RSS
How Should We Respond to Pro-Hamas College Rallies?
“Glory to Hamas.” Is there any civil response possible to this chant?
During the past few weeks, events at American universities have unfolded thick and fast. Columbia University was at the center of attention. We could hardly believe our ears when we heard the slogans shouted by hundreds of students on campus, and even more radically outside the university gates.
Jewish students were harassed, beaten, and prevented from entering some of the spaces on campus. Slogans such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!” and “Globalize the Intifada” were heard at many American universities. The first slogan takes up almost verbatim the wording of the Hamas charter of 2017, which calls for the “liberation” of the territory on which Israel is located. What else can this mean other than the desire to eradicate Israel, and at least the acceptance of murder and ethnic cleansing against Jews as part of this “liberation”?
Hamas has not only repeatedly affirmed this goal verbally and in writing, but put it into practice to the best of its ability on October 7, 2023. And Hamas has vowed that as long as it retains power, it will try to repeat October 7 over and over.
Anyone who does not want to be misunderstood should therefore explicitly distance themselves from Hamas. But the protesters are not doing that.
The call to “globalize the intifada” is no less murderous. Both the first and second intifadas were violent, and Israeli civilians were targeted — in cafés, buses, and on the street. This terror is now to be globalized?
My university, Indiana University in the Midwest, is not exactly known as a trouble spot. Still, there have been some protests by students and professors here. We are not an Ivy League university, but one of the Big Ten research universities, known for the Jacobs School of Music, the Kelly School of Business, the McKinsey Institute, and the Maurer School of Law, among others.
Around 10 percent of the almost 50,000 students on our campus in Bloomington are Jewish. Since April 25, there has been an encampment “for unconditional solidarity with Palestine” opposite the Chabad House, where many Jewish students come and go. Some of the slogans, chanted verbally and put on posters, seem to be aimed directly at Jews.
Not all of the slogans are implicitly murderous. Some merely demonize Israel — for example, the claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, which is presented as an indisputable fact through constant repetition. You can show solidarity with the Palestinian victims of the war (started by Hamas), you can condemn the war, you can be very partial to the Palestinians — but the accusation of genocide is slander.
The false claim to genocide is so pernicious, because it justifies all the hate directed at Israel — and at those who don’t explicitly condemn Israel.
There is a certain logic to this. If one is truly convinced that Israel is in the process of deliberately exterminating an entire people, then not only is Israel is reprehensible, but all those people who support and normalize Israel, or are Zionists themselves, are evil — that means most Jews.
The dynamic is similar to the medieval accusation of ritual murder. Anyone who was really convinced that Jews were murdering Christian children in order to use their blood for their rituals understandably wanted to put an end to it by any means necessary — even with violence. “Resistance by all means” does not allow for criticism of the barbarity of Hamas.
Not all students who write and shout such slogans are aware of their meaning, and their effect on Jewish students.
I spoke to students who held up a poster that equated campus police, the KKK, and “IOF.” But it took one of the masked organizers, who came running to block our conversation, to clarify what IOF meant. The students didn’t know. “Israel Offense Forces or Israel Occupying Forces” — he wasn’t quite sure either. But the message that comes across to the Jewish students who pass by these posters is that the country they feel deeply connected to is being demonized in a way that condemns them at the same time.
Many of the protesting students may be astonishingly ignorant and naive. Not so the organizers. There has been a rapid, sectarian radicalization among them over the past six months. Shortly after October 7, I had a discussion with the president of the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) at our university on the university radio station. Even though we disagreed on many points, he condemned Hamas, at least in private conversation. And he asked Jewish acquaintances whether they were doing okay. A week ago, I looked at his Twitter profile. “Glory to Hamas” was written there. For him, Israel is “a demonic, irredeemable society that never has and never will have ever [have] a single right to exist.” He equates Zionists, i.e. all those who do not condemn Israel, with the Nazis. Zionists, he writes, are “indigenous to hell.”
The PSC plays a key role in calling for the campus protests, and regularly reports on the protest camp on its Instagram page. There is a lot of applause for this — also from an Iranian account called “Mahdi_Alavi.” He encourages students to read Ayatollah Khamenei’s letter to the youth of Europe and North America. There were love and applause emojis in the comments, but no objections.
Another key leader of the protests, who is particularly good at reaching other students via megaphone, also provides an insight into his thinking on social media. He writes about the Israeli army on X: “They lied about mass rape so they themselves could mass rape,” and has denied the unimaginably brutal sexual violence of the murderers of October 7. He also takes a liking to Hamas. It is “morally superior to Israel in every way that matters.”
What is the answer to such pro-Hamas propaganda? The Jewish students played loud music by Jewish-American musicians such as Matisyahu and Israeli pop songs, drew attention to the hostages, and posed with Israeli flags in front of the encampment where implicit and explicit Hamas sympathizers were present.
