RSS
Civil Rights Nonprofit Slams Pro-Hamas Briefs Defending Harvard Lawsuit Against Trump
April 20, 2025, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University and Harvard Square scenes with students and pedestrians. Photo: Kenneth Martin/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect.
A new amicus brief filed in the lawsuit that Harvard University brought in April to stop the Trump administration’s confiscation of some $3 billion of its federal research grants and contracts offered a blistering response to previous briefs which maligned the institution’s decision to incorporate the world’s leading definition of antisemitism into its non-discrimination policies.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, legal briefs weighing in on Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. have been pouring in from across the country, with dozens of experts, think tanks, and student groups seeking to sway the court in what has become a historic confrontation between elite higher education and the federal government — as well as a showdown between Middle American populists and coastal elites.
Harvard’s case has rallied a team of defenders, including some who are responsible for drawing scrutiny of alleged antisemitism and far-left extremism on campus.
Earlier this month, the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) — which blamed Israel for Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel mere hours after images and videos of the terrorist organization’s brutality spread online — filed a brief which compared Zionists to segregationists who defended white supremacy during Jim Crow, while arguing that Harvard’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism — used by hundreds of governing institutions and widely accepted across the political spectrum — is an instrument of conspiracy and racist oppression.
“Adopting the IHRA definition, granting special status to Zionism, and penalizing pro-Palestinian student groups risks violating the Title VI rights of Palestinians on campus,” the filing said. “There is ample evidence that adoption of IHRA and other policies which limit speech supporting Palestinian rights are motivated by an intent to selectively silence Palestinians and students who advocate on behalf of Palestinians. Such action cannot be required by, and indeed appear to violate, Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act].”
The document added, “Though the main text of the definition is relatively benign, the illustrative examples — seven of the eleven which pertain to criticism of Israel — make clear that they are aimed at preventing Palestinians from speaking about their oppression.”
Similar arguments were put forth in other briefs submitted by groups which have cheered Hamas and spread blood libels about Israel’s conduct in Gaza, including the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and other anti-Zionist groups.
“Harvard’s incorporation of IHRA was an overdue and necessary response to the virulent and unchecked antisemitic discrimination and harassment on its campus,” the Brandeis Center said in its response to the arguments, noting that Harvard itself has determined that embracing the definition is consistent with its obligations under Title VI, which have been reiterated and stressed by the US Office for Civil Rights (OCR) guidance and two executive orders issued by President Donald Trump.
“Misunderstandings about what antisemitism means — and the form it takes — have long plagued efforts to address antisemitic conduct. Modern versions of antisemitism draw not only on ancient tropes, but also coded attacks on Zionism and the Jewish state, which often stand in for the Jewish people in modern antisemitic parlance,” the organization continued. “Sadly, this is nothing new: Soviet propagandists for decades used the term ‘Zionist’ or ‘Zio’ in this coded way. This practice has become commonplace among antisemites in academia who seek to avoid being labeled as racists.”
The Brandeis Center also argued that IHRA does not “punish or chill speech” but “provides greater transparency and clarity as to the meaning of antisemitism while honoring the university’s rules protecting free speech and expression.” The group stopped short of urging a decision either for or against Harvard, imploring the court to “disregard” the briefs submitted by PSC, JVP, and MESA.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Harvard sued the Trump administration, arguing that it bypassed key procedural steps it must, by law, take before sequestering federal funds. It also said that the Trump administration does not aim, as it has publicly pledged, to combat campus antisemitism at Harvard but to impose “viewpoint-based conditions on Harvard’s funding.”
The Trump administration has proposed that Harvard reform in ways that conservatives have long argued will make higher education more meritocratic and less welcoming to anti-Zionists and far-left extremists. Its “demands,” contained in a letter the administration sent to interim Harvard president Alan Garber — who subsequently released it to the public — called for “viewpoint diversity in hiring and admissions,” the “discontinuation of [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives],” and “reducing forms of governance bloat.” They also implored Harvard to begin “reforming programs with egregious records of antisemitism” and to recalibrate its approach to “student discipline.”
On Monday, the attorneys general of Iowa, Kansas, Georgia, Florida, and 12 other states said the Trump administration took appropriate action to quell what they described as Harvard University’s flagrant violation of civil rights laws concerning its handling of the campus antisemitism crisis as well as its past history of violating the Constitution’s equal protection clause by practicing racial preferences in admissions.
