Uncategorized
George Washington U clears professor of antisemitism charges brought by pro-Israel group
(JTA) – George Washington University has cleared a professor of allegations from a federal civil rights complaint that she discriminated against Jewish and Israeli students, in the latest instance of universities and pro-Israel groups wrangling over how to define antisemitism on campus.
The summary of the findings, by an outside law firm, also criticized the pro-Israel group StandWithUs for its “expansive view of the definition of antisemitism,” which the report’s authors said would stifle academic freedom if applied widely. The university shared the summary on Monday.
StandWithUs had brought the allegations against Lara Sheehi, a psychology professor in the university’s graduate program who was born in Lebanon. In its civil rights complaint, filed with the U.S. Department of Education, the group claimed that Sheehi had made antisemitic comments in class and brought in a guest speaker who shared anti-Zionist views, and that the university hadn’t done enough to address student concerns.
In the last several years, pro-Israel legal groups have used the Department of Education’s civil rights office to file numerous federal complaints against universities for Israel-related speech they have claimed is antisemitic. Built on a recent expansion of the department’s purview into antisemitism-related civil rights violations, these complaints have resulted in some universities pledging to do more to combat antisemitism — and, occasionally, in pushback from activists and administrators who deny the charges.
In George Washington University’s case, the school announced in January it would commission a third-party investigation into the matter, to be conducted by the law firm Crowell & Moring LLP. The Department of Education has not to date opened its own investigation into the case, according to its records. The Middle East Studies Association defended Sheehi and called on the university to support her by ending the investigation; hundreds of academics signed an open letter defending her.
That investigation has now cleared Sheehi of any wrongdoing, while also critiquing StandWithUs and the Jewish and Israeli students it was representing.
Those parties, the firm said, “advocated for an expansive view of the definition of antisemitism, which, if accepted in the university environment, could infringe on free speech principles and academic freedom.”
Roz Rothstein, director and CEO of StandWithUs, called the report summary “disappointing” and “self-serving” in a statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, but did not address its direct critique of her organization’s definition of antisemitism.
“While we had hoped that the GW administration would take this opportunity to begin remedying its pervasive antisemitism problem, its published ‘summary’ demonstrates that it intends only to persist in its course of disregarding the rights of its Jewish and Israeli students,” Rothstein wrote. She called on the university to release the report in full, saying some of its findings were “patently untrue.”
The university endorsed the findings. “After careful review, I believe the summary faithfully represents what the university learned through this third-party investigation,” George Washington University President Mark Wrighton wrote in a letter to the university community. He added, “Looking forward, we will continue to work closely with our community members as well as campus and national partners to best support our Jewish and Arab communities.”
The university declined further comment. It has also dealt with recent antisemitism controversies involving graffiti outside the campus Hillel and a damaged imitation Torah at a Jewish fraternity.
Among StandWithUs’s more eye-catching allegations was that Sheehi had told an Israeli student, “It’s not your fault you were born in Israel.” While the investigation didn’t reference specific alleged quotes, it could not support any claims of antisemitic comments Sheehi had supposedly made in class. Sheehi’s alleged comments were “inaccurate or taken out of context and misrepresented,” the firm’s summary said, citing “those who had heard” the comments (a charge disputed by StandWithUs).
The second major allegation, concerning comments made by guest lecturer Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian of Hebrew University of Jerusalem, could not be substantiated by a recording of the event, the summary found. It also concerned an event students were not required to attend — but even within this context, investigators said, Sheehi “repeatedly acknowledged the students’ feelings, gave the students space to express their concerns, and denounced antisemitism as a real and present danger. No student-interviewees recalled Dr. Sheehi denying that antisemitism exists or denying the students’ lived experiences.”
The findings ruled in Sheehi’s and the university’s favor on other points, too, noting that a Twitter account the professor had used in years past to decry “Israelis” and “Zionists” lay outside the purview of university discipline.
Sheehi did not respond to a JTA request for comment. In a published piece during the investigation, Sheehi accused her employer of having “colluded with StandWithUs’ misrepresentation of my classroom by being silent” about details of the allegations which she said the university could have disproven.
—
The post George Washington U clears professor of antisemitism charges brought by pro-Israel group appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Trump Confirms Conversation with Venezuela’s Maduro
Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro holds Simon Bolivar’s sword as he addresses members of the armed forces, Bolivarian Militia, police, and civilians during a rally against a possible escalation of US actions toward the country, at Fort Tiuna military base in Caracas, Venezuela, November 25, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria
US President Donald Trump confirmed on Sunday that he had spoken with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, but did not provide details on what the two leaders discussed.
“I don’t want to comment on it. The answer is yes,” Trump said when asked if he had spoken with Maduro. He was speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One.
The New York Times first reported Trump had spoken with Maduro earlier this month and discussed a possible meeting between them in the United States.
“I wouldn’t say it went well or badly, it was a phone call,” Trump said regarding the conversation.
The revelation of the phone call comes as Trump continues to use bellicose rhetoric regarding Venezuela, while also entertaining the possibility of diplomacy.
On Saturday, Trump said the airspace above and surrounding Venezuela should be considered “closed in its entirety,” but gave no further details, stirring anxiety and confusion in Caracas as his administration ramps up pressure on Maduro’s government.
When asked whether his airspace comments meant strikes against Venezuela were imminent, Trump said: “Don’t read anything into it.”
The Trump administration has been weighing Venezuela-related options to combat what it has portrayed as Maduro’s role in supplying illegal drugs that have killed Americans. The socialist Venezuelan president has denied having any links to the illegal drug trade.
Reuters has reported the options under US consideration include an attempt to overthrow Maduro, and that the US military is poised for a new phase of operations after a massive military buildup in the Caribbean and nearly three months of strikes on suspected drug boats off Venezuela’s coast.
