RSS
Columbia University Interim President Issued Delayed, Neutral Statements About Hamas Oct. 7 Attack, Campus Antisemitism
The “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” at Columbia University, located in the Manhattan borough of New York City, on April 25, 2024. Photo: Reuters Connect
Columbia University Interim President Katrina Armstrong has exhibited a neutral and waffling stance on the Israel-Hamas war and campus antisemitism in her public statements, raising questions about whether she will forcefully defend Jewish students as classes begin in the coming weeks.
The Ivy League university announced on Wednesday that Armstrong would replace embattled former President Minouche Shafik. Armstrong’s ascension to the presidency comes amid withering criticism from Jewish students and alumni, as well as US lawmakers, over the campus climate in the months following Hamas’ Oct. 7 onslaught across southern Israel.
While serving as the Dean of the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia, Armstrong waited two days to address the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7, which included rampant sexual violence against Israelis and the biggest single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.
In a letter titled “Regarding the crisis in Israel,” Armstrong lamented the “terrible violence and loss of life” in the Jewish state. The letter did not mention Hamas, which rules Gaza, nor did it mention the some 25 hostages kidnapped or 1,200 people slaughtered at the hands of the Palestinian terrorist group.
“The scale of the conflict engulfing Israel and Gaza and the impact on innocent civilians are horrifying,” the Oct. 9 letter read. “Those of us with friends, loved ones, or colleagues in the region are worrying about their safety and feel this especially acutely. This is a time for us to come together and to embrace each other with compassion and empathy.”
Armstrong published a statement on Dec. 22 referring to simmering campus tensions over the ensuing Israel-Hamas war as a “complicated moment.” In contrast to her first statement, Armstrong mentioned Hamas’ murders and hostages. She also acknowledged the growing problem of campus antisemitism at the New York City-based university.
“The Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack and the hostages remaining in captivity weigh very heavily on many in our community. And I have heard personal stories from other student leaders about the heartrending situation in Gaza where the civilian death toll continues to climb and military strikes go on,” Armstrong wrote.
In April, Armstrong penned a statement in response to the anti-Israel encampments on Columbia’s campus. She urged students to maintain focus on their academic work while they navigate the “immensely difficult issues that are roiling” the university.
“Every member of our community holds personal opinions of the events of the last week, and past months. Though your views and personal journeys are many, the distress and pain we feel is experienced by all,” Armstrong wrote.
Armstrong continued, emphatically denouncing “hateful language, calls for violence, and the targeting of any individuals or groups based on their beliefs, ancestry, religion, gender identity, or any other identity or affiliation.”
Columbia’s campus descended into chaos last spring. Anti-Israel campus activists held raucous rallies, chanting slogans such as “Burn Tel Aviv to the ground!” and “go back to Poland!” Jewish students reported heading home early to avoid the hostile campus atmosphere.
Since Oct. 7, Columbia University has become a hub of rising antisemitism and anti-Israel activism on American college campuses. In the immediate aftermath of Hamas’ attacks, numerous Columbia student groups issued statements blaming Israel for the massacre. Several campus groups categorically banned “Zionist” students from membership. Jewish students reported antisemitic bias and discrimination from Columbia faculty and staff.
The US Congress initiated an investigation into antisemitism at the Ivy League campus. Three Columbia deans stepped down from their positions after the House Committee on Education and the Workforce released a trove of text message exchanges among the administrators. In the texts, the university leaders exhibited a dismissive attitude toward the experiences of Jewish students on campus.
In the immediate aftermath of Minouche’s resignation, the Columbia chapter of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP campus group released a statement vowing to continue their demonstrations. The group warned Armstrong to acquiesce to their demands or face consequences.
“After months of chanting ‘Minouche Shafik you can’t hide’ she finally got the memo. To be clear, any future president who does not pay heed to the Columbia student body’s overwhelming demand for divestment [from Israel] will end up exactly as President Shafik did,” the group wrote on X/Twitter.
