RSS
Campus Chaos Risks Poisoning All of Society Unless Universities Uphold Their Own Rules
Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) members occupying an administrative building at Barnard College on Feb. 26, 2025. Photo: Screenshot
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik is often presented as a great 20th century rabbinic philosopher, but in reality, his logic was solidly based on Talmudic methodology, and his most profound insights reflect that tradition.
Here’s one: “To sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate is the greatest sin a scholar can commit.” This aligns with the Talmudic dictum: “Who is wise? One who foresees the consequences” (Tamid 32a).
One of the great Talmudic sages, Rabbi Eleazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, warns that a judge must never rule based on immediate concerns alone, as doing so can undermine the very system he is meant to uphold.
A judge who prioritizes expediency over principle, seeking to compromise rather than uphold justice, does not bring peace — instead he ensures corruption and decay (Sanhedrin 6b). Short-term expediency often leads to long-term destruction, and those who fail to see beyond the moment are not fit to lead.
Which brings me to this week’s events at Barnard College in New York. I have always loved the idea of a university as a temple of learning — a sanctuary where young minds expand, ideas are sharpened, and the pursuit of truth is sacrosanct. But it has become painfully clear that something has gone terribly wrong, and the long-term negative repercussions simply can’t be overstated.
At Barnard College, a group of masked students — wrapped in keffiyehs, banging drums, and shouting slogans — stormed a campus building, physically assaulting a college employee in the process. They treated the halls of learning like a street corner rally, drowning out any semblance of reason with crude theatrics and belligerence.
Instead of engaging in thoughtful discourse, they resorted to intimidation, disrupting dozens of classes and the lives of thousands of other students, all in pursuit of a self-righteous spectacle.
And how did the college respond? With deference and indulgence. After hours of petulant refusals to engage with kindly university officials desperately attempting to reason with them, the protesters were eventually granted precisely what they wanted — no consequences, no accountability, and no responsibility for the havoc they had generated.
It was an exercise in spineless appeasement, reinforcing the already obvious lesson that on today’s college campuses, brute force and outrage are far more effective than dialogue and debate.
The protest itself was staged in response to the recent expulsion of two students who had aggressively disrupted a History of Israel class, turning what should have been an environment of learning into a battleground of political agitation.
But the mob was not content with mere protest. They demanded the impossible: immediate reinstatement of the expelled students, amnesty for all disciplinary action against so-called “pro-Palestine thought,” and a public meeting with the college president — essentially, the right to disrupt at will, without any consequences. In their world, free speech means their speech alone, and any opposition is silenced not with ideas, but with brute force.
As I watched clips of the protest on X, I found myself shaking my head in disbelief. Once, universities were temples of knowledge, where scholarship reigned supreme, debate was rigorous yet respectful, and the classroom was a sanctuary for intellectual exploration.
Now, they are being hijacked by mob rule – reduced to platforms for megaphone politics, virtue signaling, and performative outrage. The very institutions that should champion reason and discourse have become breeding grounds for hysteria and intimidation. There is a term for this: sacrilege.
In Parshat Terumah, we find the first recorded reference to a sacred space: “And they shall make for Me a sanctuary, and I will dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8). Notice the phrasing: “among them,” not “in it.”
The implication is profound. A space is not holy simply because of its walls or its grandeur. It is holy because of the people who treat it with reverence, and because of the impact that reverence will have on broader society.
When a place of learning is built on respect, intellectual rigor, and the humble pursuit of truth, that sacred spirit spreads. It lifts up all those who enter, elevating not just the institution, but society itself.
But the reverse is also true. When places of learning are hijacked by mob rule, when violence and intimidation replace scholarship and discourse, that corruption does not stay contained — it spreads like a contagion.
If universities become places of shouting rather than thinking, of bullying rather than reasoning, of destruction rather than construction, we should not be surprised when wider society begins to mirror that same decay.
Today’s students who shriek down dissent, storm buildings, and revel in chaos will be tomorrow’s professionals, policymakers, and leaders. If they are taught that force wins arguments, that disruption yields rewards, and that entitlement trumps effort, that is the world they will build — and the world we will be forced to inherit. Their ugly behavior will spill out well beyond the halls of learning.
Which is why university leadership cannot afford to appease the chaos-makers. They must be dealt with firmly, swiftly, and without hesitation.
