy, some of the most senior Jewish faculty at the university are either skeptical that change will occur, while some oppose such change as undesirable.
Sukkah and Jewish Fair
In 2016, a proposal was presented to the university to allow a Sukkah to be placed in Wellington Square Gardens to help Jewish students celebrate the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. Many other campuses in the UK and round the world support the Jewish students during the festival by allowed their grounds to be used for this purpose. It’s only a 7 day holiday and the booth is erected the day before the festival and taken down on the last day before sundown. Having consulted with Jewish faculty member, the response was: ‘In principle, I think it’s a nice idea, particularly given the timing of the Hagim (festivals) this year (the beginning of Michaelmas). It would be a good statement of the university’s commitment to different faith communities.’ This request was however refused by the university admin being that it is so close to the central offices of the university. A similar request was made to Brasenose college, but also refused by the master: ‘I don’t think I can get it through Governing Body.’ Eventually, having exhausted the university grounds option, it was decided to place it on Broad St, on the street, near Balliol college, with the kind permission of the Oxford City Council. Despite the helpful cooperation of the city council, receiving even an outlet for electricity from nearby Balliol college was begrudgingly allowed for a few years, before abruptly aborted for no apparent reason other than it being an inconvenience.
Nazi and fascist tainted funding
A source of ongoing friction between the Jewish students and university is the issue of funding the university accepts from questionable sources. This issue flares up periodically, most recently when the university received in 2021 a significant donation from the Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust, which was set up by the late former motorsport boss Max Mosley and named after his late son Alexander, a St Peter's College graduate. Two Oxford colleges, St Peter’s and Lady Margaret Hall, accepted a donation from the Mosley family trust totalling more than £6.3m. According to a Daily Telegraph report, Mr. Mosley created the trust ‘to house the fortune he inherited’ from his father, Oswald Mosley, who led the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s. Despite the public outcry from the Jewish students, many of whom have family members lost during the Holocaust, the university accepted the funding, even while the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Nadhim Zahawi, said the university must consult and explain the decision-making process that took place for them to have landed this donation, and to consider the ‘ethical implications’ of donations, and the views of students and wider community.’ As an effort in education about the fascist links to the donation and its implications, a lecture was hosted at the Oxford University Chabad Society by Emeritus Professor Roger Griffin, entitled: 'The Mosleys and the Oxford Laundrette.' Roger Griffin is widely acknowledged to be one of the world's foremost experts on the socio-historical and ideological dynamics of fascism, as well as the relationship to modernity of violence stemming from various forms of political or religious fanaticism, and in particular contemporary terrorism. His theory of fascism as a revolutionary form of ultranationalism driven by ‘palingenetic’ myth has had a major impact on comparative fascist studies since the mid-1990s. In May 2011 he received an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Leuven in May 2011 in recognition of his services to the comparative study of fascism. After this lecture, despite the clear problem if this association, a Jewish head of college continued to defend the university for accepting this donation.
Despite the concern of the association to the Jewish community, the University of Oxford stood its ground and put out a statement: ‘The university is aware of its position within, and responsibility to, the wider community in which we operate, and has robust and rigorous guidelines regarding the acceptance of donations and research funding.’ It added that its donors ‘have no say in setting the research and teaching programmes of the posts or infrastructure they fund, nor do they have any access to the results of research, other than publicly available material.’ Lady Margaret Hall said the donation ‘enabled a cohort of students from very diverse and low-income backgrounds to attend Oxford.’ It said the trust knew that these students came from ‘diverse and under-represented backgrounds and was pleased to support the scheme and its aims.’ The Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust said ‘none of the funds received or distributed by the trust were the proceeds of fascism. The Trust abhors racism in all its forms including the thuggery and violence of Oswald Mosley's fascist movement. We sincerely hope that the funds we donate can continue to make a positive difference.’
This was not the first time of fascist associated funding to the university was raised This occurred in 2010 regarding the Hanseatic Scholarships, founded by Alfred Toepfer. Toepfer was closely associated with numerous convicted Nazis, including SS Brigadier Edmund Veesenmeyer, the German diplomat in Budapest during the Holocaust overseeing the deportation of Jews to Auschwitz. Toepfer employed Barbara Hacke, the personal secretary to Veesenmayer from 1940-1945, as his own secretary, and Veesenmayer too was employed by Toepfer after his release from Landesberg castle, where he had been imprisoned for war crimes. A copy of Toepfer’s letter of recommendation, dated 2 October 1950, survives in the Alfred Toepfer Foundation for Hartmann Lauterbacher, a former SS Major-General and former head of the Hitler Youth. Lauterbacher was in hiding having escaped from Italian custody, and Toepfer was asked to contact an associate in Buenos Aires asking him to help Lauterbacher set up a new life in Argentina.
Daniel Johnson, Editor of Standpoint and former recipient of the Hanseatic Scholarship, said: ‘Those who administered [Toepfer’s] legacy have a duty to offer an apology to all those who were misled. Oxford can continue to endorse the Hanseatic Scholarships only if their problematic provenance is fully and openly acknowledged.’ Dr. Michael Pinto-Duschinsky warned in an article in the Standpoint of the danger of “greywashing” the Holocaust. He argued that ‘as long as the past is explained away, the moral basis for a new Europe cannot yet exist and British universities should not accept money tainted by denial.’ While in 1993, 1996 and 1999, protests led to the abandonment of annual prizes awarded by the Universities of Vienna and Strasbourg, Oxford continues to offer the Hanseatic scholarship. The description on Oxford University’s website states:
In 2010, Ansgar Wimmer, the CEO of The Alfred Toepfer Foundation F.V.S., told Cherwell newspaper: ‘for more than ten years this foundation has been actively trying to promote transparency and to face its past in a responsible manner. No one at our foundation today trivialises any aspect of Alfred Toepfer’s biography.’ At the same time, in attempting to mitigate the severity of the issue of association, in a letter to Dr. Pinto-Duschinsky, published on its website, the foundation stated that ‘as far as we know today, he did not participate directly or indirectly in the Holocaust, nor did he deny its existence.’ By this statement, however, while trying to mitigate by comparison with what could have been far worse, actual participation in the atrocities of the Holocaust, it acknowledges the problem of association and support for its perpetrators.
Despite the above, in 2025, the scholarships remain at Oxford, described as being stablished by the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Stiftung FVS to reciprocate the Rhodes Scholarships to the University of Oxford from Germany. It may be held at any academic institution in Germany, and are tenable for one or two years. The successful candidates must undertake research at doctoral or postdoctoral level; give evidence of a workable project not connected to a research degree; or obtain a German degree. Duration: One or two years (initial awards are made for only one year however award holders can apply to extend for a second year). Value: The current value of the scholarship is approximately €15,000 per annum, although travel expenses will also be covered. Number: Up to 3 awards. No mention, however, is added regarding the history of the founder of the grant, so that students can make an informed decision before applying, and the ability for students uncomfortable in this tainted scholarship to make their protest known.
