RSS
Jewish students barricade in Cooper Union library as protesters chant ‘Free Palestine,’ on day of protest across NYC campuses
(New York Jewish Week) — Jewish students at a New York City college were locked in their school’s library for 20 minutes as pro-Palestinian demonstrators pounded on the doors and shouted slogans.
The incident on Wednesday night at Cooper Union, a private college in downtown Manhattan, occurred after pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel students held dueling rallies. It came on a day when, at a New York University protest nearby, a protester waved a sign showing a Star of David in a trash can. Meanwhile, further uptown at Columbia, supporters of Israel rallied and decried that school’s administration.
Footage from the incident at Cooper Union showed a group of Jewish students in the library, while protesters outside pounded on the building’s doors and windows, chanting “Free Palestine,” waving signs advocating a boycott of Israel and calling for a ceasefire in Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. Building staff had made the decision to lock the doors.
The NYPD has been in touch with the school and present on its campus, and told the New York Jewish Week that there was no property damage, nor criminal reports or injuries during the incident. But Jewish students who spoke to CBS said they felt threatened.
“It was tense, people were nervous,” said one student who appeared in footage of the incident and spoke to CBS but did not give her name. “They were specifically acting very aggressive in those spaces where outwardly Jewish students were sitting.”
CBS reported that the pro-Palestinian protesters released a statement saying, “Our protest was not targeting any individual student or faculty but the institution itself.” The statement also disavowed antisemitism.
In a statement to the New York Jewish Week, Cooper Union said, “The library was closed for approximately 20 minutes late this afternoon while student protestors moved through our building. Some students who were previously in the library remained there during this time.”
Jewish leaders as well as city and state officials have condemned the incident. The regional director for the Anti-Defamation League, Scott Richman, said he had spoken with Cooper Union students and was “shocked” by their account of the incident. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said, “This intimidation of students is appalling,” and demanded that the college keep Jewish students safe. The school has not issued any public statements.
The American Jewish Committee, New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine also expressed alarm over the incident. Levine said the NYPD had been involved and were reviewing security footage of the incident for more information.
Student groups in New York and nationwide, meanwhile, staged a walkout in support of the Palestinians on Wednesday.
A pro-Palestinian rally in Washington Square Park, near NYU’s campus, featured a demonstrator with an antisemitic sign reading, “Please keep the world clean,” and a figure placing a Star of David in a trash bin. Video from the event showed dozens of demonstrators chanting “globalize the intifada.”
Police and Jewish security groups have reported a spike in antisemitic incidents since the start of the war in the New York region and around the country. Recent incidents in New York, where Jews are targeted by hate crimes far more than any other group, have ranged from physical assaults to racist graffiti and harassment.
Columbia and other Ivy League colleges have been rocked by controversy since the start of the war between Israel and Hamas, as pro-Palestinian student organizations came out in support of the terror group’s Oct. 7 attack. After Israel began its counteroffensive against Hamas, protests against the Jewish state intensified, including in recent days.
At Columbia on Wednesday, hundreds students and supporters lined Broadway outside the school’s gates, waving Israeli flags and holding images of Hamas hostages in a display of support for Jewish students and criticism of the administration due to its perceived inaction in the face of threats to Jews.
The demonstrators at the rally chanted “end Jew hatred” and “free Gaza from Hamas,” as a passing truck with an electronic billboard displayed images of the captives held in Gaza and other students streamed by.
Students chanted “shame on you,” in a message directed at the university’s leadership, which some demonstrators said had allowed a hostile atmosphere for Jews as student groups applauded the Hamas attack and barred “Zionists” from an on campus event.
“The university is not doing anything, not condemning any of the terror acts that happened,” said an Israeli Columbia student, Noa Gorecki.
“It’s just disappointing that this kind of university chooses to behave like that and we’re doing everything we can,” she said, adding that Jewish students felt “unsafe, scared, angry.”
The rally was organized by the local advocacy group End Jew Hatred to “empower” Jewish students due to inaction from administrators, said Gerard Filitti, an activist with the organization who is not a student.
“It’s very difficult for Jewish students to feel safe, let alone to be heard,” Filitti said. “The administration can’t be equivocal.”
Filitti, a senior counsel with the nonprofit Lawfare project, a group that takes legal action on behalf of pro-Israel students, said he expected litigation against universities due to their conduct since the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas, which killed and wounded thousands. Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel rallies have spread across campuses in the wake of the attack, and a range of student groups and faculty members have praised the attack.
“College campuses are not keeping Jewish students or faculty safe and they’re obligated to do so,” he said. “They’re allowing an environment that’s hostile to the point that they can’t enjoy the same benefits as any other student, and that’s not legal.”
Some parents came to the rally to support their Jewish children at Columbia, after the students reported feeling unsafe. Other participants were not affiliated with the university, but came to show support.
“There’s little we can do here while our family and our friends are fighting in Israel so we want to try to do our part,” said Will Lerer, a Yeshiva University student.