A similar response came from Rabbi Levi Cunin. The group “Faculty & Staff for Israel” had called for a rally on May 2. A politics professor known at the university for being anti-Israel and tearing down posters of the hostages filmed the entire event, possibly to intimidate participants. When Rabbi Cunin, while giving a speech, became aware of him, he turned to him and shouted in his face “And when there are antisemites who come to [our] anti-Hamas rally, what do you say? Am Israel Chai!” Long live the people of Israel.
And indeed they shall.
Günther Jikeli holds the Erna B. Rosenfeld Professorship at the Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism in the Borns Jewish Studies Program at Indiana University. He heads the research lab “Social Media & Hate.”
The post How Should We Respond to Pro-Hamas College Rallies? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Conservative Pro-Israel Advocate Charlie Kirk Assassinated at University Event in Utah
Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist credited with amassing youth support for the Republican Party, speaking at the inauguration of Donald Trump in January. Photo: Brian Snyder via Reuters Connect
Conservative activist and staunch pro-Israel advocate Charlie Kirk died on Wednesday after being shot during an event at Utah Valley University, according to a statement by US President Donald Trump posted to the Truth Social media platform. He was 31 years old.
“The great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead,” Trump wrote. “No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie. He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me, and now, he is no longer with us. Melania and my Sympathies go out to his beautiful wife Erika, and family.”
He added, “Charlie we love you!”
Kirk — founder of the Turning Point USA nonprofit, which is credited for drawing masses of young people, typically a reliable voting bloc for Democrats, to the Republican Party — was answering audience questions when a gunman fired off the fatal shot which impacted his neck, causing him to become limp and bleed profusely.
Since the advent of his career, Kirk has been a faithful supporter of Israel, taking on activists of both the far left and far right who promoted rising antisemitism and sought to undermine the US-Israel alliance.
“There’s a dark Jew hate out there, and see it, and I see it,” Kirk told a student during a podcast episode which aired earlier this year. “Don’t get yourself involved in that. I’m telling you it will rot your brain. It’s bad for your soul. It’s bad. It’s evil. I think it’s demonic.”
Born on Oct. 14, 1993, in Arlington Heights, Illinois, Kirk formally entered the political arena in 2012, five months before the reelection of former President Barack Obama, to found Turning Point USA (TPUSA) — which served as a bellwether of declining youth support for the progressive consensus on race, free speech, and economics that took hold in American college campuses in the 1960s.
TPUSA grew rapidly, challenging campus primacy of the College Republicans organization and exuding confidence in conservative ideas at a moment when political scientists and other experts speculated that the Republican Party would decline to the point that the Democratic Party would achieve long-standing majorities in local and federal government.
Following news of Kirk’s death, the Jewish community deluged social media with tributes to Kirk and prayers for his family and friends.
“Please stop what you’re doing and pray for our friend Charlie Kirk. Many in the Jewish community are reciting chapters from the Book of Psalms, and I ask you do the same,” Shabbos Kestenbaum, a Jewish civil rights advocate, tweeted. “Something is deeply broken in America. The political violence must END. GOD HELP AMERICA.”
“We have no words,” StopAntisemitism, a Jewish civil rights advocacy group, tweeted.
Meanwhile, Jewish conservative influencer Emily Austin said, “With deep pain and sorrow, we mourn the passing of Charlie Kirk. May he rest in peace, and may God welcome him into His eternal care. This is a profound loss for the world — Charlie was a truly blessed soul whose impact will never be forgotten.”
Kirk is survived by his wife, Erika, and his two young children.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
RSS
Lebanon’s Army to Disarm Hezbollah Near Israeli Border Within 3 Months in First Step to Restore State Control
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and members of the cabinet stand as they attend a cabinet session to discuss the army’s plan to disarm Hezbollah, at the Presidential Palace in Baabda, Lebanon, Sept. 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
Lebanon’s army plans to fully disarm Hezbollah near the Israeli border within three months, the first step in the Lebanese government’s plan to restore authority and curb the influence of the Iran-backed terror group within the country.
On Tuesday, Lebanon’s Foreign Minister Youssef Raggi confirmed to AFP that the government received a five-stage plan last week from the military to enforce a policy placing all weapons under state control.
The move follows Lebanese authorities’ approval last month of a US-backed initiative to disarm Hezbollah in exchange for a halt to Israeli military operations in the country’s south.
Amid mounting international pressure to disarm the terrorist group, Lebanon’s cabinet tasked the army with developing a strategy to establish a state monopoly on arms.
For years, Israel has demanded that Hezbollah be barred from carrying out activities south of the Litani, located roughly 15 miles from the Israeli border.
However, Hezbollah has pushed back against any government efforts, insisting that negotiations to dismantle its arsenal would be a serious misstep while Israel continues airstrikes in the country’s south.
The terrorist group has even threatened protests and civil unrest if the government tries to enforce control over its weapons.
But as Hezbollah emerged weakened from a yearlong conflict with Israel, calls for the Islamist group’s disarmament have gained new momentum, reshaping a power balance it had long controlled in Lebanon.
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
RSS
Israeli Military Expert: Doha Strike Was Backed by US and Qatar Coup, Will Bring Hostage Deal Closer
A damaged building, following an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, according to an Israeli official, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 9, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Israel’s unprecedented strike on Hamas leaders in Doha this week was not a rogue act of military aggression, but rather the outcome of quiet coordination between Qatar and the US that could bring a hostage deal closer, Israeli intelligence expert Eyal Pinko said on Wednesday.
The strike, which officials have said was planned months ago, came a day after 10 Israelis were killed by Hamas in Gaza and Jerusalem. Four were soldiers who died in an attack on an Israeli tank in northern Gaza. The separate shooting attack in Jerusalem, in which six Israelis were killed and several more wounded, was the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” Pinko, a national security expert who served in Israeli intelligence for more than three decades, said in a press briefing.
Pinko contended that while Qatar publicly condemned the attacks, it also enabled them. “I am sure they were involved and the attack was coordinated with the [Qataris],” Pinko later told The Algemeiner.
The most recent round of negotiations to secure a Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal were nothing more than a “deception” by the US and Israel designed to gather Hamas leaders in one place “in order to set the timing to eliminate them,” he said.
Pinko said the strike should also be seen in light of US President Donald Trump’s impatience with the stalled hostage talks, arguing it showed Trump was on board with assassinations of Hamas leaders despite public declarations that he was “very unhappy” with the attack. He also pointed to Trump’s comments from last month, in which the US president predicted the Gaza conflict would reach a “conclusive ending” within two or three weeks.
Qatar, which has long hosted Hamas’s exiled leadership, benefits strategically from replacing the terrorist group’s leaders loyal to Iran with figures it can trust, Pinko maintained. Doha holds billions of dollars belonging to Hamas officials and has no interest in letting Ankara or Tehran displace it as the group’s patron. The timing of the attack is also significant, Pinko said, coming in the wake of Israel’s strikes against Iran’s nuclear program over the summer. “Iran is in a very bad situation. Qatar can easily overcome Iran,” he said.
Pinko further argued that the strike may serve to bring forward the release of the Israeli hostages still being held in Gaza since Hamas itself was no longer a coherent negotiating partner. The terrorist group operating in Gaza had become fragmented, “divided into five families that are fighting each other” and sometimes giving the impression that “they hate each other more than they hate Israel,” Pinko said. Recent talks proved “there was no longer a decisionmaker in Hamas,” and this disarray had allowed Hamas leaders to drag out the process with unrealistic demands. Removing those figures, he argued, would leave room for Qatar to install leaders who could cut a deal. “This will make the negotiation process much faster,” he said.
Pinko’s assessment stands in stark contrast to the fears of some of the families of the remaining 48 hostages held in Gaza, who said in a statement they had “grave fear” the Doha strike could sabotage the chances of bringing their loved ones home.
He placed the operation in a wider context, linking it to the revival of the Abraham Accords and US efforts to build a trade corridor from India through the Gulf to Israel and Europe as a counterweight to China’s trillion-dollar Belt and Road initiative, ending with Gaza as a key trade hub. “Trump is very serious in making the northern part of the Gaza Strip as [having] US autonomy. That will be the end of the American belt and road initiative to compete with the Chinese,” he said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday called on Qatar, which “gives safe haven [and] harbors terrorists,” to expel them or bring them to justice, adding that if they don’t, “we will.”
Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, for his part said his country would retaliate over the strike, and accused Netanyahu of “wasting” Qatar’s time in negotiations and “leading the Middle East to chaos.”
Pinko called out Doha for its “duplicity” in pretending to be a peacemaker on the one hand, while “fueling Hamas and hatred” in the US and Europe, on the other.
“They are against Israel in their DNA. They don’t want Israel to exist,” he said. “So Gaza and Hamas are a very important asset for them.”
Some critics have denounced the Doha strike as a violation of international law, but international law experts note that Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes a state’s inherent right to self-defense and that this right is not confined by geography if attacks are directed from outside its borders. The so-called “unwilling or unable” doctrine holds that if a host country does not act against militants on its soil, the victim state may use proportionate force.
The US relied on this doctrine when it killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in a 2011 operation that was widely hailed by Western governments and the UN, whose then secretary-general Ban Ki-moon said at the time that he was “very much relieved by news that justice has been done” and called it “a watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism.”