This subject arose also, earlier, in 1993, when Dr. Gert-Rudolf Flick donated £350,000 a year for five years, to establish a Flick Professorship of European Thought. Dr. Flick, grandfather Friedrich, was an industrialist in Germany, in whose factories around 30,000 enslaved labourers, from the concentration camps and occupied territories, died during the war. He had close ties with the Nazi leadership — including financial direct contributions to Himmler’s infamous SS (Schutzstaffel). He was sentenced to seven years after the war, of which he served three due to good behavious, without expressing remorse. While most of his fortune was confiscated, he died nonetheless in 1972 a very wealthy person, providing his foundation a very large fortune. In 1992, the grandson, Gert-Rudolf, was appointed to the Court of Benefactors of the University of Oxford in recognition of donations he had made to the Europaeum, and in 1993 established the Flick Professorship of European Thought, attached to Balliol College. Despite the foundation’s association with Nazi Germany, the ethics committee of Oxford University concluded ‘that the money used to found the chair does not derive from objectionable practice.’ It took three years for the university to agree to return the donation, which it finally did in 1997.
Anti-Semitic speakers
Oxford has a history of inviting Anti-Semitic speakers to speak. This took place in 2007, when the Oxford Union invited Holocaust denier David Irving, described by a high court judge as ‘racist’ and ‘antisemitic’ during a libel trial, to speak on the subject of free speech, together with the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin. Irving served a prison sentence in Austria for Holocaust denial. More than 1,000 people signed a petition on the Downing Street website calling on Gordon Brown to condemn the talk, according to the Guardian. This had been attempted in May 2001 but was cancelled due to pressure from academics and members of the student union. Members of the Oxford Union Debating Society voted however in 2007 by a margin of two to one in favour of hosting the event.
The issue of antisemitic speakers at Oxford arose again in 2021, when the Master of St. Peter’s College, Professor Judith Buchanan, invited its alumnus Ken Loach, entitled: ‘Ken Loach in Conversation.’ Loach is a soft Holocaust denier, in the view of many, based on his views reflected in a comment he made in a discussion about accepting the history of the holocaust: ‘I think history is for all of us to discuss. The founding of the state of Israel, for example, based on ethnic cleansing, is there for us all to discuss, so don’t try and subvert that by false stories of antisemitism.’ The equating of Israel with the Holocaust is a clear definition of Anti-Semitism according to the IHRA. Despite protest by the Jewish students and Junior Common Room (JCR) at the college, including a meeting with the Master, Buchanan refused to cancel the event, issuing a statement:
As part of these conversations, a useful suggestion has been made that we might create a subsequent event in College at some point fairly soon that might address directly some of the specific issues that have been raised by this. We are very much in support of creating a broader context for these ongoing conversations. Our Equality and Diversity Lead is pleased to be part of that planning conversation to help take this forward in creative ways and for this matter to be part of the ongoing conversation both within our E&D Forum and our broader community. Ken Loach, an alumnus of St Peter’s College, has been invited by the College and The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities to speak about two of his films. These films form part of a distinguished filmmaking career. This is the latest in a run of occasions on which Ken Loach has been invited to speak in College, all of which have previously been very well received by students. The event will be respected as advertised and we look forward to a good conversation about the films on this occasion. Significant concerns about the event have been brought clearly to the attention of College and College is committed to creating further opportunities for these concerns to be properly respected and discussed within College. St Peter’s stands vigorously against all forms of discrimination and always seeks to support students who are discriminated against. In the context of the current conversation, College affirms without reservation its very strong opposition to anti-semitism. It recognises the appalling atrocities that anti-semitism has wrought and can bring. While not believing that no-platforming is the way to pursue goals of a free and open academic community, it is committed to supporting students who find such decisions painful and to finding ways to address these questions within College as part of a broader, ongoing conversation.
New Anti-Semitism at Oxford
Arriving in Oxford in 2001, the issue of Anti-Semitism in Oxford has arisen directly effecting Jewish students and faculty at the university: the campaign to boycott Israeli academics in 2003, was initiated in April 2002 by Hilary and Steven Rose who called for a moratorium of European research collaboration with Israel, followed by Sue Blackwell in 2005. These efforts effected Israeli students, when Andrew Wilkie in 2003 barred an Israeli student from studying in his department, and individual Jewish students receiving bias against subjects of their research relating to Israel. A graduate Jewish student had his masters rejected for writing about Israel on a subject deemed unsuitable. The effort to boycott Israeli academics however failed in Oxford; the Chancellor of the university, Lord Patten, called it academic treason.
2013
A further effort was made for Oxford Junior Common Rooms to support a motion for OUSU’s name to be included in the NUS motion to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel in 2013. An effort led by Eylon Levy and fellow students however managed to rally the common rooms to overwhelmingly vote against the motion 6 to 1.
During that year there was also a debate at the Oxford Union, entitled ‘This House Believes A Two-State Solution in the Middle East is Unattainable.’ As a show of support for Israel, this motion was rejected 63-37. This followed a similar motion in 2007 for a one-state solution at the Oxford Union which was defeated 191-60.
It was at this time, February, 2013, that an Oxford college, Christ Church, invited The Respect party MP for Bradford West, George Galloway to speak against Israel in a debate. The BDS movement however distanced itself from George Galloway after the MP stormed out of a debate on Israel’s West Bank settlements at Christ Church upon learning that his opponent, third-year PPEist Eylon Aslan-Levy, is an Israeli citizen. According to Eylon Levy, the incident went as follows:
George Galloway agreed to debate Eylon as a one on one. Galloway promised ahead that he would ‘annihilate’ his opponent. Galloway arrived late, but the debate was about the two-state solution. He gave his speech why Israel should not exist. Eylon gave his speech why it should exist, and during the debate, Eylon used the word: ‘we.’ Galloway interrupted and said: ‘you said we, are you an Israeli?’ Eylon’s parents are Israeli so he has an Israeli passport. Eylon said: ‘yes, I am.’ Galloway said: ‘I have been misled, I don’t recognize Israel and I don’t debate Israelis.’ He got up and stormed out of the room. Everyone gasped, Eylon finished his speech and everyone stood and clapped. Reflecting the Anti-Semitic nature of Galloway’s behaviour, discriminating against an Israeli student because of his nationality, a spokesman for the Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign moved to distance itself from Galloway's actions, saying the movement rejected "all forms of racism, including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism".
2016 Labour club
A serious outbreak of Anti-Semitism, however, broke out in 2016, when a student revealed that it was common for Jewish students to be referred to as ‘zios’ in the Oxford University Labour Club (OULC). The club voted to endorse Israel Apartheid Week, causing the club co-chairman Alex Chalmers to resign, stating that many members had ‘some kind of problem with Jews.’ When the Vice Chancellor attended a Friday night Shabbat dinner at the Oxford University Chabad Society, she responded to a question by saying she was unaware of any Anti-Semitism at Oxford.
October 7th
A line can be drawn however from 2016 to the most intense outbreak of Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism at Oxford after the Hamas attacks of October 7th, 2023, characterised as the worst attack against Jews since the Holocaust, severely traumatising Jewish and Israeli students, some with relatives and friends murdered, or taken hostage, and some without a home to return to, displaced by the war. The response of the university, without a clear condemnation of the attacks, despite having condemned Russia attacks on Ukraine, was a letter by the Vice Chancellor: ‘there is no place for antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian discrimination, or hate directed towards any faith, race, nationality or ethnic group at the University of Oxford.’