On Oct. 9, before Israel’s military response had caused significant damage, Columbia’s Students for Justice in Palestine said it “stands in full solidarity with Palestinian resistance” and called the Hamas attack “an unprecedented historic moment for the Palestinians.”
A 19-year-old attacked an Israeli student with a stick outside Columbia’s main library in the wake of the attack, resulting in hate crimes charges.
Columbia student branches of Students for Justice in Palestine and the anti-Zionist Jewish Voice for Peace announced a walkout on Wednesday as part of a national student protest against “the siege and genocide in Gaza.” The student groups demanded the university divest from Israel and for students to “stand against the university’s support for a genocidal and settler-colonial regime.”
Columbia postponed an annual fundraising drive that was scheduled for Wednesday, saying it was “not the appropriate time” for the event. Several prominent donors have pulled funds from other Ivy League schools, including Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, in recent weeks due to alleged antisemitism and the university administrations’ response to the war.
On Oct. 12, three Columbia administrators released a statement on the conflict, condemning antisemitism and Islamophobia and saying, “We reject and will not tolerate hate speech, violence, or the threat or any acts of violence in our community.”
Last week, university president Minouche Shafik called for civility on campus and condemned online harassment, saying some students had been victimized by doxing. The statements did not condemn Hamas.
Jews and supporters of Israel on campus have called for Shafik to do more. An Israeli professor, Shai Davidai, made a viral speech last week directed at parents, saying, “I want you to know we cannot protect your children from pro-terror student organizations.”
“None of the presidents of universities all around the country are willing to take a stand. This is what cowards do and I’ll name it now, President Minouche Shafik of Columbia University, you are a coward,” he said.
—
The post Jewish students barricade in Cooper Union library as protesters chant ‘Free Palestine,’ on day of protest across NYC campuses appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
Striking Hamas Leaders in Qatar Is 100% Legal Under International Law
Vehicles stop at a red traffic light, a day after an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Here are just a few of the absurd reactions from world leaders in the wake of Israel’s stunning strike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, last week:
- A “blatant violation of international law.”
- A “violation of sovereignty.”
- A “flagrant breach of international law.”
France, Spain, the UK, the Qataris themselves, and others have joined in the hysterics.
Yet all these sloganizing leaders have one thing in common: an astonishing and total ignorance of actual, international law.
In future articles, I will dive into the far reaching implications and consequences of this stunning operation, but for now, here’s a quick review of international law.
- Qatar is not technically at war with Israel, therefore the country could be considered a “neutral power” under the Hague Convention V and thus immune from attack.
- However, under articles 2, 3 and 4 of Hague Convention V, a “neutral power” may not allow anyone on its territory to direct combat operations, run command and control centers, or even to communicate electronically with combatants.
- For years, the Hamas leadership has been carrying out exactly those prohibited acts from within Qatar — with sustained and integral Qatari support. In other words, Qatar has been violating international law for years — before, during, and after the October 7 massacre.
- Hamas is the internationally-designated terror organization that carried out the October 7 massacre of Israelis in 2023, and continues holding Israeli hostages in Gaza to this day. Though the Hamas leadership in Qatar claims the moniker “political wing,” it is consistently involved in directing combat operations against Israel.
- Qatar cannot claim to be a “neutral power” under the Hague Conventions, because it provides sustained and integral support for Hamas — which aids Hamas combat operations against Israel — from Qatari soil.
- Furthermore, Israel has an inviolate right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and Hamas may not undermine that right simply by directing its combat operations from inside a third-party country.
In summary: Qatar has been providing sustained and integral support for Hamas combat operations — from Qatari soil — in violation of The Hague conventions.
These acts give Israel the inviolate right, under both the Hague Conventions and the UN Charter’s Article 51, to defend itself and its citizens by targeting Hamas leadership inside Qatar.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking. He has been a lawyer for more than 25 years.
RSS
No, Mahmoud Abbas Did Not Condemn Jerusalem Terror Attack
People inspect a bus with bullet holes at the scene where a shooting terrorist attack took place at the outskirts of Jerusalem, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
Last week, terrorists opened fire in Jerusalem, murdering six and injuring 12 innocent Israelis.
Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas — the man the international community insists is a “peace partner” — then put out a statement that was labeled by much of the international media as a condemnation. In reality, it was anything but.
Abbas never once mentioned the terror attack. He never referred to the murders, never acknowledged the victims, and never expressed a word of sympathy for their families. His statement spoke in vague terms about rejecting “any targeting of Palestinian and Israeli civilians,” a formula carefully crafted to sound balanced while deliberately blurring the reality that it was Palestinians who carried out the terror attack, and Israelis who were its victims.
Worse still, 98% of Abbas’ statement was condemnation of Israel, the “occupation,” “genocide,” and “colonist terrorism.” Instead of using the attack to speak out against Palestinian terror, Abbas used it to criticize Israel without even actually mentioning the attack, and while portraying Palestinians as the victims.
