BRADLEY THOMPSON: The Yudelman Affair, and Why It Matters.
On May 5, Jonathan Yudelman was confronted on a Phoenix street corner during a pro-Israel rally by a baying mob of masked, pro-Hamas counter-demonstrators. The hate-filled mob screamed in Mr. Yudelman’s face that the mass murder of over 1,100 Israelis on Oct. 7, did not occur, that the Israel Defense Force was responsible for raping children, and that Mr. Yudelman himself was a “butcher.”
Mr. Yudelman was justly outraged, particularly given that Jewish students at ASU have been repeatedly terrorized for months by pro-Hamas students. Moments later, when he encountered another group of protestors confronting a second Jewish man with the same hate-filled lies, he regrettably lost his temper. In the ensuing 25 seconds caught on video and posted online, Mr. Yudelman got in the face of one of the pro-Hamas demonstrators with his arms held wide and called her a “bitch.” He never touched her or said a word about her religion or national origin. He committed no crime. He walked away.
The ”Yudelman Affair” is a classic example of the important legal maxim, “De minimis non curat lex” [The law is not concerned with trifles]. This is a trifle. There is no crime, and the alleged “victim” has apparently disappeared.
Yes, Mr. Yudelman’s words and deeds were imprudent and indecorous. He forgot a simple rule adhered to by campus administrators around the country: pro-Hamas demonstrators are permitted to spew vile antisemitic hatred and sometimes commit acts of violence, while Jews are expected to engage politely with those who wish them dead.
Mr. Yudelman’s life has been subsequently turned upside down. Following Saul Alinsky’s thirteenth rule for radicals, the Intifada Left has picked its target, frozen it, personalized it, and polarized it.
Since the altercation, Mr. Yudelman has been the object of a high-tech lynch mob. . . . It gets worse.
The day immediately after the incident, ASU put Mr. Yudelman on paid administrative leave for allegedly having engaged in discriminatory harassment. But the university’s discriminatory harassment policy does not apply to the facts of this case. . . . To make matters worse, ASU refuses to tell Mr. Yudelman who his accusers are other than to tell his counsel that the university has received “thousands of complaints,” which suggests a coordinated effort. Nor has the university identified the specific policies under which they are investigating Mr. Yudelman other than to say the allegation concerns protected-group harassment!
Time to sue. And to pointedly, and publicly, ask ASU administrators why they are siding with anti-semitic lynch mobs.