Columbia’s SJP chapter publicly endorsed Hamas in May.
The post Columbia University Interim President Issued Delayed, Neutral Statements About Hamas Oct. 7 Attack, Campus Antisemitism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Yom HaShoah and October 7: Memory Without Meaning Is Just Silence
Supporters of Israeli hostages, who were kidnapped during the deadly October 7 2023 attack by Hamas, hold torches as they attend a protest to demand a deal to bring every hostage home at once, amid Gaza ceasefire negotiations, in Tel Aviv, Israel, January 15, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun
There are few nations in the world where memory is not only preserved — but lived. In Israel, remembrance is not just about looking back. It is a living, breathing act of collective identity. Every year, on Yom HaShoah, something extraordinary happens. Without government mandates or media campaigns, life pauses — not out of obligation, but from a shared internal rhythm. The siren sounds, and a nation of millions responds in unison. The image is powerful, but its strength lies not in silence — it lies in meaning, in the understanding that remembrance binds us.
But such national memory did not appear fully formed. It was cultivated. In the early years of the Israeli state, Holocaust survivors struggled to tell their stories. The ethos of the “new Jew,” the sabra fighter, clashed with the image of the persecuted victim. That’s why the state didn’t create “Holocaust Memorial Day.” It created “Holocaust and Ghetto Uprising Remembrance Day.” Heroism came first.
It took decades of political, cultural, and educational work before Israeli society could embrace the Holocaust not only as a tragedy — but as part of its moral and historical DNA. Only then did the siren become sacred.
And now, as we approach Yom HaShoah 2025, a new question confronts us: How will we remember October 7th?
It is not a rhetorical question. It is a national challenge.
October 7th was a rupture. A moment of profound trauma — but also of remarkable unity. It revealed painful truths about our vulnerabilities and our divisions. Yet, in its aftermath, it also uncovered a core of resilience: families opening homes to evacuees, young people lining up to volunteer, strangers embracing one another in tears.
This is the essence of Israeli society at its best. But moments fade. What remains is memory. And memory must be shaped.
Do we allow October 7th to become a political football? A symbol of betrayal, anger, or blame? Or do we craft a new ethos — a foundational story that speaks not just of horror, but of heroism and responsibility? One that doesn’t erase the pain, but transforms it into a source of purpose.
We must ask ourselves:
Who are the names our children will memorize?
Who will be the Hannah Szenes or Mordechai Anielewicz of this generation?
What symbols will we pass down? What songs? What stories?
This responsibility cannot rest solely on the state. It belongs to all of us. To our educators and artists. To our journalists and rabbis. To parents, commanders, and influencers.
A siren alone is not a memory. Memory requires meaning.
That’s why now is the time to speak. To publish. To teach. To propose the rituals, the school curricula, the memorial days that will give form to what we feel. If we wait too long, others will shape the memory for us — and perhaps not in ways that heal.
Israelis have always known how to come together during a crisis. But now, the test is deeper: can we build a lasting unity, not born of fear, but forged through memory?
That is the true challenge of October 7th — not only to mourn, but to mold. Not only to remember, but to renew. To ensure that, like Yom HaShoah, this day will one day bring us together not in darkness — but in dignity, clarity, and hope.
Itamar Tzur is the author of The Invention of the Palestinian Narrative and an Israeli scholar specializing in Middle Eastern history. He holds a Bachelor’s degree with honors in Jewish History and a Master’s degree with honors in Middle Eastern studies. As a senior member of the “Forum Kedem for Middle Eastern Studies and Public Diplomacy,” he leverages his academic expertise to deepen understanding of regional dynamics and historical contexts.
The post Yom HaShoah and October 7: Memory Without Meaning Is Just Silence first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Why the Houthis Think They Can Beat the US — And Why They’re Wrong
Protesters, mainly Houthi supporters, stand near a screen displaying senior Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya during a rally to show support to Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, in Sanaa, Yemen, Oct. 18, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Khaled Abdullah
The Houthi rebels have spent years crafting an image of themselves as a hardened, battle-tested force capable of standing up to the most powerful militaries in the region. Now, in the midst of heightened tensions in the Red Sea and ongoing attacks on commercial shipping, they’ve extended that illusion to the United States. Emboldened by years of asymmetric victories against Saudi Arabia, bolstered by Iranian weaponry, and legitimized by propaganda that casts them as the spearhead of a broader “resistance” movement, the Houthis have convinced themselves — and their supporters — that they are capable of not just resisting US military pressure, but prevailing against it.
This belief is a dangerous miscalculation.
Their confidence stems, in part, from real battlefield experience. For nearly a decade, the Houthis have survived and even thrived despite relentless airstrikes, economic blockades, and shifting coalitions aligned against them. Saudi Arabia, with its modern air force and US-supplied munitions, failed to achieve decisive victory, and the perception within Houthi circles is that American power will be no more effective. Their propaganda machine amplifies every moment of defiance — a ship that reroutes, a drone that gets through, a Western strike that doesn’t dismantle their network — and translates it into a narrative of victory. To them, every surviving radar station is proof that the empire can bleed.
But the United States is not Saudi Arabia. The comparison reflects not just poor military judgment, but a profound misunderstanding of American strategic capacity and intent. Unlike regional actors, the US is not burdened by the political minefields of sectarian loyalties, tribal politics, or proximity. It can strike from the Mediterranean, the Gulf of Aden, or from submarines under the Red Sea. It does not need to occupy territory to destroy critical infrastructure. And when Washington decides that a threat must be neutralized, it tends to play a long game — using precision, partnerships, and pressure points until that threat is either dismantled or buried under economic and military consequences.
The Houthis lack the strategic depth to survive this kind of prolonged targeting. They are not a state with layered defenses, they are a militia with a territory — and that territory, while difficult to fully conquer, is not indestructible. Their command centers, storage depots, and drone assembly lines can only be relocated so many times. A concentrated American campaign, especially if paired with increased maritime interdiction and regional intelligence sharing, would gradually degrade the very tools that have made Houthi escalation possible. Their coastal control gives them influence over shipping routes, but also makes them highly visible. Their reliance on external supply chains — from Iran through smuggling routes and covert logistics — exposes them to disruption and surveillance. The longer they play this game, the more they risk pulling the US into a sustained campaign that their organization is not structurally prepared to endure.
Yet the illusion persists — and may even intensify. Faced with growing losses, the Houthis are likely to lean further into psychological warfare. Propaganda will surge. They will publish shaky videos of “downed” drones, stage missile launches, and portray every Western casualty, real or fabricated, as a blow against imperialism. Their goal is not battlefield victory but narrative control. If they can’t defeat the US militarily, they’ll try to erode its political will through a war of images, slogans, and social media virality. In doing so, they hope to sway anti-interventionist voices in the West and rally populist support across the Arab world.
Meanwhile, Iran will tighten its grip. The deeper the Houthis get, the more reliant they become on Tehran’s support — not just for weapons, but for expertise. We may see the quiet transfer of more sophisticated drone systems, longer-range missiles, and even the arrival of Iranian advisers on the ground to coordinate more complex attacks. Tehran has every interest in keeping US forces tied up in Yemen and distracted from other fronts like Syria or the Gulf. But that support will come at a cost: it will make the Houthis more vulnerable to becoming a direct target of Western-Iranian proxy escalation.
All of this is moving toward a dangerous inflection point. The Houthis are pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with — harassing ships in a key global chokepoint, attacking US assets, and daring the world’s most powerful navy to respond. Eventually, that response will escalate in ways they cannot control. A more aggressive US posture, especially in coordination with allies like the UK and France, could impose a maritime siege, take out port infrastructure, or even strike symbolic leadership targets. If the Houthis attempt to retaliate by mining the Bab el-Mandeb Strait or attacking Western vessels more directly, they may trigger a regional conflagration that leaves northern Yemen not as a “liberated” zone but a ruin.
