I am a lot of things. I’m a theatre lover. I’m an independent journalist. I’m an MBA graduate. I’m a foodie. I’m a random person on the internet. I’m a Jew.

I’m aware that this is not a political blog – this is a happy theatre blog. The thing is, though, no matter what I do, where I go, what I write about, what my political beliefs are…I am a Jew. And unfortunately right now, that is apparently the only thing that matters about me.

Assuming you don’t live under a rock, you’ve heard about the atrocities being committed against Jews in Israel right now. Saturday (Oct 7) constitutes the most Jewish lives lost in a single day since the Holocaust.

I thought we could all agree that kidnapping mothers, grandmothers, and young children, raping women, dragging their naked mutilated bodies through the streets while cheering and chanting, and posting these videos online, is evil. Yet because these victims were Jews who happen to live in Israel, suddenly support has to have an asterisk. “You have to put the rapes in the political context….” Treating Jewish lives as less-than is anti-Semitic, whether you are intentionally being so or not.

I’ve seen the apologists online. Pro-Palestinian Harvard students put out a statement saying that they blame Israel entirely for these attacks (in effect, saying they had it coming). I saw the leaked CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) e-mail going around, urging Canadian journalists to not use the word “Terrorist” and instead say “Hamas militants.” I’ve dealt with my fair share of anti-Semitism. I’m not surprised. But I don’t speak to these people. I speak to the people who remain silent.

When I was at Harvard in 2020, I took a course entitled “Entrepreneurship and Global Capitalism,” taught by Professor Geoffrey Jones. Each class, we’d study a different entrepreneur in history from different parts of the world. The cases were used as a framework to discuss various geopolitical landscapes – the banana trade in South America, Chanel and the Nazis, etc. It’s worth noting that the professor wrote or co-wrote every case we studied.

At first, I loved this course. I felt like I was being enlightened, being exposed to new ideas. We’re at Harvard, for crying out loud. I was among the smartest and the brightest, and we were tackling difficult issues. Yet as the weeks went on, the lustre started to fade. Why was it that during a class on Armenia and Turkey, the case we were studying did not use the word “genocide”? Why, when we were discussing a specific extremist, violent, religious group in China did one student break down crying in class and ask why they weren’t referred to as the cult that they are? And then we got to a case about Israel-Palestine – something I know a whole lot about – and the glossy facade was shattered completely.

The case, co-written by Professor Jones and a former student of his, was about a Palestinian importer from Ramla. I read the case and was immediately left disconsolate. I felt that the writing showed extreme bias, while masking itself as high intellectual research.

My concerns weren’t with the specific facts mentioned in the case, but more regarding the language used and the facts omitted. The case ultimately left the impression that the Palestinians were the sole victims, and Jews the aggressors, when in actuality both sides are deeply hurt and have suffered immensely. My point was (and is) that the villainization of one side is counter-productive to promoting dialogue and understanding. For example:

• The word “refugee” was used 14 times in the case, but only in reference to Palestinians. Jews were called “foreigners,” “settlers” or “migrants” – even when discussing Jews fleeing North Africa or the pogroms in Russia. “Refugee” evokes sympathy. “Settler” is at best neutral, and at worst negative.
• The case was very specific about the number of Palestinian losses and deaths, but not Jewish ones. When discussing Palestinian deaths, we were told “16 died” or “91 were killed by Zionist fighters.” When discussing PLO violence against Jews, the case was vague. No specific numbers mentioned, and euphemisms were used: “mounting ethnic tensions,” “attracted increasing criticism from the Arab community.”
• The Holocaust was not mentioned once by name – euphemisms such as “Nazi persecution of Jews in Germany” and “the advent of the Nazi regime” were used.

When I reached out to the Professor about my concerns, he assured me that he had used “standard academic literature” in compiling his research, yet he gave me the opportunity to speak in front of the class. And even though I was terrified, I did.

After the course, I compiled my thoughts into a formal document and shared it with the professor. He never responded. (I’m happy to share if anyone is interested in reading it).

I mention this story (which I have not spoken about publicly before) to show that tacit acceptance of anti-Semitism is engrained in even the most “intellectual” and ostensibly well-informed parts of society. It’s easy to identify when it’s blatant and in your face, but it’s the more subtle kind that is the most dangerous. Because when issues like what’s happening in Israel right now arise, people have been conditioned to accept that some lives are worth more than others. That as a Jew, I am worth less.

I speak to the Toronto theatre community, who claim to stand for peace and justice. I speak to my alma maters – Harvard and UChicago – that have yet to issue statements. I speak to my non-Jewish friends and classmates who I see opening my Instagram stories and remaining silent. No, Jews are not ok right now. Please speak up.