On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas launched a coordinated assault on Israel by land, sea and air from the Gaza Strip. The attack killed roughly 1,200 people — mostly Israeli civilians — making it the deadliest day in Israel’s history since its founding. More than 240 individuals were taken hostage.
As a human being, I was horrified by the sheer brutality of these acts. Yet, as an academic, I was perhaps even more disturbed by the wave of virulent anti-Israel demonstrations that erupted the very next day on Oct. 8.
Throughout my career as an international business and marketing professor, I have relied on the case study method to encourage students to critically and contextually analyze events. That is why I find much of The Huntington News’ campus coverage of anti-Israel protests — coverage that often morphs seamlessly into anti-Jewish rhetoric — so disappointing.
A case in point is a recent article by The News titled “Pro-Palestinian demonstrators rally outside Tatte, say company is ‘fueling genocide’.” To my mind, the article uses fairly sympathetic detail to describe a group of masked protesters accusing a bakery of “contributing to genocide.” The story highlights supportive car honks and approving student comments while omitting essential context: that such accusations are part of a broader campaign to economically and socially isolate any business or institution remotely associated with Israel.
Ironically, while the so-called “anti-genocide” demonstrations continue, the remains of Israeli hostages — along with a few survivors — are being returned after nearly two years in Hamas tunnels.
The chant “Free, Free Palestine” is often presented as a call for liberation. In practice, however, it has become a call for the eradication of the Jewish state. Likewise, the claim that Israel is committing “genocide” — particularly in the wake of the ceasefire — revives the ancient blood libel myths that have fueled antisemitism for centuries.
Indeed, some international bodies accuse Israel of genocide based on questionable data provided by Hamas during the war, and others do so for murkier reasons. However, experts such as John Spencer, a U.S. military expert on urban warfare, have argued that Israel’s operations in Gaza, while resulting in significant civilian harm, do not meet the legal threshold for genocide. This perspective highlights the urban complexity of the conflict, emphasizing Israel’s operational warnings and attempts to evacuate civilians as counter-narrative to intent required under the United Nations’ Genocide Convention.
It should be understood that the most recent form of antisemitism is the term “anti-zionism.” There are several characteristics to this new type of antisemitism, including the denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland and accusing Jews all over the world of using their perceived power to manipulate the media and politicians to support Israel.
Jewish communities, businesses, synagogues and students are attacked and harassed because of their ties to Israel; this is antisemitism, regardless of political views on the conflict. Anti-zionists are calling for the elimination of the only Jewish state on earth. Considering Jewish history — including genocide — many consider this an existential threat to the Jewish people, the ultimate antisemitic objective.
The loss of civilian lives in Gaza is indeed tragic. But Hamas — not Israel — initiated this war. Israel did not act out of caprice or conquest; its military goal has been the dismantling of Hamas, the organization responsible for the genocidal massacre of Oct. 7. That day, the designated terrorist organization was responsible for the death of more than 1,200 Israelis and the abduction of 251 hostages. That attack targeted infants, the elderly and the disabled, and credible reports have documented the systematic use of sexual violence by Hamas as a weapon of war.
Regrettably, articles like the one in The News grant legitimacy and visibility to demonstrators’ inflammatory slogans and “genocide” banners while offering little context or critical balance. The article did not include any interviews with students who could provide a pro-Israel perspective or challenge the “genocide” accusation — a claim that echoes long-standing antisemitic blood libels.
A far more consequential pattern of misinformation and bias about Israel has appeared in coverage by major international outlets, including the BBC and The New York Times. Such coverage does not merely misinform — it risks normalizing dangerous falsehoods rooted in centuries-old hatred.
Samuel Rabino is a professor emeritus of marketing and international business. He can be reached at [email protected]
If you would like to submit a letter to the editor in response to this piece, email [email protected] with your idea.