Meanwhile, Jews at Oxford became targets of harassment, bullying, and discrimination throughout the university and colleges, causing them to feel isolated, unsafe, and targeted. A frightening, hostile atmosphere for Jewish and Israeli students took over Oxford; over 100 incidents were documented over a six month period. Little support was forthcoming from the university, beyond a letter addressed to all who may be involved in the conflict. Most were not even asked if their families were alive and safe. When sharing their struggles, in some cases, it was met with indifference. At the same time, the city of Oxford became a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students, with calls to boycott Israel, denying its right to exist, with chants of ‘from the river to sea,’ and calls for violence with chants, including ‘globalise the intifada.’ An Israeli child was told they should die because they are a Zionist. An Israeli student was called an: ‘ultra Zionist.’ Oxford Palestinian Society’s instagram account shared caricatures of antisemitic nature, including a hand with a star of David bracelet pouring the blood of Palestinians into a Starbucks cup. At the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies a student in a conversation said: Israelis have ‘a complete and utter lack of humanity.’ An Israeli student was attacked online by another student when found out to be from Israel, blaming them for murder of innocent children. A student in a prestigious scholarship remarked: ‘Zionism is a death cult.’
Support for Hamas
Support for Hamas was rife. One Jewish student was told ‘antisemitic views and attacks of Hamas is a consequence of being oppressed by Jews.’ After students in a college watched the videos of the 7th of October massacre, remarked: “well deserved.” A Jewish student was told by two fellow classmates that Hamas is a part of the ‘resistance.’ An event organised by a faculty hosted a speaker who justified the massacre of the 7th of October, claiming it was simply an act of “armed resistance”. On the 9th of October, Oxford PalSoc Instagram account published a post justifying Hamas offense. A student denied Hamas’ terrorist actions, alleging that Israeli hostages were treated well by Hamas. A professor at a department retweeted: ‘it seems as if Hitler has won,’ as well as threads downplaying antisemitism and Palestinians having a right to defend themselves, justifying the Hamas terrorist attacks. Another professor called the attacks: ‘a strong message.’ A faculty member remarked at a teach-in about the war in Gaza: ‘October 7th was justified, and understood where it was coming from.’
Students denied sexual violence occurred on the 7th of October, and claimed Israel planned the massacre as pretence to occupy Gaza. An MCR motioned a statement justifying the atrocities of October 7th as resistance, understood in the context of occupation and settler colonisation. On a motion whether to condemn Hamas, students commented: ‘Hamas has nothing to do with genocide,’ despite its charter calls for ethnic cleansing of all Jews. Others said: deaths of Israeli civilians were irrelevant because there are no two sides in a genocide. An Israeli student who shared an acquaintance with one of the hostages kidnapped by Hamas and subsequently released, was told that Israeli people cannot be counted as victims as they are oppressing everyone. Another Israeli student was told antisemitic views of Hamas is a direct consequence of being oppressed by Jews. In an Oxford scholarship mailing list, a student denied that women were raped and sexually mutilated by Hamas. On the 8th of October, a member of St Cross college shared: ‘resistance is always justified.’ An Israeli faculty member was told: ‘I can’t believe you were so stupid to believe Palestinians raped Jewish women.’ The Oxford University Newcomers’ Club’s mailing list to hundreds had members calling Israeli members ignorant, racist, pathetic, and colonial members of an occupant terror state, with some justifying the attack on the 7th of October as rightful expression of oppressed people. Some student wore pins: ‘Intifada until victory.’ In October, a university department hosted a speaker who denied 7th of October took place. A student wrote on a college’s MCR group: the attack was justified - it was an operation by Palestinian liberation fighters. A professor, who compared lack of criticism towards Israel to villages near Auschwitz, remarked he understands Hamas terrorists because many of them lost their parents during the conflict.
A number of JCR and MCR statements, ignoring the Hamas atrocities, justified them ‘being a part of a history 75 years of occupation of Palestine by Israel.’ When a Jewish student complained about the one-sidedness at the department, the supervisor responded: ‘There aren’t two sides, Israel is a terrorist state and there’s nothing else.’ In an interview on social media a professor argued: ‘by launching the attack on Israel, Hamas sent a powerful message the Palestinians will not be sidelined, and Palestinian “resistance” is not dead.’ During the week of the 7th Oct, social media posts of university members, faculty and students alike, praised Hamas with statements like: ‘victory for the Palestinian resistance, etc. An Israeli fellow was told not to grieve since they have access to shelters. The local branch of UCU voted for a motion for a third ‘intifada until victory.’ The motion was withdrawn due to legal concerns, but after the university media platforms and faculties had distributed the motion, without any objection from the university. A scholarship mailing list, a few days after the attack, claimed Israel knew ahead of the Hamas attack, and used it to justify erasing Gaza and genocide.
JCR and MCR motions
Every JCR and MCR filed one-sided motions against Israel in support of the encampments, with no mention of the 7th October attacks, and call on the University of Oxford and individual colleges to implement the demands of Oxford Actions for Palestine (OA4P):
· Disclosure of Assets: OA4P calls for the University to annually disclose a comprehensive account of all college assets, including direct and indirect investments, land holdings, donations, and grants.
· Divestment: They demand immediate divestment from all arms companies and a pledge to divest from companies complicit in Israeli actions within five years.
· Overhaul of Investment Policy: This includes expanding ethical restrictions on investments to include all arms and military technology companies, and adding restrictions on companies complicit in Israeli actions.
· Institutional Boycotts: OA4P calls for boycotting institutional relationships with organizations that support Israeli actions.
· Rebuilding Gaza: They also demand that the university help rebuild educational institutions in Gaza that have been affected by the conflict.
An amendment was added to the motion, initially proposed at Pembroke college’s JCR, following a Jewish student raising an Anti-Semitic experience, arguing against the motion. The amendment accused Jews of weaponizing Anti-Semitism to silence legitimate criticism of Israel. This amendment was however eventually removed.
In addition to JCR and MCR motions, Oxford academic members of the University and College Union (UCU) debated a motion calling for “intifada until victory” – a term referencing violent uprising - against Israel at a meeting of union members. The motion stated that the branch believes that “only a mass uprising on both sides of the green line and across the Middle East can free the Palestinian people”.
Boycott as Anti-Semitic
The connection between the boycott of Israel and Anti-Semitism is made by David Hirsch: ‘The actual intentions of people who support this boycott are positive and antiracist; they want to help Palestinians. But were it to be instituted, the boycott would be in effect if not intent an antisemitic measure; it would normalise an exclusive focus on Jews as fit targets for exclusion and punishment.’ Larry Summers, while President of Harvard University, called BDS “anti-Semitic in effect, if not in intent.”
Vigils for the hostages
Displays for the release of the hostages were vandalised and vigils were faced with derogatory, violent comments. Posters of hostages, were torn down and often replaced with pro-Palestinian stickers. At vigils for the hostages, students shouted slogans and vandalised displays for the hostages. On one occasion, two Israeli volunteers, removing a display, coordinated with university security, mistakenly coincided with an organised pro Palestinian group, mostly students at the university, with their faces covered, tasked with destroying the displays.
Harassment
Two Israeli faculty members were confronted by students about the war. Jewish and Israeli students were targeted for harassment at university, accused of being Nazis, child-murderers, some were told: ‘Jews control the US government,’ Jews control the banks’, ‘Jews are everywhere,’ and that there are ‘too many Jews at the university,’ making it impossible to speak about the war. A Jewish student was called a Zionist, sucking up to Israel, working for the Israeli government, others were called Nazi settlers, having a Jewish nose, and that responsibility for the attacks on Israel lies only with Israel. A student was told not to put a Mezuzah on their door, as it attracts attention, while another student had his mezuzah ripped off. One student said they wouldn't date a Jew. This climate of hate caused many Jewish and Israeli students to hide their identity, out of fear of being targeted, while others stopped attending classes, going into college, and using the library. Some rusticated for two terms, feeling unsafe and unwelcome, while some considered terminating their studies all-together. 20 incidences of harassment were reported by one person, over 12 months, as he stood out for being Jewish, another was sworn at on their way to synagogue. Despite reporting, no arrests were made. Jewish students were advised by non-Jewish friends not to say their Jewish, or to wear a star of David necklace. One said: ‘glad you’re not in the room half the time, the stuff people say is completely unhinged.’ Students were told: every Israeli in culpable, Zionist crazies should go back to America, must be a Mossad agent. In a conversation about the Holocaust, a Jewish student was told: ‘everyone suffered during WWII.’
A Jewish student was harassed online: ‘all Israelis are spiteful and hateful.’ A member of the Law Faculty spoke about: ‘Israeli control over the media.’ An Israeli student was told Jewish money controls the UN, therefore it legitimises the attacks on Gaza. An Israeli student reported a classmate said: ‘zionism is racism.’ The same was said by an Oxford professor in a public event. An Israeli student was told all Israeli people wish to “cleanse Arabs”. An Israeli student was also told by a colleague all Israelis hate Palestinians and are naturally racist. An Israeli student was told to be ashamed of themself for asking their MCR to recognise Israeli deaths alongside Palestinian ones, calling them ignorant, racist, and supporters of genocide. Another Israeli student was accused of killing children in Gaza due to their nationality. An Israeli faculty member was persistently harassed to admit genocide was being performed. Stickers were put up on around the city and campus: ‘Israel Loves Genocide.’ In protests organised by Oxford Action for Palestine, at the university administration building, on 23rd May, 2024, protesters chanted: ‘Israelis are terrorists and Israel is a terror state.’
Singling out and harassment of a Jewish students on the street happened in the following case: ‘I was walking to the park on Shabbat with a couple of friends, wearing a kippah (no Israeli flag or pin, etc). To get to the park we had to walk past where the encampment was, the original encampment outside Pitt Rivers Museum, next to uni park. I basically said: I just want to go to the park, I didn’t want any confrontation, so I’m going to walk on the other side of the road, a very wide road.’ I walked on the other side of the road, and keep walking, not to attract any attention. What happened was, a group of students were walking towards us, one of the guys walking towards us was a friend of mine. Like anyone does on the street, when you see a friend, you say ‘hello, how it going.’ After maybe speaking for about one minute, one of the guards from one of the colleges, I had seen about a minute prior, was watching me the whole time, walks around, comes over and points me out from a group of about ten of us, says: ‘You! Keep on walking!’ He was a hired external security guard for a ball Keble college was having that night. So I said: ‘why?’ He said: ‘You are being provocative.’ I said: ‘what am I doing that is provocative?’ I took my kippah off and said: ‘is this what is provocative to you?’ He said: no, you are allowed to wear whatever you want.’ So I said: ‘ok, so why are you singling me out of a group of ten people, telling me ‘walk on, because I am being provocative?’ He said: ‘I saw you looking at the camp.’ I said: ‘with all due respect, the whole point of the encampment is to look at it, and there are thousands of people are walking up and down this street every day, probably one of the busiest streets in Oxford, everyone is looking at the camp. I imagine nine of the people I am with looked at the camp. We are standing out here having a conversation about football – I was fuming, I was very upset.’
Social exclusion
Jewish and Israeli students in many cases were made to feel excluded from university life. In one case, a friend of an Israeli student was told to sever contact with their Israeli friend, for supporting genocide. An Israeli student shared that a student said in their classroom she does not want to sit with Zionists in the same class. Students in Worcester college petitioned to halt funding from a scholarship meant for Israeli students. With calls for violence heard in Pro-Palestinian protests at Oxford, including: Palestine from the river to the see, intifada, the resistance is justified, globalise the intifada, Israel is a terror state, from Oxford to Gaza: long live the intifada, “Israel, Oxford, USA, how many kids did you kill today – areas of Oxford including work places, when protests took place, became no-go area for Israelis and Jewish students. A professor singled out an Israeli student, upon identifying them, in front of the class to ask their opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When students were asked to contribute songs from their own winter holidays at a Holiday themed bop in their college, a Jewish student was told not to play a proposed Hanukkah song because of the situation in Israel. An Oxford college cancelled its participation in a co-organised annual Hanukkah party, since conducting it this year will be too explosive.
A student remarked in a class: ‘obviously Jewish pride is a bad thing.’ When a college’s Faiths and Beliefs JCR representative asked a student if they were Jewish, responding yes, the representative said: ‘what about Israel?’ Students petitioned for a prestigious scholarship to cut ties with donors who fund the Israeli places in the scholarship. When a German non-Jewish student asked for a motion at Merton College JCR to include release of the hostages in a statement, he was publicly ostracised by fellow students at the college. At the Business School of Government, nobody asked an Israeli student how your families are, no one is talking to Israelis. When Nicky Haley came to the school, they posted on the WhatsApp group that only the Palestinian girl can ask questions. Someone asked: what about the Americans? Can they ask questions too? No one replied. When others raise their hands, got picked for questions, they would defer only to the Palestinian. At the Business School of Government, it’s impossible to say that you support Israel. The class is really political, they all worked in government. If you have pro-Israel opinions, you will have no friends, no one to talk to. One girl, an American, who had lots of friends, mentioned she supports Israel, and now she has no friends. No one talks to her.
Denial of Israel’s right to exist
Denial of Israel’s to exist became commonplace, sometimes cloaked in the argument for one state. A post in a student group invited people to a lecture titled: “Palestine: is one state possible?” together with the map of Israel covered with the Palestinian flag. In another post, a moderator wrote: ‘From today, I stop using the term Israel and instead Occupied State of Palestine. Let us all change the narrative and delete that name forever.’ A Law Faculty DPhil student said: ‘we could solve this by dissolving Israel.’ A student was told: ‘all Israelis are racist.’ It was common for events for Palestine in university departments to be advertised with a picture of the state of Israel merged with the Palestinian territories, covered with the Palestinian flag or a Kafiye. A Jewish student was told that Israelis are settlers, and they get skin cancer because they are ‘white’ and not ‘native’ to the Middle-East. A student said: ‘Palestinians welcomed Jews before they stole all their land; they used to live peacefully until Zionism came along.’
No Anti-Semitism
Jewish students were denied the right to claim they were experiencing Anti-Semitism. A speaker at the Oxford Department of International Development, said: ‘There is no such thing as antisemitism today, and if you are accused of being antisemitic, ignore them’ (Palestine Discussion Series, 15.11.23). Another said: ‘antisemitism was being weaponised as a Zionist plot.’ A Jewish student’s presence at a BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) formal dinner was questioned because: ‘Jews don't count.’ When a Jewish student was bullied with an antisemitic stereotype, the student union responded they do not understand the antisemitic nature of the incident, advising against reporting, as it would invite further victimisation and present the aggressor as a ‘victim of Zionist silencing.’ In a motion by Wadham College Student Union, it warned of ‘tokenisation and weaponization of Jewish identity.’ An admin of a college MCR chat, when confronted about advertising the encampments, responded: ‘its gross to be concerned about antisemitism.’ An Oxford professor interviewed about campus antisemitism said: ‘I think that as far as Oxford is concerned, there is absolutely no basis for claims of antisemitism or students feeling uncomfortable, let alone threatened.’ Another speaker argued: Jewish people are ‘white.’ When an Israeli student complained of antisemitism, a student shouted: ‘but you can’t ignore what’s going on in Gaza.’ An amendment was added to JCR and MCR motions, initially proposed at Pembroke college’s JCR, accusing Jews of weaponizing Anti-Semitism to silence legitimate criticism of Israel. This amendment was however eventually removed from the motion.