Abbas’ remark is not a condemnation of terrorism. It is a cover-up. He is once again confirming the PA’s ideology that sees Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians as justified.
The emptiness of Abbas’s words becomes glaring when compared to the response of the United Arab Emirates.
The UAE condemned the “terrorist shooting incident … in the strongest terms,” offered condolences to the victims and their families, and wished a speedy recovery to the wounded.
The UAE’s statement was clear, moral, and human. Abbas’ was political and self-serving, designed to enable gullible Westerners to delude themselves that Abbas was actually condemning terrorism. The UAE and Abbas’ statements follow. The difference speaks volumes.
| UAE condemnation of terror | Mahmoud Abbas’ sham |
| “The United Arab Emirates has condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist shooting incident which occurred near Jerusalem, and resulted in a number of deaths and injuries.
In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) reaffirmed the UAE’s strong condemnation of these terrorist acts and its permanent rejection of all forms of violence and terrorism aimed at undermining security and stability. The Ministry expressed its sincere condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims, and to the State of Israel and its people, as well as its wishes for a speedy recovery for all the injured.” [United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs, website, September 8, 2025] |
“The Palestinian Presidency reiterated its firm stance rejecting and condemning any targeting of Palestinian and Israel civilians, and denouced all forms of violence and terrorism, regardless of their source.
The Presidency stressed that security and stability in the region cannot be achieved without ending the occupation, halting acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, and stopping colonist terrorism across the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem. It emphasized the Palestinian people’s attainment of their legitimate rights to an independent and sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the achievement of security and peace for all, is what wil end the cycle of violence in the region. This came in the wake of today’s events in occupied Jerusalem.” [WAFA, official PA news agency, September 8, 2025] |
Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of PMW, where a version of this article first appeared.
RSS
Carrying Charlie Kirk’s Torch: Why the West Must Not Retreat
A memorial is held for Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in Utah, at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, US, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin O’Hara
Charlie Kirk’s sudden death leaves more than grief; it leaves a void in a moment of profound civilizational danger. He was not just a political organizer or cultural commentator. He was a voice that gave the next generation permission to reject the lies of relativism, to reclaim confidence in the West, and to stand against the forces — both ideological and violent — that seek to dismantle it. To honor his life means refusing to let that mission fade.
Kirk understood that the greatest threats to freedom were not hidden in obscure policy debates, but in the cultural and spiritual health of the West. He saw that when a society abandons faith, mocks tradition, and treats national identity as a shameful relic, it becomes easy prey for movements that thrive on weakness and self-doubt. His genius was to frame this not as nostalgia, but as survival.
For him, defending family, faith, and moral order was not a luxury — it was the only path by which free societies could endure.
One challenge Kirk named very clearly was the rise of radical Islamism and terrorism. He warned that this was not merely a foreign problem, but an internal one. Radical ideologies, cloaked in the language of grievance, have found fertile ground in Western cities, universities, and political discourse. Under the cover of tolerance, they have grown bolder. Under the silence of elites, they have become entrenched. Kirk refused to bend to the false equivalence that excuses extremism as cultural difference. He understood that those who despise freedom should not be empowered to weaponize it.
His critics often called him polarizing, but what they truly feared was his clarity. He reminded audiences that not all values are equal, not all ideas are harmless, and not every ideology deserves space in a free society. In a climate where cowardice is praised as moderation, his directness was seen as dangerous. But the true danger lies in the refusal to speak plainly about the threats that face us. Civilizations do not collapse overnight; they are eroded when their defenders lose the courage to distinguish between what is worth preserving and what must be rejected.
Kirk never lost that courage. He confronted progressive elites who undermined confidence in the West from within, and he confronted radical Islamist sympathizers who justified violence against it from without. He saw that both positions, though different in form, worked toward the same end: a weakening of Western resolve, an erosion of shared identity, and the creation of a generation uncertain of its own inheritance. His refusal to allow that message to go unchallenged gave hope to millions of young people who might otherwise have drifted into cynicism or despair.
Now his death presents a stark choice. The forces he warned against are not pausing to mourn. They are pressing forward, eager to fill the space that was already under siege. If his legacy is not actively continued, it will not simply fade — it will be replaced by movements hostile to everything he fought to defend. To preserve his mission, the West must double down on the truths he carried: that strength is not arrogance, that tradition is not oppression, and that freedom without moral order is an illusion that collapses into chaos.
The stakes are high. If these principles are allowed to wither, we risk a generation unmoored from history, unprepared for the battles ahead, and unwilling to confront the ideological threats at our doorstep. But if Kirk’s legacy is embraced and advanced, his death will be the beginning of a renewal.
The West cannot retreat. It cannot afford the luxury of silence or the temptation of compromise with those who seek its undoing. The path forward requires the clarity and courage that Charlie Kirk embodied. To carry his torch is not simply to honor his memory. It is to safeguard the survival of the civilization he loved and defended. The question is not whether we should continue his work. The question is whether we can endure if we do not.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx