RSS
‘I don’t think he’s against us’: Israeli protesters dialogue with UN chief during encounters outside his home

(New York Jewish Week) — One Friday morning last month, as United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres took the short walk from his townhouse to his car in freezing weather, he was confronted by a group of Israeli protesters who peppered him with questions about the war in Gaza and his efforts to free the hostages held by Hamas.
Guterres — flanked by security — stopped for a few seconds to chat, his breath visible in the chill. He complained about his portrayal in the Israeli press. A protester handed him a holiday card advocating for the hostages.
Shany Granot-Lubaton, one of the protest leaders, asked him about his reaction to a 47-minute film of Hamas’ atrocities, produced by the Israeli government.
“How was watching the horror movie?” she asked.
“It is human nature at its worst,” Guterres said.
The protesters thanked him, and he moved on.
Friday morning demonstrations outside Guterres’ Sutton Place home has become something of a ritual for several dozen Israeli-Americans advocating for the 136 hostages still held in Gaza. Shortly before 9 a.m., they gather on the sidewalk outside Guterres’ stately brick home, its front door framed by two white Greek pillars. Their hope is to catch him while he is exiting with a handful of security guards, and to talk with him before he gets into a black Mercedes sedan parked at the curb.
Israel has a famously adversarial relationship to the U.N., and at first, that was the activists’ posture as well. But as they approach 100 days since Oct. 7, and prepare for a large rally outside the U.N. on Friday, a change is afoot: Guterres and the protesters have started a dialogue.
“At the beginning we were very, very angry and shocked by how they reacted, and we felt like the U.N. was totally not standing for the hostages and for Israel,” Granot-Lubaton told the New York Jewish Week.
But now, she said, “He’s listening to them, he’s meeting with them. Does he do enough? Of course not. He’s not doing enough, but it’s not as it was at the beginning. Every week, when he sees us, he stops, he speaks with us respectfully, he’s listening, so I respect him for that. He could have done it differently.”
A spokesperson for Guterres, Stéphane Dujarric, said the feeling was mutual.
“Whenever he’s in New York, they’re outside and he talks to them and he always welcomes the dialogue,” Dujarric said. “His door is always open.”
Protesters outside the home of U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, January 5, 2024. (Luke Tress)
The protests began as a way to castigate the U.N. chief. On Oct. 25 last year, Guterres incensed Israelis by saying that the Hamas attack “did not happen in a vacuum,” linking the terrorist atrocities to occupation, settlements and economic woes. That statement led Gilad Erdan, Israel’s U.N. ambassador, to call for Guterres’ resignation.
The demonstrations outside Guterres’ home started that week. The activists cut their teeth on protests in New York against the Israeli government’s judicial overhaul before pivoting to hostage advocacy after Oct. 7. They borrowed a tactic from their counterparts in Israel, who have been protesting outside officials’ houses for the past several years.
At first, they were angry with the U.N. and Guterres’ response to the Hamas attack, which killed 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took 240 hostages, alongside other atrocities. But the activists’ views softened after Guterres viewed the Israeli government’s graphic video of the Hamas attack, and met with hostages’ families.
“At the beginning we were very angry, there was a lot of anger, like, ‘We’re going to come in front of his house and yell at him,’” said Yaala Ballin, an Israeli jazz singer who has lived in the city for 19 years and is part of the core of the Friday morning protesters.
“We kind of changed our position,” she said. “We realized that we need his help and we need to keep him on our side and we want to have him join our purpose, bring our side out there.”
Gradually, she said, Guterres began to engage. First he began pausing before getting in the car, moments that later turned into brief, cordial exchanges. “The last time was really a conversation,” she said.
In one of the encounters with the protesters, in early December, as Guterres was walking out the door, a demonstrator pursued him while holding a hostage flier, saying, “We just wanted to remind you that our hostages are still in Gaza.”
“I’m totally committed,” Guterres responded.
Granot-Lubaton said Guterres was more approachable than some of the Israeli government’s own ministers.
“He is not the demon in this story, although there are people who are trying to make him that way, but at the same time he could do a lot more,” she said. “It’s not a black and white thing.”