“Harvard both admits that it has a problem with antisemitism and acknowledges that problem as the reason it needs a multi-agency Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. Yet when the federal government acted to rectify that acknowledged violation of federal law through a negotiated practice, Harvard cried retaliation,” the attorneys general said in their own brief. “Its characterization of its refusal to follow federal nondiscrimination law as First Amendment speech is sheer chutzpah.”
They continued, “There is strong evidence of Harvard’s discriminatory animus, and the First Amendment does not shield it from consequences. This court should deny summary judgement and allow the federal government to proceed with enforcing the law. Perhaps if Harvard faces consequences for violating federal antidiscrimination law, it will finally stop violating federal antidiscrimination law.”
Trump addressed a potential “deal” to settle the matter with Harvard last Friday, writing on his Truth Social platform, saying a “deal will be announced over the next week or so” while praising the university’s legal counsel for having “acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right.” He added, “If a settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be ‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC, and very good for our Country.”
To date, Harvard has held its own against the federal government, building a war chest with a massive bond sale and notching a recent legal victory in the form of an injunction granted by a federal job which halted the administration’s restrictions on its international students — a policy that is being contested in a separate lawsuit. Garber has reportedly confirmed that the administration and Trump are discussing an agreement that would be palatable to all parties.
According to a report published by The Harvard Crimson on Thursday, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
The Crimson added, “He also did not discuss how close a deal could be and said instead that Harvard had focused on laying on steps it was already taking to address issues that are common ground for the University and the Trump administration. Areas of shared concern that have been discussed with the White House included ‘viewpoint diversity’ and antisemitism.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Civil Rights Nonprofit Slams Pro-Hamas Briefs Defending Harvard Lawsuit Against Trump first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
BBC Music Chief Steps Back from Duties After Glastonbury Live Stream of Rap Duo Bob Vylan Chanting ‘Death to IDF’
BBC headquarters in central London. Photo by Vuk Valcic / SOPA Images/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
The BBC’s Director of Music Lorna Clarke has reportedly stepped back from her day-to-day duties after the corporation apologized for streaming a live performance by the British punk rap duo Bob Vylan at the Glastonbury Festival, during which they lead the audience in chanting “Death to the IDF,” a reference to the Israel Defense Forces.
The BBC said on Thursday that a small number of senior staff members have been told to pull back from their daily duties covering music and live events after the BBC streamed Bob Vylan’s Glastonbury set in late June. Clarke is reportedly among that small group of senior staffers, The Times reported. According to the BBC’s website, Clarke is responsible for six national popular and classical music networks, as well as live music events, and has over 30 years of broadcasting experience.
Bob Vylan’s lead singer Pascal Robinson-Foster led the crowd in chanting, “Free, free Palestine” as well as “Death, death to the IDF,” during the duo’s Glastonbury set on June 28 at the event in Somerset, England. The performance was available to watch on BBC via a live stream on iPlayer.
Following the incident, Bob Vylan was removed from the lineup for England’s Radar Festival and France’s Kave Fest, their US visas were revoked ahead of their North America tour, and they were dropped by the United Talent Agency. Bob Vylan is also banned from opening for the US-based band Gogol Bordello in Germany later this year by the Live Music Hall venue, Rolling Stone reported.
BBC Chairman Samir Shah said in a statement on July 3 that the corporation was wrong for transmitting Bob Vylan’s anti-IDF exhortations.
“I’d like first of all to apologise to all our viewers and listeners and particularly the Jewish community for allowing the ‘artist’ Bob Vylan to express unconscionable antisemitic views live on the BBC,” he said. “This was unquestionably an error of judgment. I was very pleased to note that as soon as this came to the notice of [BBC Director-General] Tim Davie — who was on the Glastonbury site at the time visiting BBC staff — he took immediate action and instructed the team to withdraw the performance from on-demand coverage.”
“I am satisfied that the Executive is initiating a process to ensure proper accountability for those found to be responsible for the failings in this incident,” he added. “While it is important that the process is carried out fairly and correctly, it is equally important that the Executive takes decisive action. The Board fully supports the Director-General and the swift actions taken by him and his team to identify these errors and address them.”
In a separate statement, the BBC apologized for live streaming Bob Vylan’s “offensive and deplorable behavior.” The corporation insisted “there can be no place for antisemitism at, or on, the BBC” and admitted that “errors were made both in the lead-up to and during Bob Vylan’s appearance.” The BBC said it was taking action to “ensure proper accountability for those found to be responsible” for the broadcast.