Encampments
During the summer term, 2024, encampments were set up for two months on university grounds by Oxford Action for Palestine, first outside the Museum of Natural History on the 6th May, and a second on the 19th May, outside the Radcliffe Camera, opposite the Bodleian Library. A list of demands, displayed for the university to agree to, included a complete boycott of Israel. The university allowed these encampments to remain in place until the 27th June, when notice was given to disband by 7th July. The encampments were supported were advertised by college common rooms college. The statement released upon the setting of the encampments called Israel a colonial state and demanded a general boycott of Israel, Israeli institutions. To be a part of the encampment, an obligatory sign-up manifesto was instituted, in which the organisers use the term ‘zionist entity,’ instead of Israel. 667 faculty members released a letter in support of the encampment, as well as the local UCU branch.
Oxford Union
Extreme hostility to Israel and open support for Hamas spilled out into the open in a debate at the Oxford Union on 28 November, 2024, tabling a motion, which overwhelmingly passed, 278 to 59, entitled: ‘This House Believes Israel Is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide.’ The speakers in proposition were ‘poet’ Mohammed El-Kurd, Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, Susan Abulhawa, and activist Miko Peled. For the opposition were: Jonathan Sacerdoti, Natasha Hausdorff, Yoseph Haddad, and Mosab Hassan Yousef. The hostile framing of the motion already clarified the bias against Israel, compared, let’s say, to the motion a few months earlier, on 22nd February 2024, on the Russia - Ukraine war: ‘This House believes Ukraine should negotiate with Russia to end the war now.’ The actual event, according to those who attended, was not a debate but a show-trial: the president of the union, instead of moderating, took sides, speaking for the motion. The first speaker, Mohammed El-Kurd began his speech: ‘there is no room for debate,’ and ended by storming out of the chamber, after saying that he refused to share a platform with his opponents. Miko Peled, who supported the motion, openly supported Hamas, saying: ‘What happened on October 7 was not terrorism - these were acts of heroism!’ When a Jewish student intervened with a point of order saying glorification of terror is a criminal offense, Peled responded: ‘Arrest me!’ to cheers from the audience. The wide support of Hamas by the audience was also evident when Mosab Hassan Yousef, who spoke against the proposition, asked for a show of hands, if they had had advance knowledge of the 7 October attacks, would have warned Israel. Less than a quarter of the crowd raised their hands. Jonathan Sacerdoti, who spoke against the motion, was heckled with expletives and called a ‘genocidal maniac.’ Natasha Hausdorff, who also spoke against the proposition, subscribed the debate ‘a dark moment in the Oxford Union’s history,’ while The Daily Telegraph called it: ‘The night that Anti-Semitism at Oxford spun out of control.’
Public displays of hate
This hostile atmosphere saw hate symbols drawn on university property. A number of swastikas were carved into toilet doors in one inside Regent's Park College, on May 22nd 2024. The Dean of the college wrote that it was an act stemming from feelings running high in College. Another swastika was discovered on the front sign of the Chabad Jewish student centre on George St, on the anniversary of the attacks, on 7th October, 2024.
Cancellation of speakers
During this period of trauma for Jewish students at Oxford, Jewish student societies were subject to speakers cancelling their engagements or not willing to commit. A senior member of the University cancelled her address at the OU Chabad Society, a head of college cancelled his appearance twice, a head of college cancelled ‘partly due to the setting up of the Gaza support encampment on the lawn of the Museum of Natural History,’ while some heads of college politely declined. A renowned author wrote in February, 2024, first: ‘There are just too many competing elements in my life at present,’ but then clarified: ‘this is not a good time for me to interact with any Jewish community. I hope you understand.’ After being pressed, she wrote: ‘Over the past four months I have found it increasingly difficult to express my agony over the massacre of the population of Gaza when in the company of people who are practising Jews. I understand that they too are experiencing their own agony, but am extremely troubled by the killing of tens of thousands of Gazans, and the impact this has on the rest of the world. I meant to say nothing of this to you, but am concerned that you don’t leap to any assumptions. I am ardently against discrimination of any sort.’
Antisemitic at departments
According to Professor Cary Nelson the biggest problem is ‘Anti-Semitic’ departments at universities, where views are bias against Israel, not allowing broader, dissenting opinions that does not fit with a set narrative. This problem relates specifically to the subject of the Middle East, where leading academics at the Middle East centre are what Benny Morris calls ‘new historians’ defined by a new trend in Israeli historiography that sharply criticized the traditional hagiographic “Zionist” approach to writing Israeli history (Journey of Israeli History 41:2). A professor from the Middle East Centre spoke at a Friday night Shabbat dinner to the Jewish students, in 2011, arguing if only Israel would withdraw to international recognised boundaries there would be peace. Some of the faculty have openly supported Hamas. Many Jewish student complain about the set course about Israel at the university covers colonialism, discrimination against Sephardim and full litany of other negative tropes about Israeli society and its founding. In an article by Taylor and Francis in 2024, it states: ‘This is not to say that (Oxford) Middle East Centre has not – at times, and perhaps unfairly – been accused of harbouring an anti-Israel bias.’
Dismissing complaints
Complaints about hostility against Jewish and Israeli students were dismissed by the university. One director of studies responded: ‘get over antisemitism,’ while a college warden said they are uncomfortable about hosting a meeting in the college about tackling antisemitism. When a student was called a ‘Zionist Nazi’ at a protest taking place outside the department, the faculty called the protest ‘freedom of speech,’ while the Vice Chancellor referred them to the police, instead of harassment procedure. When a complaint was made to faculty about the hostile climate, the response was: ‘Oxford is often not a nice place for Israelis and Jews, and nothing can be done about it.’ Another student was advised to leave Oxford. When a nominee for NUS had antisemitic statements in his manifesto about the war, it was reported to the harassment team, who referred it dismissingly to the student union, who ignored the report altogether. When an Israeli student reported hate speech they received at the college to the provost, the student was sent a copy of the university’s official statement. When the provost shared the student’s message (without consent) with the college advisor, there was likewise no response. When an Israeli student complained to college about derogatory remarks made to them by other students, the college administrator said there is nothing to do. When pursued with the faculty, the report was also not followed up.
When reports of Anti-Semitism were been written about in the national press, the response of the University was to meet in person with groups of students and student and Jewish chaplaincy leadership. In one case, when an active student responded mass to faculty about the issue of Anti-Semitism at Oxford, the student was invited to a private meeting, which caused the student to be admitted to a mental hospital for two weeks due to the stress.