Human rights groups have condemned the strikes as illegal extrajudicial killings of civilians, and some US allies have expressed growing concerns that Washington may be violating international law.
Trump said he would look into whether the US military had carried out a second strike in the Caribbean that killed survivors during a September operation, adding he would not have wanted such a strike.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said the strikes are lawful but are intended to be “lethal.”
Trump told military service members last week the US would “very soon” begin land operations to stop suspected Venezuelan drug traffickers.
Maduro and senior members of his administration have not commented on the call. Asked about it on Sunday, Jorge Rodriguez, the head of Venezuela’s National Assembly, said the call was not the topic of his press conference, where he announced a lawmaker investigation into US boat strikes in the Caribbean.
Uncategorized
US Sees Progress After Talks in Florida with Ukraine, but More Work Needed to Reach Deal
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner meet with a Ukrainian delegation in Hallandale Beach, Florida, US, November 30, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Eva Marie Uzcategui
US and Ukrainian officials held what both sides called productive talks on Sunday about a Russia peace deal, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressing optimism about progress despite challenges to ending the more than 3-year-long war.
Rubio met with a Ukrainian delegation led by a new chief negotiator in Florida, his home state, for talks that he said were meant to create a pathway for Ukraine to remain sovereign and independent.
“We continue to be realistic about how difficult this is, but optimistic, particularly given the fact that as we’ve made progress, I think there is a shared vision here that this is not just about ending the war,” Rubio told reporters after the talks concluded. “It is about securing Ukraine’s future, a future that we hope will be more prosperous than it’s ever been.”
The discussions were a follow-up to a new set of negotiations that began with a fresh US blueprint for peace. Critics said the plan initially favored Russia, which started the conflict with a 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Special envoy Steve Witkoff and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were also present representing the US side. Witkoff leaves on Monday for Moscow, where he is expected to meet Russian counterparts for talks this week.
“There’s more work to be done. This is delicate,” Rubio said. “There are a lot of moving parts, and obviously there’s another party involved here … that will have to be a part of the equation, and that will continue later this week, when Mr. Witkoff travels to Moscow.”
Trump has expressed frustration at not being able to end the war. He pledged as a presidential candidate to do so in one day and has said he was surprised it has been so hard, given what he calls a strong relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has largely resisted concessions to stop the fighting.
Trump’s team has pressured Ukraine to make significant concessions itself, including giving up territory to Russia.
The talks shifted on Sunday with a change in leadership from the Ukrainian side. A new chief negotiator, national security council secretary Rustem Umerov, led the discussions for Kyiv after the resignation on Friday of previous team leader Andriy Yermak, chief of staff to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, amid a corruption scandal at home.
“Ukraine’s got some difficult little problems,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Sunday, referring to the corruption scandal, which he said was “not helpful.” He repeated his view that both Russia and Ukraine wanted to end the war and said there was a good chance a deal could be reached.
Umerov thanked the United States and its officials for their support. “US is hearing us, US is supporting us, US is walking besides us,” he said in English as the negotiations began.
After the meeting, he declared it productive. “We discussed all the important matters that are important for Ukraine, for Ukrainian people and US was super supportive,” Umerov said.
The Sunday talks took place near Miami at a private club, Shell Bay, developed by Witkoff’s real estate business.
Zelensky had said he expected the results from previous meetings in Geneva would be “hammered out” on Sunday. In Geneva, Ukraine presented a counter-offer to proposals laid out by US Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll to leaders in Kyiv some two weeks ago.
Ukraine’s leadership, facing a domestic political crisis fueled by a probe into major graft in the energy sector, is seeking to push back on Moscow-friendly terms as Russian forces grind forward along the front lines of the war.
Last week, Zelensky warned Ukrainians, who are weathering widespread blackouts from Russian air strikes on the energy system, that his country was at its most difficult moment yet but pledged not to make a bad deal.
“As a weatherman would say, there’s the inherent difficulty in forecasting because the atmosphere is a chaotic system where small changes can lead to large outcomes,” Kyiv’s first deputy foreign minister Sergiy Kyslytsya, also part of the delegation, wrote on X from Miami on Sunday.
Uncategorized
Netanyahu’s Pardon Request: What Happens Next?
Israeli President Isaac Herzog speaks during a press conference with Latvian President Edgars Rinkevics in Riga, Latvia, Aug. 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ints Kalnins
i24 News – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday submitted a formal request for a presidential pardon to President Isaac Herzog, i24NEWS Hebrew legal commentator Avishai Grintzig revealed.
What happens next? The request now enters a detailed, multi-stage review process involving the Ministry of Justice, law-enforcement bodies, and the President’s Residence.
Once a request is filed, it is first transferred to the Pardons Department in the Ministry of Justice.
The department begins gathering extensive information, seeking input from the Prison Service, Israel Police, the State Attorney’s Office, welfare and medical authorities, and the Enforcement and Collection Authority.
After assembling the material, the Pardons Department submits its opinion to the Minister of Justice. The minister then issues his own recommendation. If a conflict of interest arises, the government must appoint another minister to handle the matter.
The minister’s recommendation is then sent to the legal department at the President’s Residence, where the file is reviewed, supplemented as needed, and passed on to the President’s Legal Advisor.
The Legal Advisor prepares an independent opinion and may conduct additional inquiries with the Pardons Department or other relevant bodies. Once complete, the full file — including all opinions and documentation — is presented to the President for a final decision.
If the President approves the pardon, he signs a clemency document, which is then countersigned by the Minister of Justice (or a substitute minister). The applicant is notified in writing and receives the signed document.
If the President rejects the request, the applicant receives a written notice explaining the decision.