The BBC also said Bob Vylan were one of seven Glastonbury acts considered “high risk” following a risk assessment process done ahead of the festival, but the duo was ultimately found suitable for live streaming “with appropriate mitigations.” The broadcaster said it would make “immediate changes to livestreaming music events” so that in the future “any music performances deemed high risk by the BBC will now not be broadcast live or streamed live.”
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the anti-IDF chant as “appalling hate speech.” Glastonbury head Emily Eavis and organizers of the event said in a joint statement that they were “appalled” by Bob Vylan’s behaviour at Glastonbury.
“Their chants very much crossed a line and we are urgently reminding everyone involved in the production of the Festival that there is no place at Glastonbury for antisemitism, hate speech, or incitement to violence,” they said. “Glastonbury Festival was created in 1970 as a place for people to come together and rejoice in music, the arts and the best of human endeavour. As a festival, we stand against all forms of war and terrorism. We will always believe in — and actively campaign for — hope, unity, peace and love.”
Bob Vylan shared a statement on Instagram further explaining their “Death to the IDF” chant. “We are not for the death of Jews, Arabs or any other race or group of people. We are for the dismantling of a violent military machine,” they wrote. “A machine whose own soldiers were told to use ‘unnecessary lethal force’ against innocent civilians waiting for aid. A machine that has destroyed much of Gaza. We, like those in the spotlight before us, are not the story. We are a distraction from the story. And whatever sanctions we receive will be a distraction.”
Bob Vylan performed at Glastonbury on the West Holts stage ahead of Kneecap, an Irish rap group that shared a “f–k Israel, free Palestine” message on stage at the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival in April. A member of Kneecap has also been charged for allegedly expressing support for Hezbollah, which is a US- and UK-designated terrorist organization. During their own set at the Glastonbury Festival, Kneecap expressed support for Palestine and criticized the British and American governments.
The post BBC Music Chief Steps Back from Duties After Glastonbury Live Stream of Rap Duo Bob Vylan Chanting ‘Death to IDF’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hezbollah Rejects US-Backed Disarmament Proposal
Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem delivers a speech from an unknown location, Nov. 20, 2024, in this still image from video. Photo: REUTERS TV/Al Manar TV via REUTERS.
Hezbollah has vowed to keep its weapons, rejecting a US-backed disarmament proposal amid increasing pressure from the Lebanese government and Israeli threats following new airstrikes and a cross-border incursion.
“This threat will not make us accept surrender,” Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem said in a televised speech on Sunday, warning they will not abandon their weapons and insisting that Israel’s “aggression” must first stop.
“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.
Hezbollah’s response came as the Lebanese government involved the Iran-backed terror group while crafting a reply to US envoy Tom Barrack’s proposal, which called for Israel to halt attacks on Lebanese soil in exchange for the group’s disarmament.
“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region. We will not accept normalization [with Israel],” Qassem said in his speech.
“America’s equation asking us to choose between being killed or surrender does not concern us and we will cling to our rights,” the terrorist leader continued.
On Monday, Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with Lebanon’s response to Washington’s recent proposal on disarming Hezbollah, following meetings between American and Lebanese leaders in Beirut.
This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from the five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
Speaking to reporters after meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Monday, Barrack said he had received the official response but did not disclose any details about its contents.
“What the government gave us was something spectacular in a very short period of time,” Barrack said. “I’m unbelievably satisfied with the response.”
The US envoy said he believed “the Israelis do not want war with Lebanon.”
“Both countries are trying to give the same thing — the notion of a stand-down agreement, of the cessation of hostilities, and a road to peace,” Barrack continued.
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 group 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.”
The post Hezbollah Rejects US-Backed Disarmament Proposal first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel’s Brilliant Spy Accomplishments in the War Against Iran
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Commander-in-Chief Major General Hossein Salami reviews military equipment during an IRGC ground forces military drill in the Aras area, East Azerbaijan province, Iran, Oct. 17, 2022. Photo: IRGC/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
As Iranian officials flail about, arresting hundreds of innocent people and executing “dozens” of alleged spies, now is a good time to recall that among all the things the Islamic Republic is terrible at, its feeble attempts at counter-espionage stand out as especially inept. While the Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) and other regime goons search frantically in the most bizarre places for foreign and domestic enemies, an intricate espionage network has been growing right under their noses.
Israeli intelligence officers have been smuggling weapons, drones, communication gear, and even vehicles into Iran for years using “suitcases, trucks and tankers.” They and their Iranian agents have been spreading equipment throughout the Islamic Republic.