In one college, straight after Oct 7th, people put on the college JCR facebook group chat links celebrating Oct 7th. When the college was contacted, no action was taken. In 4th or 5th week of the term, flags were everywhere, offensive Anti-Semitic things were being posted in group chats, but the college did nothing. After writing to the JCR president, saying why Jewish students feel unsafe, and justifying Oct 7th is Anti-Semitic, they responded they don’t feel comfortable asking the woman who posted that post to take it down. When contacting the college, after back and forth for a few weeks, they suggested to go to the welfare office, clarifying, this is freedom of speech and if one feels uncomfortable it’s their problem. They told the person that she made Jewish students feel uncomfortable, but she responded she doesn’t feel comfortable taking it down.
Friday Group
The issue of Anti-Semitism at Oxford led to the setting up of a group to respond formally to the issue at Oxford, called the Friday Group, periodically meeting online on Friday mornings. The group includes around fifty individuals, consisting of faculty, students and local community, including representatives of some of the Jewish organisations serving the Jewish students at Oxford. The landscape for combatting Anti-Semitism on university campuses in the UK is summarised in the ‘CST Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2022-2024’ report: There are currently over 9,000 Jewish students studying at universities across the United Kingdom, with a total of 86 active Jewish societies offering students a rich engagement with Jewish cultural and religious life during the entirety of their university experience. Both Jewish students and societies are supported by numerous communal organisations, chief amongst them are the Union of Jewish Students (UJS), University Jewish Chaplaincy (UJC) and Chabad. All of these organisations are essential in providing Jewish students access to Friday night dinners, lunch and learns, socials, guest speaker events and holiday festivities during term time.’ It is vital for efforts to combat Anti-Semitism to be as inclusive as possible, since this effort can be most effective when working collaboratively.
IHRA
The formal response by the university to the many incidences of Anti-Semitism at Oxford was they did rise to the level of the definition of Anti-Semitism or they did not ‘see their antisemitic nature.’ The reason for this is, Oxford University, unlike the UK government, distinguishes between Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism in intent. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) defined antisemitism in 2016 as a prejudice or discrimination against Jewish people based on hatred or hostility. This follows in principle the Oxford dictionary definition above, however, it offers clarity by including a number of examples relating to Israel, including: 1. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor; 2. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation; 3. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; 4. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. This definition with its examples has been accepted by countries, including the UK, and many universities around the world.
While Oxford accepted in principle the IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism, two caveats, recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee, were added to ensure ‘freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate.’ The caveats insist there must be also evidence of Anti-Semitic intent: a. It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent. b. It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent. These caveats in effect permits a radical agenda to boycott Israel, deny Israel’s to exist, call Jewish students ‘zios,’ set up hostile encampments and a dossier of 100 incidents against Jewish and Israeli students, since their Anti-Semitic intent cannot be proven. This view however was countered by the UK government since it permits in result and practice Anti-Semitism, as argued above by David Hirsch, and evidenced by this study. Nevertheless, Oxford and other universities, adheres to the IHRA only with the above caveats, and certainly does not view racism, as stipulated by the Macpherson definition, as ‘any incident perceived as racist by the victim or any other person,’ when it comes to the experiences of Jewish students.
Response
At a lecture in Oxford, in Aug, 2025, delivered at the summer institute of the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy (ISGAP), by Professor Emeritus of English and Jubilee Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois, Prof. Cary Nelson, proposed the following key policies, among others, to be implemented on university campuses to effectively tackle Anti-Semitism:
1. Expressly forbid department or admin units heads from making political or controversial statements and any such statement taken down.
2. Make a stronger opposition of academic boycott – Israel, China, whatever.
3. Add a statement to employment that repeated Anti-Semitic speech or postings on social media or any other public forums is grounds for denial of employment, tenure, etc.
4. Students group may reject members who do not accept defined mission.
5. Students group may not deny students on basis of race, religion, political belief not relevant to the group’s mission.
6. All religious group facilities should have their security enforced by university – paid for and guaranteed by university personnel.
7. Courses on Jewish history, culture and Anti-Semitism should be part of permanent campus curriculum.
8. Clear penalties for provable cases of Anti-Semitic harassment. Receive due process, but judgement is severe. Student should be expelled, and faculty loss of job.
9. Accept in full, without caveats, the IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism.
Finding meaning in a history of persecution
The long history of Anti-Semitism reflects the history of the past two millennium. Leon Poliakov writes in his foreword to The History of Anti-Semitism: there are two hypotheses on the origin of modern Anti-Semitism: a. Anti-Semitism that arises out of Christendom, b. by virtue of the mysterious design of Providence, Jews have been assigned a role among the nations, playing it first among the so-called Noachian peoples – those practicing a religion that derives from the Hebrew Bible. This is reflected in an interpretation of the statement in the Talmud (Pesachim 87b): ‘G-d performed a charitable deed toward Israel in that He scattered them [pizran] among the nations.’
What should be a response to this phenomenon and how to find meaning and purpose within it? Two approaches to Anti-Semitism have been assimilation or enclave. These responses may mitigate friction, but does not deal with the issue: the inability for society to embrace the other. A further approach is to be steadfast in one’s identity and focus on education in society. This positive approach is found in the work of R. Menachem M. Schneerson, known as the Rebbe (1902-1994), who saw the Russia Revolution in Ukraine in 1917, witnessed the rise of Nazi Germany in 1933, and invasion of Paris in 1940. He fled, first to Vichy, then to Lisbon, from where he escaped to America, in June, 1941. His wife’s sister, Sheina, and husband perished in the Holocaust and lost his father, R. Levi Yitzchak Schneerson, in exile in the Soviet Union in 1939. His life’s aim was to combat Anti-Semitism and rebuild Jewish life after the Holocaust.
Strengthening Jewish identity
The strengthening of Jewish identity and the role of education in society can be found in a number of correspondence and lectures. In 1969, when Jews fled a Brooklyn neighborhood due to racial tension, he wrote: ‘should a Jew feel so insecure and have an inferiority complex?’ In 1970, regarding Soviet Jewry, he wrote: the antidote is strengthening the principle that Jews are responsible for one another in a positive way. Every extra effort in observing Judaism on behalf of our unfortunate brethren who are not free to observe, will directly benefit them, in precisely the same way as benefit to one part of the body benefits the whole. In 1977, to a Ukrainian Jewish socialist, he wrote: ‘since we cannot rely on the kindness of nations, it is vitally necessary that Jews everywhere should turn their hearts and minds inward, and strengthen identification with our spiritual heritage, a unifying force that has preserved our people through the ages - a tiny minority in a hostile world.’ In 1982, regarding Terezin Requiem, when Jewish prisoners played Verdi’s Requiem 16 times, directed by Rafael Schächter, as a form of resistance against the Nazis, in Theresienstadt, he wrote: ‘Anti-Jewish feeling has recently grown worse. What is important, however, is to remember the best memorial is the strengthening of a Jewish way of life.’