The demonstrators feel like they’re having an impact. Hours after the exchange with Granot-Lubaton about the film, Guterres demanded on X, formerly Twitter, that all hostages be released “immediately and unconditionally.”
“Nothing can possibly justify the horrific terror attacks launched by Hamas on 7 October,” Guterres said. But the Israeli activists don’t quite feel that he’s on their side: He followed that statement with three posts either criticizing Israel or expressing alarm about the violence in Gaza.
Protesters outside the home of U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, December 8, 2024. (Luke Tress)
Guterres has also shown the protesters that he carried dog tags reading “Bring them home” in his pocket. The dog tags are part of a campaign by the families of hostages, some of whom gave the item to Guterres during a meeting.
He carried them, Granot-Lubaton pointed out, but did not wear them.
“I think in a way it symbolizes his entire reaction to this crisis. Maybe he does care about the hostages, but for different political reasons and the way the U.N. works right now, he’s not wearing it,” Granot-Lubaton said. “He’s not public enough with his commitment.”
Dujarric, the Guterres spokesperson, said, “From the start, the secretary-general has been heartbroken and devastated about what happened and what is happening to the hostages” and continues to push for their release.
“What he’s been saying on the hostages from the get-go is they need to be released unconditionally, that nothing can justify it,” Dujarric said.
Guterres isn’t always there on Friday mornings, and whether or not he shows up, the demonstrators stay for about 30 minutes, holding fliers with the faces of the hostages and reading out the captives’ names. They hang colorful origami cranes symbolizing the hostages on a tree outside Guterres’ front door. Lampposts in the quiet, upscale neighborhood are plastered with the fliers, which are ubiquitous on the city’s streets and have become a battleground between pro- and anti-Israel activists.
Hostage families and Israeli officials, including left-wing politicians such as Yair Golan and Gilad Kariv, have spoken at the events outside Guterres’ home. Balllin usually sings the Israeli national anthem, “Hatikva,” at the end of the rallies. She said the demonstrators have also become friendly with police outside Guterres’ home.
Guterres’ powers as secretary-general are limited, but the activists believe he sets the tone for much of the international community. They say international agencies can do more to help liberate the hostages, including pressuring Qatar and Egypt, which hold sway with Hamas’ leaders, to push for their release.
Protest leader Shany Granot-Lubaton leads a crowd outside the home of U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, January 5, 2024. (Luke Tress)
The demonstrators are also seeking more straightforward and specific condemnation of Hamas’ war crimes, including statements that are not accompanied by criticism of Israel. In late November, Guterres condemned “accounts of sexual violence during the abhorrent acts of terror by Hamas” for the first time. Granot-Lubaton is hoping for stronger language.
“I would appreciate him saying that rape and kidnapping people and murdering innocent people is not a legitimate way of resistance,” Granot-Lubaton said. “You don’t need high moral standards to say such a thing.”
Guterres has also voiced a grievance to the protesters about his portrayal in the Israeli media after a tense encounter with hostage families. “What I read in the Israeli press was not what I said,” Guterres said.
“We know,” one of the protesters said.
And the protesters have tried to address his concerns. Ballin said some of them contacted an Israeli reporter asking for a change to an article to better reflect what had actually happened.
“I’m not angry with him anymore. I don’t think he’s against us,” Ballin said. “I think he ran into a very, very complicated situation and he’s not doing enough. I’m not angry, I just feel like he needs to be directed and reminded of the good he can do.”
She added, “We need him, and we feel he can really help just make statements loud and clear for the world to follow.”
—
The post ‘I don’t think he’s against us’: Israeli protesters dialogue with UN chief during encounters outside his home appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
NYC Mayor Eric Adams Calls Zohran Mamdani an ‘Antisemite’ Who Has Embraced Hamas, Says Jews ‘Should Be Concerned’

New York City Mayor Eric Adams attends an “October 7: One Year Later” commemoration to mark the anniversary of the Hamas-led attack in Israel at the Summer Stage in Central Park on October 7, 2024, in New York City. Photo: Ron Adar/ SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
New York City Mayor Eric Adams has accused mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani of spreading antisemitic views, citing Mamdani’s past remarks and anti-Israel activism as he starts his efforts to thwart the progressive insurgent.
