Episode 457, The Andrew Parker Show – Coordinated Hate: How Antisemitism Was Unleashed After October 7 and Pushing Back on Our “Institutions of Higher Learning”

In Episode 457 of The Andrew Parker Show, Andrew Parker examines how antisemitism erupted globally immediately after the October 7, 2023 atrocities—and why much of it was excused, normalized, and protected by America’s so-called institutions of higher learning.

Andrew analyzes a little-covered but deeply consequential June 24, 2024 decision by the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit, which dismissed complaints against federal judges who publicly condemned antisemitic riots and campus lawlessness and refused to hire law clerks from universities that failed to act. The ruling draws a clear legal distinction between protected speech and unlawful, violent conduct—and exposes the double standards applied when Jewish communities are targeted.

This episode also explores credible intelligence findings pointing to a coordinated, state-backed effort to fuel anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives across Western universities, media, and public discourse. Andrew challenges the misuse of the First Amendment, the silence of academic leadership, and the dangerous consequences of excusing hatred under ideological cover.

This is a direct and unflinching discussion about law, moral clarity, and why pushing back on institutional failure matters now more than ever.

Transcript

Episode 457, The Andrew Parker Show - Coordinated Hate: How Antisemitism Was Unleashed After October 7 and Pushing Back on Our “Institutions of Higher Learning”

Andrew Parker (00:02)
Welcome to another episode of the Andrew Parker show. We talk politics, Israel, and the law. You can get all of the 450 or 60 episodes online at your favorite platform, whether it be Spotify or otherwise. We're out there.

Certainly sign up and subscribe as we drop episodes every week. Often more than one a week. And again we talk politics, and the law. Primarily. I'll go off the board occasionally.

This week we are talking anti-Semitism.

We're talking about coordinated hate.

and when we are going to stop excusing it and who is it that is coordinating it.

seems like the rules are different for the Jewish community than they are for any other community.

I would argue even the black community.

which has certainly been treated over the centuries unfairly.

and in a manner that has changed, must continue to change.

But to be clear and not to necessarily care about comparisons. ⁓

Anti-Semitism and Jewish hate has...

existed throughout the millennium.

What is so shocking and has been discussed a little bit, certainly, but ⁓ not as much maybe as is warranted, is the fact that October 7th occurred with heinous atrocities and almost immediately on October 8th, the coordinated anti-Semitic ⁓ campaign.

started across the world, but certainly here in the United States at our institutions of higher learning and elsewhere in big cities.

Today I want to talk about a legal decision.

handed down back in those days ⁓ following October 7, 2023.

and all of the... I won't call them protests because it suggests they're legitimate. The riots that occurred, the angry conduct that occurred, the anti-Semitic conduct that did not die out. It continued month in month...

Well, we can, we got month in month out year in year out.

It was as if the anti-semites came out in force after having been hibernating for so long. And of course, they never completely hibernated, but... ⁓

It was not so vocal, not so open, not so overt as what occurred after the victimization of Jews on October 7th. And that word just greatly understates what happened on October 7th to Jews. This was not a Jewish attack. Jews were attacked.

on October 7th and people took to the streets to cheer it on and to say they had it coming and death to the Jews, death to America and worse and worse.

So I want to talk about a judicial counsel from the Fifth Circuit.

Court of Appeals in the United States, which was handed down.

on June 24th, 2024. It did not get a lot of coverage.

I read it at the time. I set it aside and I came across it the other day and it struck me now with the benefit of hindsight. The import of this ⁓ decision.

This was a complaint, not in court, it was a complaint against judges sitting both at the Circuit Court of Appeals and ⁓ several district court judges.

It was a complaint against those judges.

for having bias, et cetera. And we'll go through it.

And so the Judicial Council for the Fifth Circuit issued its ruling regarding this complaint. Now the complaint was filed by a state prisoner.

He filed it against a United States Circuit Court judge in the fifth, as I mentioned, and seven United States district judges.

Those judges had signed a letter addressed to the president of a university that goes un-nameless, but it could have been Columbia, it could have been Harvard, it could have been any of those bastions of Jew hate and failing to do anything about it. It could have been MIT, it could have been the University of Pennsylvania. You remember the testimony of the presidents of three of these universities that was completely

Disgraceful.

after Jews were killed, murdered in the worst possible ways. Hanous atrocities.

and antisemitism grew in exponential ways here in the United States against Jews and around the world. Not long ago, we saw the death, murder, killing of Jews on Banyai Beach ⁓ in Australia. But there were several, many incidents before that.

⁓ you know as well including ⁓

Firestorm, the burning.

person.

somebody who

wanted to make a point about October 7th.

So the subject judges that were being accused by the complainant signed a letter addressed to the president of the university criticizing the university for its asserted inaction with respect to protests following the Hamas attacks on October 7th.

the universities in action these judges wrote a letter and they said in the letter that

On the university's campus, disruptors have threatened violence, committed assaults, destroyed property. The university has become an incubator of bigotry, and professors and administrators are on the front lines of the campus disruptions, encouraging the virulent spread of antisemitism and bigotry. This is what these judges wrote ⁓ in the letter to these university presidents.

The judges state that they have lost confidence in the university as an institution of higher education and that they will not hire law clerks with undergraduate or law degrees from that university starting with the entering class of 2024. So these judges are taking a stand. They are not going to allow in plain sight.

a shift to open Jew hatred in the United States, to attacks on Jews in the United States, like occurred, sadly, a comparison in Germany in the 1930s.

and they took a stand and sent this letter.

They say in the letter that the university should impose serious consequences for students and faculty who have participated in campus disruptions and violated university rules. All conduct of Jew hatred.

The letter further asserts that the university should also identify students who engage in unlawfully trespassing on and occupying public spaces, all these citizens, these riots, these alleged protests, which were far worse, anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, Jew hatred. Like the KKK would espouse,

both towards Jews, but also and primarily toward blacks, openly, in their hoods.

But when it comes to these universities and it being against Jews, the universities are silent. They allow it. Under the guise of the First Amendment, it's outrageous.

Remember when they had safe spaces and they didn't allow people to make comments that triggered somebody Oh the first amendment didn't have any effect or impact then Now all of a sudden when it comes to blatant virulent Jew hatred First amendment they can say what they want. What a shame

Do you think they would say that if the KKK were marching on campus and ⁓ blockading whole buildings? They'd be in there in a second.

with the University Police.

So the letter says you should be identifying students who engage in unlawfully trespassing and occupying public spaces so that future employers can avoid hiring them. Otherwise, the letter concludes, employers are forced to assume the risk anyone they hire from your university may be one of these hateful students.

The letter suggests that the university should provide neutrality and non-discrimination in the protection of freedom of speech and the enforcement of rules of campus conduct, asserting that freedom of speech protects protest, not trespass, and certainly not acts or threats of violence or terrorism.

There is a line to the First Amendment and these judges know what that is and they are telling these universities where that line is. The judge is asserted in the letter, it has become clear that the university applies double standards when it comes to free speech and student misconduct and charged the university with favoring certain viewpoints, this letter did.

over others based on their popularity and acceptance in certain circles.

The judges further go on in the letter and state that significant and dramatic change in the composition of its faculty and administration is required to restore confidence in the university. The faculties at these universities, I'm talking 95 % of the universities in the United States.

are filled with faculty members that are just waiting. They're not waiting. That are in the classroom teaching.

a twisted, revised history of the Middle East, of the United States.

and are tearing down.

with untruths are tearing down with dishonest statements.

tearing down the foundations, the founding principles, freedom and liberty and the others that built this country.

and the ideals, the Judeo-Christian ideals, upon which the country was founded, Jewish ideals, values, upon which Israel was founded.

and they're tearing it down.

That outlines what the letter was that these judges signed on to and that resulted in this person filing a complaint against them for that letter. The complainant complains that if the judges are willing to openly and collectively punish a university and its students and graduates, a reasonable person has every reason to believe the judges will skew their judicial

rulings and discriminate and retaliate against parties and counsel who have differing political views and will be biased against any current or former member of the university's community whether appearing before them as an attorney or a party. So basically accusing because of the letter these judges as not being able to be unbiased and

⁓ hear cases without ⁓ prejudice.

and only agree with those who have their same political views.

And the complainant alleges that it is highly likely the judge is engaged in a conspiracy with political organizations to issue the letter that they wrote.

Complainant asks that the judges be removed from federal office and asserts that they are politicians and possibly foreign agents masquerading as federal judges.

I mean, it's hard to believe. He makes these accusations.

with little evidence other than the letter.

which is basically saying, we're not going to hire from your universities because of what you're doing. Judges have the right to hire clerks. These are decisions that are personal to the judges, and they are not required to hire clerks from institutions that do not meet their criteria for hiring. For example,

The US Supreme Court usually hires clerks from the best law schools in the country. They don't hire clerks from Podunk Law School, where there might be a total of 50 students and it's got every indicia of... ⁓

Field Learning Center.

and nobody can require them to hire clerks from such podunk law school.