And what have Iran’s “crazy state” counterespionage professionals been doing?
In 2007, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported that “in recent weeks intelligence operatives have arrested 14 squirrels within Iran’s borders … The squirrels were carrying spy gear of foreign agencies, and were stopped before they could act, thanks to the alertness of our intelligence agencies.” While the “alert” intelligence agents were preoccupied with spy squirrels, real spies were busy downloading the Stuxnet supervirus into Iran’s enrichment facilities, causing their centrifuges to spin out of control.
In October 2008, Iranian authorities detained two pigeons caught “spying” near the Natanz nuclear facility. Oddly enough, it was not the first case of suspected avian eavesdropping around Natanz. The Etemad Melli newspaper quoted Commander Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqadam who confirmed the arrests and added that weeks earlier, “a black pigeon was caught bearing a blue-coated metal ring with invisible strings.” As Iranian authorities investigated birds, nearby, undetected Mossad agents photographed the reactor site, mapped entrances and ventilation shafts, and took GPS coordinates.
During the drought of 2017-18, Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali accused Israel of “working to ensure clouds entering Iranian skies are unable to release rain.” Jalali, then the head of Iran’s Civil Defense Organization, claimed that “Joint teams from Israel and one of the neighboring countries make the clouds entering Iran barren. Moreover, we are faced with the cases of cloud theft and snow theft.” While Iranian generals looked to the clouds, down on earth, Israeli spies catalogued the regime’s “safe houses.”
In February 2018, Hassan Firuzabadi, a senior military advisor to Khamenei, boasted about Iran’s success in detecting Western spies with an anecdote about a group of people who had infiltrated Iran with “a variety of reptile desert species like lizards, chameleons … We found out that their skin attracts atomic waves and that they were nuclear spies who wanted to find out where inside the Islamic Republic of Iran we have uranium mines and where we are engaged in atomic activities.”
General Firuzabadi, the former chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, couldn’t resist a taking a parting shot, boisterously claiming that Western spy agencies “failed every time.”
Of course, the real spies knew exactly where “atomic activities” were carried being out.
Prior to October 7, Israel had accomplished some remarkable feats of spy craft inside Iran. In addition to the Stuxnet caper, Israel killed Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the director of Iran’s nuclear program, on November 27, 2020. He wasn’t the first Iranian nuclear scientist to be eliminated, but Israeli spies accomplished the task with sci-fi panache using a remote-control gun just a few miles east of Tehran.
After October 7, Israel began eliminating its enemies throughout the Iranian terror empire, including Lebanon where on July 30, 2024, it killed Fuad Shukr, the Hezbollah co-founder who masterminded the 1983 bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut.
The very next day, on July 31, Israel foreshadowed what would come in the 2025 war by killing Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. Its patient spies had smuggled a small bomb into the VIP guest house months prior to the assassination. The hit further degraded an already diminished Hamas, and its precision and timing embarrassed Iran’s leaders.
But it was not until the war that Israel demonstrated the extent to which its spies have been studying their targets, learning their habits and routines.
On the first day of the war, June 13, 2025, Israel knew the exact whereabouts of Hossein Salami, Commander of the IRGC, Mohammad Bagheri, Armed Forces Chief, Brigadier General Gholamali Rashid, and Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force. None lived to see the second day of the war.
Also on the first day of the war, Iran’s top nuclear scientists were hoodwinked into attending meetings and then killed simultaneously. One of them was Fereydoon Abbasi-Devani who, according to a Wall Street Journal report, recently claimed he had everything necessary to build a nuclear bomb. “If they tell me to build a bomb, I will build it,” he said.
On the final day of the war, Israel killed Sayyed Mohammad Reza Seddighi Saber, the head of the SPND, the agency in charge of nuclear explosion research. The US State Department had only recently come to fully address Saber’s importance, having sanctioned him in May. Israeli spies knew where he lived.
A ceasefire ended the war, but psychological operations continued. The normally secretive Mossad even released videos of its commandos assembling counter missile weapons inside Iran.
Though many top regime figures and nuclear scientists did not survive the brief war, those who did live in fear knowing that Israeli spies are watching them.
Chief Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) Political Correspondent A.J. Caschetta is a principal lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a fellow at Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum where he is also a Milstein fellow. A version of this article was originally published by IPT.
The post Israel’s Brilliant Spy Accomplishments in the War Against Iran first appeared on Algemeiner.com.