Education
In addition to strengthening Jewish identity, he proposed an effort to educate universal ethics and morality. In 1973, he suggested:[2] ‘the reason for Anti-Semitism - and indifference during the Holocaust - is the inability to be altruistic.’ In 1975 he wrote: ‘Jews have a duty to encourage universal ethics and morality, law and order, without which no human society can long survive.’ In 1982, he argued: ‘discrimination against minorities is a reflection of a society that does not live up to the Divine moral precepts for all humanity, as stated in Genesis (9:1-17). In 1981, he further said: the aim of the Jewish people is to illuminate the world and make it an abode for the Divine, through education to observe the moral precepts stated in the seven Noahide laws, so behaviour of nations is to be with ‘true humanity’ (a-nu-shi-yut a-mi-tit).[3]
A key aspect of the moral precepts is the belief in G-d. The idea that belief in G-d is a basis for morality is the underlying concept of many narratives in the Torah, including the story of the flood (Genesis 6:11), Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:4), Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:20), as well as the Book of Jonah, where it states (Jonah 3:5): ‘The people of Nineveh believed G-d. They proclaimed a fast, and great and small alike put on sackcloth.’ Maimonides, laws of kings (8:10) writes: ‘Moses was commanded by the Almighty to compel all the inhabitants of the world to accept the commandments given to Noah’s descendants.’ Applying this teaching,[4] in 1962, he supported prayer in public schools in America. In 1963,[5] he argued moral Noahide laws for all of humanity are Sinaitic, as the rest of Jewish law. Relating to Anti-Semitism, in 1980,[6] and 1983,[7] respectively, he made the argument that education about both belief in G-d and upholding principles of charity can combat Anti-Semitism and prevent another Holocaust, suggesting the secularisation of history,[8] contributed to the horrors of the Holocaust.[9]
Hope
The Fast of the 9th of Av marks the time of the destruction of the two Jerusalem Temples, in 586BCE by the Babylonians and 70CE by the Romans, and the onset of exile, giving rise to Anti-Semitism for two millennium. There are two ideas which run through this day: a. tragedy in the past and present, and b. knowledge of hope for a better future. It is the recognition of the first that gives rise to the latter, imbuing a history of discrimination with meaning and ultimate purpose.
Lamentations
The principle text that conveys this duality is the book of Lamentations, by Jeremiah, with a commentary by the great grandfather of Oxford philosopher, Sir Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997), R. Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch, known as the Tzemach Tzedek (1789-1866). In his commentary to Lamentations, he offers a dual interpretation: how a verse may refer both to a curse and blessing. We will explore a few of such cases:
1. Alone
Verse 1 in Lamentations states: ‘Alas! Lonely sits the city once great with people! She that was great among nations. Is become like a widow; The princess among states is become a thrall.’ One can find a deeper meaning in this verse with a positive interpretation. It states in Psalms 48:2: ‘The L-rd is great and much acclaimed in the city of our G-d, His holy mountain.’ The phrase ‘city’ is thus ‘G-d’s kingship’ (malchut), which receives from and becomes one with the ‘ten sefirot’ above it. In exile, the idea of ‘lonely’ refers to the leper (metzora), who sits alone, as in Leviticus 13:46: ‘Being impure, that person shall dwell apart - in a dwelling outside the camp.’ This refers to an absence of the unity of G-d.’ The verse further states: ‘become like a widow:’ this refers to the inability for the soul to ascend and become one with G-d (kingship - malchut). ‘Once great with people’ refers to the rule over the seventy celestial ministers. ‘The princess among states’ refers to the three spiritual worlds.
In this passage and others in Lamentations (p. 391), R. Menachem Mendel, however, interprets the verses in the form of their transformation into a blessing, as it states in Deuteronomy 23:6: ‘But your G-d, your L-rd, refused to heed Balaam; instead, your G-d turned the curse into a blessing for you, for your G-d loves you.’ Thus, the idea of ‘alone’ mentioned in Lamentations can be found in Lamentations 3:28: ‘He sits alone in meditative stillness; indeed, he receives [reward] for it.’ Rashi explains its meaning: ‘Whoever was befallen by mourning and trouble should sit alone and wait for good [to come], for the Master of Decrees has put this decree upon him.’ The sages (Ethics of the Fathers 3:2), however, derived from this verse: ‘even one who sits and studies Torah the Holy One, blessed be He, fixes his reward, as it is said: “though he sit alone and [meditate] in stillness, yet he takes [a reward] unto himself” (Lamentations 3:28).’ In this context, ‘alone’ can mean alone with G-d.
2. Bitterly she weeps in the night
Verse 2 states despondently: ‘Bitterly she weeps in the night, her cheek wet with tears. There is none to comfort her of all her friends. All her allies have betrayed her; They have become her foes.’ The phrase: ‘she weeps in the night’ is understood in the context of Jeremiah 31:9: ‘They shall come with weeping, and with compassion will I guide them. I will lead them to streams of water, by a level road where they will not stumble. For I am ever a Father to Israel, Ephraim is My first-born.’ Weeping comes from an overwhelming revelation of G-d, as is the case with literal weeping overwhelmed by emotions, since even at ‘night’ (exile) there is ‘light,’ as it states in Psalms 139:12: ‘darkness is not dark for You; night is as light as day; darkness and light are the same.’ The phrase: ‘There is none to comfort her' – the Hebrew word: ‘ein’ (none) can be read with the same Hebrew letters: ‘ayin’ (from where?) as in Psalms 121:1: ‘I turn my eyes to the mountains; from where (m’ayin) will my help come,’ referring to G-d, as the verse continues: ‘My help comes from the L-rd, maker of heaven and earth.’ Similarly, the word ‘ein’ can be read with the same letters: ‘ani’ (I), meaning: it is I (G-d) who will comfort her, as in Isaiah 44:6: ‘Thus said G-d, the Sovereign of Israel, their Redeemer, G-d of Hosts: I am the first and I am the last, And there is no god but Me.’
3. Judah has gone into exile
Verse 3 states: ‘Judah has gone into exile because of misery and harsh oppression; When she settled among the nations, she found no rest; All her pursuers overtook her in the narrow places.’ In this verse, the word ‘galtah’ (exile) has the same etymological route as ‘giluy’ (revelation). This is made possible through being ‘settled among the nations,’ as the Talmud (Pesachim 87b) states: ‘G-d performed a charitable deed toward Israel in that He scattered them [pizran] among the nations.’ In this context, the phrase: ‘All her pursuers overtook her in the narrow places’ also refers to G-d, as it states in Psalms 23:6: ‘Only goodness and steadfast love shall pursue me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the L-rd for many long years.’ The phrase ‘narrow places’ refers to exile, but also refers to the revelation of G-d, which transcends comprehension (supernal narrowness), as in the statement in the Tikkune Zohar: ‘no thought can comprehend Him.’
The Jewish people are therefore called a ‘hind’ in Psalms 22:1: ‘For the leader; on ayyeleth ha-shaḥar, a psalm of David.’ ‘Ayyeleth ha-shaḥar’ has two interpretations (Rashi): a. the name of an instrument, and b. concerning the nation of Israel, which is a beloved hind (ayelet hahavim), who looks forth like the dawn (Song of Songs 6:10). The Talmud (Yoma 29a) expounds on the desirability of the narrowness of the hind: ‘Why is Esther likened to a hind? It is to tell you: Just as in the case of a hind its womb is narrow and it is desirable to its mate at each and every hour like it is at the first hour, so too, Esther was desirable to Ahasuerus at each and every hour like she was at the first hour.’ By meditating how the whole world is merely a drop in an ocean, compared to G-d’s infinite greatness, we can draw from G-d’s revelation, beyond thought can comprehend, as in Psalms 118:5: ‘Out of the constraints, I called on the L-rd; the L-rd answered me and brought me relief.’