This is why the illusion matters. The Houthis are not just overestimating their strength — they are gambling with the future of their movement and the lives of millions under their control. Their strategic calculus is shaped more by ideology and self-delusion than by sober assessments of military reality. The longer they cling to this fantasy of victory, the closer they come to waking up to its catastrophic consequences.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx
The post Why the Houthis Think They Can Beat the US — And Why They’re Wrong first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Finding Our Jewish Pride: The Star of David Effect
Edith Bruck, in white, attends the unveiling event for the mural “The Star of David” by contemporary artist aleXsandro Palombo at the Fondazione Museo della Shoah in Rome, Italy on April 7, 2025. Photo: Ariel Nacamulli
In the aftermath of October 7, Jewish people around the world have experienced a deep recalibration — fear and shock has been replaced by anger, resilience, and pride. This has led to a reassessment of identity and a recognition of purpose. This awakening has taken on many forms, in the realm of advocacy campaigns, coordinated social media efforts, rallies and protests, letter-writing initiatives, WhatsApp group activism, and countless grassroots political movements.
Jewish visibility is increasing in other ways, too. One particularly striking yet underappreciated phenomenon is what I’d call the “Star of David Effect.” This refers to the growing number of Jewish individuals — particularly younger Jews — who are visibly and deliberately wearing Magen David’s or Chai necklaces in public. What in the past may have been a rare quiet personal expression of faith has now become a visible symbol of resistance and pride.
It has become a rather frequent occurrence within certain sectors of the Jewish community, where young people are outwardly displaying these necklaces and it speaks to a desire to fight back in their own way. This a proactive way to take a level of control back from the onslaught of incoming negativity that people have been exposed to. It’s these people’s way of saying, “yes I’m here, yes I’m Jewish, and what?”
This may seem like a small gesture, but in reality, it’s a powerful statement. It is a reassuring demonstration by the younger generations of their pride in who they are. It reflects a generation beginning to see their Jewish identity not as incidental, but as essential. In an era where Jewish people have been forced to confront an ancient hatred in a modern context, the Star of David has transformed into both armor and resistance.
In recent discussions with Rabbi Jonathan Blake, the senior rabbi at Westchester Reform Temple in New York, he described how pre-Oct. 7, he had concerns about teaching the lessons of the Holocaust to younger generations. He expressed that the passage of time and the fading presence of survivors, coupled with the Shoah being too distant to be relatable to current generations, presented a challenge.
Rabbi Blake noted that October 7 has created a kind of unfortunate, but undeniable, educational opening. “For the first time in their lives,” he told me, “these students understand what it feels like to be targeted simply for being Jewish. It’s terrifying — but also awakening something in them.”
The “Star of David Effect” is becoming a fashion statement that is a symbol of power. As the piece of jewelry sits around someone’s neck, there is a certain strength it embodies and a type of coolness that it conjures up. Whether it’s the young man wearing a Magen David in the university cafeteria or the woman with a Chai pendant on the subway, they are all part of something larger. They are, in their own way, demonstrating bravery and making a statement, and it is worth recognizing.
Every generation questions whether the next generation has what it takes to carry the torch of survival. Certainly, the young Jewish people of Israel have proven they have what it takes, and it is not wrong to assess that this generation of American Jewry are showing their resolve by donning there Magen Davids and their Chais. In doing so, they echo the power of generations before them — it would not be out of place to give these young people a pat on the back and let them know that their demonstration of pride is cool and deserves our respect.
Daniel Rosen has been a recognized opinion leader since his early college days, when he co-founded Torchpac, a pro-Israel advocacy group at New York University. Daniel is currently the chairman and co-founder of the pro-Israel group, Minds and Hearts.
The post Finding Our Jewish Pride: The Star of David Effect first appeared on Algemeiner.com.