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
A quiet diplomatic shift in the Middle East, with monumental consequences for Israel
Something significant is happening between Israel and Syria, and it deserves more attention than it is getting.
With the backing of the United States, Israeli and Syrian officials have agreed to create what they call a “joint fusion mechanism” — a permanent channel for coordination on intelligence, de-escalation, diplomacy and economic matters — during meetings in Paris. It appears to be the beginning of institutionalized contact between two countries that have formally been at war since 1948.
If this process continues, it will count as a genuine foreign-policy success for President Donald Trump’s administration.
To understand how profound that change would be, it is worth recalling the two countries’ shared history.
Israel and Syria — which the U.S. struck with a set of targeted attacks on the Islamic State on Saturday — have fought openly or by proxy for decades. Before 1967, Syrian artillery positions in the Golan Heights regularly shelled Israeli communities in the Hula Valley and around the Sea of Galilee. After Israel captured that region in 1967, the direct shelling stopped, but the conflict did not.
Syria remained formally committed to a state of war; Israel entrenched itself in the Golan Heights; both sides treated the frontier as a potential flashpoint to be managed carefully. After Egypt and Israel made peace in 1979, Syria became Israel’s most dangerous neighboring state.
A 1974 disengagement agreement created a United Nations-monitored buffer zone, which mostly ensured peace along the border, but did not resolve anything fundamental. In Lebanon, Israel and Syria backed opposing forces for years, and their air forces clashed briefly during the 1982 Lebanon War. Later, Iran’s growing role in Syria and Hezbollah’s military buildup added new threats. The Syrian civil war then destroyed basic state capacity and created precisely the kind of militia-rich environment Israel fears along its borders.
Now, with the dictator Bashar al-Assad gone and the former rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa in power, Syria is a broken country trying to stabilize. Sharaa’s past associations, disturbingly, include leadership of jihadist groups that were part of the wartime landscape in Syria. But today he governs a state facing economic collapse, infrastructure ruin and a population that needs jobs and basic services. His incentives are simple and powerful: ensure the survival of his regime, invite foreign investment, and secure relief from isolation and sanctions. Those goals point toward the U.S. and its partners, including Israel.
The Trump administration has made it clear that it wants to see new Syrian cooperation with Israel, with the suggestion that progress with Israel will become a gateway to international investment, and to a degree of political acceptance that Syria has lacked for years. Al-Sharaa’s willingness to engage is therefore not a mystery.
Israel’s motivations are also straightforward. After the Gaza war, Israel is facing a severe reputational problem. It is widely viewed abroad as reckless and excessively militarized. The government is under pressure over not only the conduct of the war but also the perception that it has no political strategy and relies almost exclusively on force. A diplomatic track with Syria allows Israel to present a very different picture: that of a country capable of negotiations with ideologically opposed neighbors, de-escalation, and regional cooperation.
There are significant security incentives, too.
Israel wants to limit Iran and Hezbollah’s influence in Syria. It wants a predictable northern border. It wants assurances regarding the Druze population in southern Syria — brethren to the Israeli Druze who are extremely loyal to the state, and who were outraged after a massacre of Syrian Druze followed the installation of al-Sharaa’s regime. It wants to ensure that no armed Syrian groups will tread near the Golan. A coordinated mechanism supervised by the U.S. offers a strong diplomatic way to address these issues.
The U.S. will benefit as well. The Trump team is eager to show that it can deliver lasting diplomatic achievements in the Middle East after the success of the Abraham Accords in Trump’s first term. A meaningful shift in Israel–Syria relations would be a very welcome addition, especially as the U.S.-brokered ceasefire in the Gaza war faces an uncertain future.
The main questions now are practical. Can the “joint fusion mechanism” function under pressure? What will happen when there is, almost inevitably, an incident — a drone downed, a militia clash, a cross-border strike? Will the new system effectively lower the temperature, or will it collapse at the first crisis?
Will Iran — facing its own profound internal political crisis — accept a Syria that coordinates with Israel under U.S. supervision, or will it work to undermine al-Sharaa? How will Hezbollah react if Damascus appears to move away from the axis of “resistance” and toward a security understanding with Israel?
How would an Israel-Syria deal impact Lebanon’s moribund efforts to dismantle Hezbollah’s military capacity? Al-Sharaa has already helped significantly by ending the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah from Iran through his territory. Might he also actively help with the disarming of the group?
No one should expect a full peace treaty soon. The question of possession of the Golan Heights probably remains a deal-breaker. Public opinion in Syria has been shaped by decades of official hostility to Israel, and Israeli politics is fragmented and volatile.
But diplomatic breakthroughs can confound expectations. They usually begin with mechanisms like this one, involving limited cooperation, routine contact and crisis management.
If this effort helps move the border from a zone of permanent tension to one of managed stability, that alone would be a major shift. It would also send a signal beyond the region: U.S. engagement still matters, and American pressure and incentives can still change behavior.
The post A quiet diplomatic shift in the Middle East, with monumental consequences for Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel’s Netanyahu Hopes to ‘Taper’ Israel Off US Military Aid in Next Decade
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to the press on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC, July 8, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview published on Friday that he hopes to “taper off” Israeli dependence on US military aid in the next decade.
Netanyahu has said Israel should not be reliant on foreign military aid but has stopped short of declaring a firm timeline for when Israel would be fully independent from Washington.
“I want to taper off the military within the next 10 years,” Netanyahu told The Economist. Asked if that meant a tapering “down to zero,” he said: “Yes.”
Netanyahu said he told President Donald Trump during a recent visit that Israel “very deeply” appreciates “the military aid that America has given us over the years, but here too we’ve come of age and we’ve developed incredible capacities.”
In December, Netanyahu said Israel would spend 350 billion shekels ($110 billion) on developing an independent arms industry to reduce dependency on other countries.
In 2016, the US and Israeli governments signed a memorandum of understanding for the 10 years through September 2028 that provides $38 billion in military aid, $33 billion in grants to buy military equipment and $5 billion for missile defense systems.
Israeli defense exports rose 13 percent last year, with major contracts signed for Israeli defense technology including its advanced multi-layered aerial defense systems.
US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Israel supporter and close ally of Trump, said on X that “we need not wait ten years” to begin scaling back military aid to Israel.
“The billions in taxpayer dollars that would be saved by expediting the termination of military aid to Israel will and should be plowed back into the US military,” Graham said. “I will be presenting a proposal to Israel and the Trump administration to dramatically expedite the timetable.”
Uncategorized
In Rare Messages from Iran, Protesters ask West for Help, Speak of ‘Very High’ Death Toll
Protests in Tehran. Photo: Iran Photo from social media used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law, via i24 News
i24 News – Speaking to Western media from beyond the nationwide internet blackout imposed by the Islamic regime, Iranian protesters said they needed support amid a brutal crackdown.
“We’re standing up for a revolution, but we need help. Snipers have been stationed behind the Tajrish Arg area [a neighborhood in Tehran],” said a protester in Tehran speaking to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity. He added that “We saw hundreds of bodies.”
Another activist in Tehran spoke of witnessing security forces firing live ammunition at protesters resulting in a “very high” number killed.
On Friday, TIME magazine cited a Tehran doctor speaking on condition of anonymity that just six hospitals in the capital recorded at least 217 killed protesters, “most by live ammunition.”
Speaking to Reuters on Saturday, Setare Ghorbani, a French-Iranian national living in the suburbs of Paris, said that she became ill from worry for her friends inside Iran. She read out one of her friends’ last messages before losing contact: “I saw two government agents and they grabbed people, they fought so much, and I don’t know if they died or not.”