So that kind of undermined the complaint immediately.

Then the judicial board analyzed the various rules of judicial conduct ⁓ that are to be applied to these judges who wrote this letter.

The complainant cited several rules, using the office to obtain special treatment for friends. I don't know how they did that. Engaging in partisan political activity and making inappropriate partisan statements. Are these partisan statements? Really?

committing abusive behavior because they are and will be treating litigants, attorneys, judicial employees, and others in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner, discriminating against various races and religions. How is it discriminating against races and religions? ⁓ And that they have likely caused a substantial and widespread lowering of public confidence in the courts by writing this letter.

that you shouldn't allow anti-Semitic conduct on your campus. That now has become a legitimate political position.

that you should be allowed to be anti-Semitic rioters, looters.

abusers of university policy and violators.

So the complainant maintains that the judges have effectively disqualified themselves from hearing any cases in which a litigant or their counsel has publicly taken a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And a reasonable person has every reason to believe that the judges would be biased against their supporting Palestinians and would favor those supporting Israelis.

So what did the Judicial Conduct Board have to say about

about that openly anti-Semitic conduct, violent conduct, should be allowed.

because it is pro-Palestinian, therefore it's okay.

The Judicial Conduct Board says, first, the judge's letter does not demonstrate and complain it has offered no evidence that the judges provided special treatment for friends or engaged in abusive behavior.

toward any particular litigant. These aspects of the complaint are therefore subject to dismissal as lacking any evidence to raise an inference.

With regard to the judges engaging in political activity, the complainant mischaracterizes the contents of the letter. While the subject of the protesters' cause has been viewed as highly political, the judges' reasoning behind their boycott is not. The judges do not express any views on the protesters or any member of the university's political views, race, color, religion, or national origin.

Rather, the judges expressed disapproval of unlawful and rule-breaking conduct in which some of the protesters reportedly engaged. And of the university's response to the disruptions on campus. yes, they opposed that. Which the judges believe demonstrate the lack of diverse ideological backgrounds and double standards when it comes to free speech and student misconduct.

Judges do not violate, this is the judicial conduct board stating what their opinion is on the subject. Judges do not violate ethical rules or standards when they exercise discretion in refusing to hire law clerks who may have engaged in unlawful conduct or violation of the university's rules.

So if you have a law clerk that has a very checkered past, you're what, if you don't hire them, you're violating judicial conduct standards? In this case, that's checkered past is they're a bigot, they're an anti-Semite, they're a Jew hater, they ⁓ have violated, ⁓ they've gone well beyond the First Amendment and they have violated university rules.

⁓ The court, the judicial conduct board goes on to say the judges have not engaged in misconduct in the form of political partisanship or discrimination on the protected class bases.

So.

Ultimately,

The judges have the right to say who they want to work for them. And they have the right to tell the university, we don't want people like this to work for us. Like this meaning ⁓ engaged in riotous conduct, ⁓ disruptive conduct, violation of university rules or standards.

The Judicial Conduct Board next deals with ⁓ the complainants argument that is reasonably likely to that.

that making or having written this letter has a prejudicial effect on the administration of business of the courts, including a substantial and widespread lowering of public confidence in the courts.

The court, the judicial conduct board says complainant alleges that anyone who is currently or formerly affiliated with the university will fear that the judges will be biased against them. However, refusal to hire a law clerk from a particular university whose students reportedly engaged in unlawful activity or violent acts without more is not evidence that the judge cannot remain impartial towards attorneys or parties who

graduated from that university, judges have many qualifications they use to determine whether a potential law clerk meets the standards. And it goes on and continues ⁓ in that way, ⁓ stating oftentimes it's top 10 law schools that they look at.

So suffice it to say there was a full dismissal of

of this complaint. ⁓ But it was an important analysis.

And it raised the question for me, how did it happen that

such a disgusting, despicable, one of the most in human history events that occurred on October 7, 2023, and that is cataloged and chronicled in a way that is more specific and detailed than most any other attack against a people.

with video of so many of the heinous acts intentionally taken. And by the way, once you see it, you can't unsee it. It is horrific. It can't be put into words. How horrific. And when that happens, what does the world do? The world doesn't come to the aid of the victims.

the world allows for under the guise of the First Amendment.

allows for riotous conduct here in support of that disgusting and despicable acts. That is not what the First Amendment stands for. But of course the ACLU is out there fully on this one supporting the First Amendment. They weren't when it was a triggering effect for the snowflakes who were going to ⁓

on college campuses who claim to be triggered.

They would not defend those who would make statements that some didn't like on First Amendment grounds. They wouldn't defend those at all. This has nothing to do with First Amendment. This has to do with liberal policy. That's the ACLU. That's all they are. ⁓ Would they ever defend ⁓ Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-A? No. ⁓

So it begs the question when I was reading this judicial conduct decision.

why it is that

On October 8th, the day after all of this occurred, that there was a... it almost appeared like a coordinated riotous protests around the world and particularly in the United States it happened almost immediately. Like people were ready. They were waiting.

Listen, conspiracy is a word that can't be used anymore because conspiracy nuts are sidelined and their views are sidelined, even if there is a conspiracy, even if there is wrongdoing.

So I saw a video and an article.

that spoke somewhat to this potentially, Qatar and Qatar's global war on Israel.

Israel has gathered information, real evidence, that has identified Qatar as being behind a global defamation campaign against the Jewish state.

and

The video, the documentary on the subject, was put together in... ⁓

A couple months ago in early December Israeli journalist Nadav Eyal broke the story back then and it drew very little attention. Certainly very little attention compared to what it deserved.

Israeli defense and intelligence officials he reported had concluded that much of the wave of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic sentiment that has engulfed global discourse over the past two years, you know, since

October 7th primarily.

has been deliberately engineered by, in fact, a state actor. The sophistication, coordination, consistency, and interconnectedness of both the messaging and those promoting it online and offline led the officials to determine that only a world power or a state actor with vast financial resources could be behind such a comprehensive influence.

Operation.

Hmm.

And that's where Cutter comes in.

While considering the involvement of other countries with access to grind against the Jewish state, of course there are many that you could identify.

not legitimate acts, but just hatred, the Israelis have focused their attention on Qatar.

Now Israel, listen, they don't always get it right, but almost always. ⁓ They have a...

maybe unrivaled, unparalleled.

⁓ intelligence service.

and

Statements like this are not tossed around lightly.

to even the casual observers.

The signs of a broad effort to cultivate hostility toward Jews and Israel linked to the wealthy Gulf state of ⁓ Qatar from Al Jazeera's slanted completely ⁓ coverage to Tucker Carlson's discovery of having an affinity to the wonderful country of Qatar. You never talked about that before.

from appearance of Hamas leaders suddenly huddling in Qatar, hosting conferences.

to the virulent anti-Israel narratives at academic institutions in this country that receive enormous funding from Qatar.

They were the ground zero for Jew hatred following October 7th. Huh, are our kids raised to be such haters? Where they just showed up?

Maybe Cutter was, ⁓

funding certain chairs at various universities to teach a new Middle East set of lies.

All these things taken together, cutters roll in shaping the hate toward Israel to cause so many in various parts of the world to cheer on what happened on October 7th.

coincidence.

It's proven strikingly effective, I'll tell you that, fostering negative perceptions of the Jewish state.

and in undermining its legitimacy.

It's now become a normal part of our lexicon.

And this was the dream of Yasir-Era-Fat.

the liar who took billions from the Palestinian people and kept them in poverty.

Wanted to destroy Israel militarily realized it wasn't going to happen. So he shifted to destroying it in the public

perceptions.

And of course, the idiot West, Western Europe, the idiot United States, Secretary or State Department. And sadly, now it looks like the Democratic Party and some in the Republican Party, many.

Don't see.

apparently the immense value and regardless the human rights violations that are going on against Israel.

as Israel fights for its very existence, I think you ought to.

go to

the podcast that Nadeav, N-A-D-A-V, A-Y-E-Y-A-L. ⁓

⁓ has out there as part of the Jerusalem Journal.

So you go to the Jerusalem Journal podcast, Nadav et al, join them to discuss how Israel identified Qatar as being behind the global defamation campaign. I encourage you to watch it. It talks about why they chose to target Israel now, how it has cultivated

its influence in the United States and is changing the United States view of the state of Israel with lies, with revisionist history.

and with virulent attacks.

Once you've had a chance to watch the podcast episode, again, the Jerusalem Journal interviewing Nadavial.

⁓ Go to theandruparkershow.com

and also text us. Here's the text number 9525222818. We'll get you on an upcoming ⁓ episode with your comments.

The Andrew Parker Show dot com often referred to sometimes at least as an award-winning web website that gives you all the info in detail. You can find us on your favorite platform and join the YouTube channel. And the as we've got four hundred and nearly four hundred and sixty episodes, I believe.

for you to partake in.

I will be traveling to Israel and doing a few shows live on site in Israel.

coming up so be sure to look out for those and until next time be kind to your neighbor.