Purpose and meaning
The concept behind this dual interpretation is the idea that history in Jewish thought is not cyclical but linear. There are many social history theories, as in Alexandre Deulofeu, who developed a mathematical model of social cycles, which he claimed fit historical facts. He argued that civilizations and empires go through cycles in his book Mathematics of History, written in Catalan, published in 1951. These ideas have been discussed since Aristotle and Plato. George Modelski wrote Long Cycles in World Politics in 1987. The Jewish concept of history as linear is described in the biblical narrative of the 42 journeys of the Jews from Egypt to the Land of Israel in the book of Numbers. There is a starting point and end point in this journey when the Jews arrive at the Jordan river. Meanwhile they travel through a wasteland – the dessert. This is the Jewish history of exile and persecution. The midrash has a fascinating insight with a parable from Midrash (Tanchuma 4:10:3):
R. Tanchuma explained (why these stages are here recorded). A parable! It may be compared to the case of a king whose son was ill and whom he took to a distant place to cure him. When they returned home the father began to enumerate all the stages, saying to him, “Here we slept, here we caught cold, here you had the head-ache, etc.”
The comparison is: the king is G-d and the son is the Jewish people. The child is unwell and being taken on a journey to the spa town for healing, as human beings are imperfect need healing. There are events and sufferings that happens on the way: sleeping, cold and head ache. This refers to the first three stop from Ramses to Sukkot, where they stayed over night before journeying onward. The second is from Sukkot to Eitan, where they received the protection of the clouds of glory. The third is Pi ha-chirot (Mouth of the Rocks), where they complained that they should have rather been buried in Egypt. What is the meaning however of the phrase: When they returned home the father began to enumerate all the stages, since the Jewish people do not return – they continue onward? It refers however also to all the 42 journeys and Jewish history. At the end of which we see the purpose of the journey – the healing of humanity. In this reflection, the stops in the journey and experiences are not random but a long journey of freedom, healing, meaning and at the end we pray for redemption.
Conclusion
The history of Anti-Semitism is as old as the history of the Jewish diaspora itself. In the context of Oxford, its long history combines all its elements: Anti-Judaism in the middle ages, including exclusion until 1856 for students and 1871 for staff, outbursts of Anti-Semitism in the 1930s and 1940s, and more recently the spread of Anti-Semitism in the form of Anti-Zionism, described by Lord Sacks as the new Anti-Semitism: hatred of Jews for having a state of their own, among the nations, in their ancestral homeland. This cloaked Anti-Semitism may be the most challenging. The university is however a radically different place, since 1856, when it began to allow full participation of Jews, and other faith minorities, to study and work at Oxford. Its generosity in supporting German Jewish academics fleeing Nazi Europe in the 1930s, more than any other university in the UK, reflects an institute welcoming to all faiths and remotely racist. There, is however, much work that needs to be done, as reflected in this essay. Jewish history is nevertheless one of hope, as reflected in Jewish teaching, a belief in the power of education for universal morality, and the potential of humanity for good.
[1] Stephen Aris, The Jews in Business (Jonathan Cape, 1970), p. 13-32.
[2] In a letter to Zalman Jaffe (1913-2000).
[3] Hitva’adiyot 5743, vol. 1, p. 392.
[4] Torah Menachem 34:152, 13 Tammuz, 1962.
[5] Likkutei Sichot 4:1094, Shavuot: The discussion takes place on the subject of the decalogue in Deuteronomy 5:19, where it states: ‘a might voice, and He did not cease.’ The idea of the unceasing word of G-d at Sinai, firstly, relates to the idea that the Divine voice continues in the learning of the Torah of each individual, and secondly, the voice heard at Mount Sinai was heard in seventy languages. The latter is manifest in the study of the Torah for Jews and the seven Noahide laws for non-Jews. The universal relevance of the Torah and mitzvot was further developed in a discourse on Simchat Torah, 1969, where a distinction was made between the transcendent nature of the mitzvot and their universal aspect: to refine the human being (Genesis Rabba 44:1). The latter is relevant to every human being through the Seven Noahide Laws that should be upheld as Divine ordinances from Sinai, just as the many additional laws given to Jews at Sinai.
[6] Sichot Kodesh 5741, vol. 1, p. 553-554 (19 Kislev): This is in the context of a question posed on the focus of a letter written by the founder of Chabad, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, known as the Alter Rebbe (1745-1813), upon his release from Tsarist prison in 1798, in which he wrote to R. Levi Yitzchak Barditchev that: ‘unfathomable and marvelous (Isaiah 28:29) is the great and holy name of G-d that it became great and sanctified in public, especially in the eyes of all the ministers and the nations that are in all the provinces of the king (Esther 1:16).’ The Rebbe found perplexing that the Alter Rebbe spoke about the matter of his release in relation to the non-Jew, as opposed to the internal spiritual lesson that may be derived from his release, namely a renewed effort to strengthening the dissemination of the teachings of Chassidut, for which reason it was perceived he had been imprisoned. The answer he gives is that the concept found in this letter – moral behaviour of the non-Jewish officials to release the Alter Rebbe predicated on an acknowledgement of the Divine as the source of moral conduct - is based on the teaching of Maimonides in the laws of kings (8:11): the following of the seven laws of Noah must be based, not on logic, but G-d, since it is only this foundation that guarantees the moral purpose of existence, as mentioned in Isaiah 45:18: ‘G-d did not create the world a waste, but formed it for habitation.’ Drawing on the 12th century work of Maimonides and its 19th century application in the letter of the Alter Rebbe upon his release from Tsarist prison, the Rebbe reapplied this concept as a response to European Anti-Semitism in the 20th century and its tragic consequences in the Holocaust. He argued that the cause of 20th century Anti-Semitism was different than classic Anti-Semitism, namely Christian intolerance of the Jew. It was inspired by ideas found in the works of German philosophy (Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Nietzsche, and Heidegger), that thought human beings are autonomous, rational and ethical individuals, while the Jewish religion and the Jewish nation is heteronomous, i.e. acting in accordance with one's desires rather than reason. This belief led to them being excluded from the body politic of society as the Other. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/004724410403400417?journalCode=jesa). The teachings of the Seven Noahide Laws, as presented by Maimonides, predicated on belief in G-d as the ultimate authority for a human being’s morality, then, opposes German idealism, and would thus also eliminate modern Anti-Semitism.
[7] Torat Menachem Hitvaduyot 5743, vol. 3, p. 1326-1343 (end of Passover). On p. 1334 (section 40), it discusses the importance of promoting the Seven Noahide Laws among the nations for the benefit of the Jews, while living in exile, as was the case during the Holocaust, when there were righteous gentiles – not most or even half of the population – but they nevertheless saved tens of thousands of Jews, because they knew of the concept of charity, and opposed theft and murder.
[8] The rationale is, as German philosopher Karl Lowith, student of Heidegger, argued, 20th century philosophy viewed itself as a secular break with theology but in fact retained the religious idea that history is moving towards a messianic concept of perfection.
[9] Yitshak Krauss argued that the motive of the Rebbe was part of a messianic theme. Naftali Loewenthal (Hasidism Beyond Modernity, p. 121-2) argued that, additionally, with the spread of Chabad chassidim and emissaries worldwide, there was a desire to create a ‘universe of discourse to share perspectives and communicate with the gentiles with whom they came in contact.’ I would like to argue that an important aspect of this was for the Rebbe, as a leader of world Jewry, witnessing the unceasing and even increasing phenomenon of Anti-Semitism in America and worldwide, forty years after the decimation of a third of Jewry in the Holocaust, and the inability of all previous ideas to eradicate it, a new and more effective method should be employed.