Adams’s repudiation comes in the aftermath of a heated mayoral Democratic primary in which Mamdani, a 33‑year‑old democratic socialist, former rapper, and New York City Assembly member, achieved a stunning upset over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday. While Mamdani has denied being antisemitic, Adams argued that some of Mamdani’s rhetoric, including his defense of the phrase “globalize the intifada,” crosses the line into inflammatory territory and risks alienating Jewish New Yorkers.
In the Thursday interview with journalist Don Lemon, Adams slammed Mamdani for his “embracing of Hamas” in his public comments and rap lyrics. The mayor labeled Hamas a “murderous organization” that murders members of the LGBTQ+ community and uses “human beings as shields” when engaging in military conflict with Israel.
“You can’t embrace Hamas, and the mere fact that you embrace Hamas says a lot,” he said.
During his rap career, Mamdani released a song praising the “Holy Land Five,” a group of five men connected to the Hamas terrorist group. The men were accused of funneling millions in cash to Hamas through the Holy Land Foundation — a charity organization that was shut down by the federal government in 2001 for having links to terrorist groups.
The mayor added that the city’s Jewish community should be “concerned” with Mamdani’s comments.
Eric Adams after campaign kickoff calls his Democratic rival, Zohran Mamdani, “an antisemite” who, he says, has embraced Hamas.
“Those who are Jewish should be concerned.” pic.twitter.com/COZSF9jHXE
— Jacob N. Kornbluh (@jacobkornbluh) June 26, 2025
Adams is battling to keep his political future alive amid mounting legal and political troubles. A federal bribery probe into foreign campaign donations cast a shadow over his administration until charges were unexpectedly dropped by a Trump-aligned Justice Department, sparking accusations of political favoritism. Since then, Adams has leaned into right-wing rhetoric on crime and immigration, forging relationships with allies of US President Donald Trump and refusing to rule out a party switch, moves that have alienated Democratic leaders and progressives alike and caused his approval ratings to spiral.
Adams, who is running for reelection as an independent, had reportedly hoped for Mamdani to emerge victorious in the Democratic primary, believing that a face-off against the progressive firebrand would create an opportunity to revive his near-moribund reelection campaign by highlighting the democratic socialist’s far-left views.
Mamdani, a progressive representative in the New York State Assembly, has also sparked outrage after engaging in a series of provocative actions, such as appearing on the podcast of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas influencer Hasan Piker and vowing to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
During an event hosted by the UJA-Federation of New York last month, Mamdani also declined to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
“I believe that Israel has a right to exist with equal rights for all,” Mamdani said in a carefully worded response when asked, sidestepping the issue of Israel’s existence specifically as a “Jewish state” and seemingly suggesting Israeli citizens do not enjoy equal rights.
Then during a New York City Democratic mayoral debate, he once again refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, sparking immediate backlash among the other candidates.
In 2023, while speaking at a Democratic Socialists of America convention in New York, Mamdani encouraged the audience to applaud for Palestinian American community activist Khader El-Yateem, saying, “If you don’t clap for El-Yateem, you’re a Zionist.”
High-profile Democratic leaders in New York such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, Gov. Kathy Hochul, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries have congratulated and complemented Mamdani but have not yet issued an explicit endorsement. Each lawmaker has expressed interest in meeting with Mamdani prior to making a decision on a formal endorsement, indicating discomfort within Democratic circles regarding the presumptive Democratic mayoral nominee’s meteoric rise over the past few months.
The post NYC Mayor Eric Adams Calls Zohran Mamdani an ‘Antisemite’ Who Has Embraced Hamas, Says Jews ‘Should Be Concerned’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
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
University of Virginia President Resigns Amid DEI Controversy With Trump Administration

US President Donald Trump speaks to the media as US Attorney General Pam Bondi and US Attorney General Todd Blanche listen, on June 27, 2025. Photo: Reuters Connect
The University of Virginia (UVA) is without a president following the reported resignation of James Ryan, a move which the US Justice Department stipulated as a condition of settling a civil rights case brought against the institution over its practicing racial preferences in admissions and hiring, a policy it justified as fostering “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI).