A university that refuses to uphold its own rules — rules designed to protect the very foundation of learning — ceases to be an institution of higher education. It becomes a playground for the loudest and most aggressive, where intimidation replaces intellect, where noise drowns out knowledge, and where sacred spaces are reduced to battlegrounds of division and disorder.
To be clear, students are entitled to their opinions. They have every right to debate, to discuss, and to challenge ideas they find objectionable. But they do not have the right to storm buildings, assault staff, disrupt classes, and then demand immunity from consequences. That is not free speech. That is anarchy.
Barnard College’s administration was totally right to expel the two students who disrupted the class. They would be even more right to stand their ground and refuse to be bullied into reversing that decision. If universities are to reclaim their place as temples of learning, they must set clear boundaries and enforce them decisively.
If we allow our sanctuaries of knowledge to be overrun, we should not be surprised when the entire edifice of civilization begins to crumble. As C.S. Lewis warned: “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”
And in the end, the real question is this: Do we want our future shaped by reason and discipline, or by chaos and destruction? Because, as Margaret Thatcher so bluntly put it: “You can’t have education without discipline. You can’t have freedom without order.”
The post Campus Chaos Risks Poisoning All of Society Unless Universities Uphold Their Own Rules first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
BBC Apologizes for ‘Unacceptable’ Mistakes With Gaza Documentary, Admits Palestinian Interviewees’ Ties to Hamas
The BBC logo is seen at the entrance at Broadcasting House, the BBC headquarters in central London. Photo by Vuk Valcic / SOPA Images/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) on Thursday apologized for “unacceptable” and “serious flaws” during the filming of a documentary about Palestinian children living in the Gaza Strip.
The admission came after the BBC removed the documentary, titled “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone,” from its iPlayer streaming platform on Feb. 21 when it was discovered that the film’s 13-year-old Palestinian narrator (now 14), Abdullah Al-Yazouri, was the son of a senior Hamas official.
The documentary was also taken down after it was revealed that two of the cameramen who worked on the BBC documentary had voiced support for Hamas, and following revelations about inaccurate translations in the film that masked the antisemitism of some participants. Examples of the latter issue include mistranslations in the film that refer to Hamas terrorists as an “army” and “jihad against the Jews” as “resistance against the Israelis,” according to Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), a British volunteer-based charity. The Telegraph cited at least five instances in the film where the Arabic word for “Jew”— “Yahud” or “Yahudy” — was mistranslated as “Israel” or “Israeli forces,” or removed altogether.
The BBC has also now admitted that licensing fee payments were given to the family of Al-Yazouri, who is the son of Hamas’s Deputy Minister of Agriculture Dr. Ayman Al-Yazouri. Pro-Israel researcher David Collier said the father and son come from the same family as Hamas founder Ibrahim Al-Yazouri. Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by both the United Kingdom and United States.
Deborah Turness, the CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs, sent an e-mail to staff on Thursday that included a statement about the documentary, remarks which were publicly shared on Friday by a BBC spokesperson.
In the statement, the BBC said it takes complete editorial responsibility for the film and admitted that the corporation and Hoyo Films, the production company behind the documentary, have made “unacceptable” flaws in the making of the documentary. “BBC News takes full responsibility for these and the impact that these have had on the Corporation’s reputation. We apologize for this.”
The spokesperson added that the BBC was not informed in advance by Hoyo Films about Abdullah’s family connection to Hamas.
“During the production process, the independent production company was asked in writing a number of times by the BBC about any potential connections he and his family might have with Hamas,” the corporation explained. “Since transmission, they have acknowledged that they knew that the boy’s father was a deputy agriculture minister in the Hamas government; they have also acknowledged that they never told the BBC this fact. It was then the BBC’s own failing that we did not uncover that fact and the documentary was aired.”
Hoyo Films told the corporation that it paid Abdullah’s mother “a limited sum of money” for narrating the film by way of his sister’s bank account, according to the BBC. Hoyo Films “assured BBC” no payments were given to Hamas members or its affiliates “either directly, in kind, or as a gift,” and the corporation is “seeking additional assurance” about the film’s budget. The BBC said it will initiate a full audit of the film’s expenses and is asking Hoyo Films for financial accounts to help with the audit.
The BBC said the controversy surrounding the documentary had “damaged” public trust in the corporation’s journalism, and that “the processes and execution of this program fell short of our expectations.” The BBC also has “no plans to broadcast the program again in its current form or return it to iPlayer.” It added that it launched a review into the film, an initiative that the BBC Board discussed on Thursday.
Hoyo Films said it is working with the BBC to “help understand where mistakes have been made.” The production company added, “We feel this remains an important story to tell, and that our contributors – who have no say in the war – should have their voices heard.”
A separate statement from the BBC Board added, “The subject matter of the documentary was clearly a legitimate area to explore, but nothing is more important than trust and transparency in our journalism. While the board appreciates that mistakes can be made, the mistakes here are significant and damaging to the BBC.”
The CAA said on Friday the grave errors carried out by the BBC in connection to the documentary should result in resignations and a police investigation. The charity also called for an independent investigation into bias at the BBC and said pending the results of the investigation, the license fee should be suspended to stop additional funds from going to Abdullah’s family, and potentially Hamas. “Hundreds of people are contacting us telling us that they refuse to pay the license fee until they can be sure that the BBC is trustworthy,” the charity said.
A spokesperson for the CAA called BBC “a national treasure [that] has become a national embarrassment.”
“The BBC has now admitted that license fee funds were paid to the family of a senior Hamas official. It has not yet been able to rule out that further payments to Hamas were made as it continues to investigate where hundreds of thousands of pounds went,” the spokesperson noted. “The BBC’s statement is an exercise in desperate damage control and shows why an internal review is no substitute for an independent investigation into this documentary and the wider bias at the BBC that allowed it to be made and aired. Clearly those responsible must lose their jobs.”
“It is unconscionable that the British public should have to pay a license fee to an organization that gives that money to proscribed terrorists,” the spokesperson added. “It represents a shocking double standard in our law. Pending an independent investigation, the license fee must be suspended.”
During a press conference on Thursday, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the secretary of state has had a meeting with the BBC regarding the documentary. On Friday, British Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said she was going to have an “urgent meeting” with BBC Chairman Samir Shah that same day.
“I want assurances that no stone will be left unturned by the fact-finding review now commissioned by the BBC’s director general,” Nandy said. “This review must be comprehensive, rigorous, and get to the bottom of exactly what has happened in this case. It is critical for trust in the BBC that this review happens quickly, and that appropriate action is taken on its findings.”
The post BBC Apologizes for ‘Unacceptable’ Mistakes With Gaza Documentary, Admits Palestinian Interviewees’ Ties to Hamas first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jewish Rocker David Draiman Calls Kanye West a ‘Pathetic Jew Hater Without a Soul’ for Non-Stop Promoting Swastikas
David Draiman of Disturbed at Summerfest Music Festival on June 30, 2022, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Photo: Daniel DeSlover/Sipa USA
The lead singer of the rock band Disturbed intensely criticized rapper Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, on Friday after the latter reiterated his desire to make a t-shirt that features a swastika, and now also a swastika necklace.
Ye returned to X on Friday to repeat his hopes of making a shirt emblazoned with the extremist symbol used by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party. In one post, he wrote: “It was always a dream of mine to walk around with a Swastika T on.” In a separate post, he called on jewelers to reach out to him with designs for a swastika chain necklace.
David Draiman responded by writing, “Hey @kanyewest, Here’s a design for you” and he included an emoji of a middle finger. The “Sound of Silence” singer, who is Jewish, then attacked the rapper by saying, “You’re nothing but a Jew hating, misogynistic, pathetic, attention starved A–HOLE. You’ve destroyed any legacy you once had. You will be remembered as a sad, angry excuse of a man, without honor, without decency, and without a soul.”
In early February, Ye sold on his website Yeezy.com only one item – a white, short sleeve t-shirt that featured a large black swastika on the front. He purchased a commercial that aired during Super Bowl LIX on Feb. 9 that encouraged viewers to visit his website and purchase the offensive shirt. The shirt went live on his website — which has since been shut down – two days after Ye went on a rabidly antisemitic tirade on X in which he talked about his hatred of Jews and his admiration for Hitler. He even called himself a Nazi and a racist.
The rapper said last week he has had the idea for the swastika shirt “for over eight years” and has continued to promote his affinity for the Nazi symbol repeatedly on social media.
The post Jewish Rocker David Draiman Calls Kanye West a ‘Pathetic Jew Hater Without a Soul’ for Non-Stop Promoting Swastikas first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel’s Outgoing Military Chief Warns of Potential Threat From Egypt Amid Rising Tensions
Israeli Chief of the General Staff Herzi Halevi speaks at a ceremony for the 70th cohort of military combat officers, at an army base near Mitzpe Ramon, Israel, Oct. 31, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
Israel’s outgoing military chief has warned that Egypt’s expanding military capabilities could pose an unexpected threat to Israel in the future, despite their decades-old peace treaty.
Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, who next week will step down as chief of the general staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), told officer graduates during a speech in the Israeli city of Holon that Cairo is not currently a direct threat to Jerusalem. However, he warned that Egypt’s growing military capabilities, including advanced jets, submarines, and missiles, could change that reality at any moment.
“We are very concerned about this,” he said, referring to Egypt’s military buildup, before adding, “This is not at the top of our priorities. We have to give priority to our problems.”
Halevi’s remarks were aired on Wednesday by Israel’s Channel 14. They came after the military chief announced his resignation last month, citing his “responsibility for the IDF’s failure” during the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. His resignation will take effect on March 6.
“Egypt has a large army. It has advanced weapons, advanced aircraft, advanced submarines, and missile ships,” Halevi said during his speech this week. “We believe that this is not a threat now, but this situation can change in a moment.”
He also referred to Egypt’s first democratically elected president, an Islamist, saying, “In 2011, [Mohamed] Morsi took power with the Muslim Brotherhood.”
“Suddenly,” the Israeli military chief added, “this entire army had another leadership, which could have turned against you.”
Halevi’s latest remarks, which came amid rising tensions between Jerusalem and Cairo, did not mark the first time that a senior Israeli official had expressed concern over Egypt’s expanding defense capabilities.
Last month, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter accused Egypt of a “very serious violation” of its peace treaty with Israel, raising concerns over Cairo’s military buildup and armed presence in the Sinai Peninsula.
“There are bases being built, and they can only be used for offensive operations and offensive weapons. This is a clear violation [of the peace agreement],” Leiter said during a meeting with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
While details about Egypt’s military buildup remain unclear, “satellite images have shown the movement of tanks and battalions that exceed the limits set by the Camp David Accords,” Mariam Wahba, research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), told The Algemeiner.
Under the 1979 peace treaty, Cairo can request permission from Jerusalem to deploy more than the 47 battalions allowed. One estimate, however, suggests that there are currently camps for 180 battalions.
“The Camp David Accords have long been a pillar of peace and stability in the Middle East,” Wahba explained. “A breakdown of the agreement would have serious implications, not just for Israel and Egypt but for the broader region. It could embolden actors like Iran and its proxies to exploit tensions and could lead to increased militarization along Israel’s southern border.”
Last month, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon also raised concerns about Egypt’s military buildup, questioning the need for so many submarines and tanks.
“They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on modern military equipment every year, yet they have no threats on their borders,” he said. “After Oct. 7, this should raise alarm bells.”
“We have learned our lesson,” Danon added, apparently referring to Hamas’s Oct. 7 surprise invasion of southern Israel from neighboring Gaza. “We must monitor Egypt closely and prepare for every scenario.”
Addressing such concerns, Egyptian Ambassador to the UN Osama Abdel Khalek defended the country’s military strategy, emphasizing that its strong army is essential for national security and is purely defensive, aimed at maintaining regional stability.
Despite reports of growing tensions, Israeli defense sources have reportedly affirmed that security coordination between Cairo and Jerusalem remains tight, noting that such coordination has been in the interest of both countries for decades to protect their own national security and promote regional stability.
However, Egypt’s growing military presence in Sinai and ongoing infrastructure projects have raised concerns in Israel, particularly over the Philadelphi Corridor along the Gaza-Egypt border. Since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, tensions between Jerusalem and Cairo have escalated as Egypt continues to demand an Israeli withdrawal from the area.
Egypt’s military buildup, reportedly in part in protest of Israel’s presence at the Philadelphi Corridor and to prevent a mass Palestinian exodus into the country, along with Jerusalem’s control of the corridor, could both violate the 1979 peace treaty.
Cairo has also rejected US President Donald Trump’s plan to “take over” the Gaza Strip to rebuild the war-torn enclave, while relocating Palestinians elsewhere during reconstruction efforts.
Like many other Middle Eastern leaders who rejected Trump’s proposal, Egypt has advocated a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Earlier this week, Egypt rejected any responsibility for governing Gaza after the Israel-Hamas war, reiterating its opposition to a new proposal by Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, who suggested Cairo take over administrative and reconstruction efforts in the neighboring Palestinian enclave in exchange for the cancellation of its $155 billion external debt.
The post Israel’s Outgoing Military Chief Warns of Potential Threat From Egypt Amid Rising Tensions first appeared on Algemeiner.com.