As first reported by The New York Times, Ryan tendered his resignation in a letter to the university’s corporate board on Thursday, noting that he had originally intended to step down at the conclusion of the 2025-2026 academic year. Recent events hastened the decision, the Times added, including several board members’ insisting that Ryan leave to prevent the institution’s losing “hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding” that the Trump administration would have impounded had he remained in office.
Ryan drew the scrutiny of the Justice Department, having allegedly defied a landmark Supreme Court ruling which outlawed establishing racial identity as the determinant factor for admission to the university as well as a series of executive orders US President Donald Trump issued to shutter DEI initiatives being operated in the public and private sectors. Such programs have been accused of fostering a new “anti-white” bigotry which penalizes individual merit and undermines the spirit of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement by, for example, excluding white males from jobs and prestigious academic positions for which they are qualified.
Another DEI-adjacent practice was identified at UVA in 2024, when the Equal Protection Project, a Rhode Island based nonprofit, filed a civil rights complaint against the university which argued that its holding a BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) Alumni-Student Mentoring Program is discriminatory, claiming no public official would think it appropriate to sanction a mentoring program for which the sole membership criterion is being white. UVA later changed the description of the program, claiming that it is open to “all races, ethnicities, and national origins” even as it stressed that it was “created with BIPOC students in mind.”
The university’s tactics were allegedly employed to hide other DEI programs from lawmakers and taxpayers, with Ryan reportedly moving and concealing them behind new names. He quickly exhausted the patience of the Trump Justice Department, which assumed office only months after the BIPOC program was reported to federal authorities.
“This is further demonstration that the Trump administration is brutally serious about enforcement of civil rights laws. This will send shock waves throughout higher education, and it should,” Kenneth Marcus, chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told The Algemeiner on Friday, commenting on the news. “It is a clear message that university leaders will be held accountable, personally and professionally, if they fail to ensure their institutions’ compliance.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, the Trump administration is leading a campaign against colleges and universities it has deemed as soft on campus antisemitism or excessively “woke.” Over the past several months, the administration has imposed catastrophic financial sanctions on elite universities including Harvard and Columbia, rattling a higher education establishment against which conservatives have lodged a slew of criticisms for decades. The actions coincide with a precipitous drop in public support for academia caused by an explosion of pro-Hamas demonstrations on campuses and the promotion of views which many Americans perceive as anti-meritocratic, anti-Western, and racist.
Since January, the administration has impounded $3 billion in Harvard’s federal funds over the institution’s refusal to agree to a wishlist of policy reforms that Republican lawmakers have long argued will make higher education more meritocratic and less welcoming to anti-Zionists and far-left extremists. Contained in a letter the administration sent to Harvard interim president Alan Garber — who subsequently released it to the public — the policies 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 implore Harvard to begin “reforming programs with egregious records of antisemitism” and to recalibrate its approach to “student discipline.”
Columbia University has announced that it acceded to similar demands put forth by the Trump administration as prerequisites for the restoration of its federal funds — including a review of undergraduate admissions practices that allegedly discriminate against qualified Jewish applicants, the enforcement of an “anti-mask” policy that protesters have violated to avoid being identified by law enforcement, and enhancements to the university’s security protocols that would facilitate the restoration of order when the campus is disturbed by unauthorized demonstrations.
Harvard is reportedly prepared to strike a deal with Trump as well, according to a Thursday report by The Harvard Crimson.
Garber, the paper said, 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.”
Meanwhile, others continue to argue that Trump’s reforms of higher education threaten to mire the university in politics while describing Ryan’s resignation as a setback for academic freedom.
“It is a sign that major public research universities are substantially controlled by a political party whose primary goal is to further its partisan agenda and will stop at nothing to bring the independence of higher education to heel,” Michigan State University professor Brendan Cantwell told Inside Higher Ed on Friday. “It undercuts both the integrity of academic communities as self-governing based on the judgement of expert professionals and the traditional accountability that public universities have to their states via formal and established governance mechanisms.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post University of Virginia President Resigns Amid DEI Controversy With Trump Administration first appeared on Algemeiner.com.