RSS
Judge Tosses Challenge to Antisemitism Investigation of University of Pennsylvania
Pro-Hamas encampment at University of Pennsylvania on May 5, 2024. Photo: Robyn Stevens Brody via Reuters Connect
A US federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging a congressional investigation of antisemitism at the University of Pennsylvania, delivering a blow to an anti-Zionist faculty group which hoped to prevent important documents from being shared with lawmakers while the matter was litigated.
Since last year, the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) to determine whether it intentionally ignored dozens of antisemitic incidents perpetrated by students and faculty. As part of its inquiry, the committee, led by US Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), subpoenaed the university for a trove of documents, including reports and correspondence, which would provide a window into how administrators discussed antisemitism on campus.
Accusing Congress of engaging in a “new form of McCarthyism” — a historical reference to the excessive efforts of lawmakers to purge Communist Party members from important public institutions in the 1950s — and violating constitutional protections of speech and privacy, a group calling itself Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP) asked the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to grant a preliminary and permanent injunction to end the university’s cooperation with the investigation.
“I conclude Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this challenge,” Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg said in a ruling issued on Monday. “They have not alleged what information Penn will disclose or how it will harm them … Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to give them a personal stake in the outcome of this litigation, and their complaint will be dismissed for lack o standing. Where a plaintiff lacks standing, a federal court has no authority to enter an injunction.”
According to court documents first shared by The Daily Pennsylvanian, the principal plaintiff of the suit, associate professor Huda Fakhreddine, engaged in actions that played an outsized role in prompting Congress to investigate Penn.
Last fall, Fakhreddine organized the Palestine Writes Literature Festival, which invited to campus several anti-Zionists who have spread blood libels as well as conspiracies of Jewish control. He has also praised Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel as a “new way of life.”
In the complaint, FJP dismissed concerns about rising antisemitism at Penn, describing efforts to eradicate it as a conspiracy by “billionaire donors, pro-Israel groups, other litigants, and segments of the media” to squelch criticism of Israel and harm Arab students and academics. It also castigated the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, calling it a tool of a “militant minority which believes that Israel can do no wrong.” The group also alleged that the IHRA definition is “unconstitutional” and part of a larger plan of a “social engineering movement” to abolish the First Amendment.
“I wasn’t surprised by the ruling,” City University of New York history professor KC Johnson told The Algemeiner on Monday, responding to the news. “The professors’ core complaint focused more on a policy dispute with Penn than the law. They wanted Penn to resist the House subpoena, despite the university having no real grounds for doing so, and seemed aggrieved that Penn leaders were unwilling to denounce the House committee as a latter-day version of McCarthyism or to deny that any of the professors’ actions or rhetoric could be deemed antisemitic.”
Johnson added, “Those sorts of issues might be relevant at a faculty Senate meeting, but it was hard to see how the professors could show any concrete harm that would give them standing in court.”
If FJP’s lawsuit had been successful in halting Congress’s investigation into Penn, it would have concealed from lawmakers — and thereby the public — demonstrative evidence that Fakhreddine and other officials involved in organizing the “Palestine Writes” festival intentionally invited speakers to campus who have been widely accused of antisemitism.
Speakers listed on the event’s initial itinerary included University of Gaza professor Refaat Alareer, who said in 2018, “Are most Jews evil? Of course they are,” and Salman Abu Sitta, who once said in an interview that “Jews were hated in Europe because they played a role in the destruction of the economy in some of the countries, so they would hate them.” The event touched off a burst of antisemitic incidents at Penn. In the days leading up to it, swastikas were graffitied on campus and a student infiltrated the campus Hillel building, where he proceeded to vandalize the place while screaming antisemitic epithets.
Roger Waters, the former Pink Floyd frontman, was a scheduled speaker. Last year, an explosive documentary showed fellow musicians detailing Waters’ long record of anti-Jewish barbs. In one instance, a former colleague recalled Waters at a restaurant yelling at the wait staff to “take away the Jew food.”
By the time former Penn president Elizabeth M. Magill — who resigned in December — appeared before the House Education and Workforce Committee on Dec. 5 to testify about her handling of “Palestine Writes” — which included her refusing to cancel it — anti-Zionist protests at the university amid the Israel-Hamas war had descended into demagoguery and intimidation of Jewish students, as activists berated pro-Israel counter-protesters for condemning Hamas’ Oct. 7 onslaught.
The University of Pennsylvania’s response to rising antisemitism after the events of this academic year has been mixed. At the end of May, its Task Force on Antisemitism issued a report denouncing the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel — which aims to isolate the Jewish state as the first step toward destroying it — as “discriminatory” and “anti-intellectual,” but it opposed adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Describing the widely accepted IHRA definition as “controversial,” the report’s authors explained that other definitions of antisemitism, such as the “Jerusalem Definition” and the “Nexus Document,” are in tension with IHRA’s, preventing them from reaching a consensus about which is best.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Judge Tosses Challenge to Antisemitism Investigation of University of Pennsylvania first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘Western-Backed Project’: Founder of Radical Anti-Israel Group Comes Out Strongly Against Ukraine
Nerdeen Kiswani, founder of WithinOurLifetime (WOL), leading a pro-Hamas demonstration in New York City on August 14, 2024. Photo: Michael Nigro via Reuters Connect
Nerdeen Kiswani, the founder of the radical anti-Israel organization Within Our Lifetime, has come out strongly against Ukraine in its defensive war with Russia, derisively labeling the country a “Western-backed project” that is comparable to Israel.
“Sorry, but Ukraine is nothing like Palestine,” Kiswani posted on X/Twitter on Friday. “Palestine is a people fighting against settler colonialism. If anything, Ukraine is more like Israel — a Western-backed project propped up for geopolitical interests & sustained by empire.”
She went on to argue that “people need to stop forcing comparisons between Ukraine and Palestine. They are not the same struggle, not the same history, and not the same reality. These false parallels only distort the truth and erase the unique brutality of zionist [sic] settler colonialism.”
Adding that she “actually feel[s] bad for” the Ukrainian people, Kiswani argued that “their leadership, especially [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky, sold them out, propped up Azov Nazis, and let the West use Ukraine as a pawn.”
Kiswani’s comments came on the same day that US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance got into a heated argument in front of the media at the White House. During the in-person meeting, Trump and Vance called on Kyiv to express greater gratitude for US support and move in good faith toward ceasefire with Russia, despite a lack of clear security guarantees from Washington.
The leading anti-Israel activist’s social media posts also came before Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called Zelensky, who is Jewish, a “pure Nazi” and a “traitor to the Jewish people.”
Kiswani also objected in her comments to what she sees as Ukraine’s pro-Israel stance, writing, “I’m not saying Ukraine is just like Israel, but highlighting ridiculous comparisons to Palestine. But if you don’t like that tell it to Zelensky who praised Israel and called it an inspiration for Ukraine. He even said Ukraine should become a ‘big Israel.’”
She added that Ukraine is “using Zionist tactics in its war strategy.”
Kiswani went on to point out that the “Palestinian resistance” is not aligned with Ukraine.
“Funny how people with red triangles in their bios [are] coming at me for this when the Palestinian resistance has rejected alignment with Ukraine, which is backed by the same imperial powers arming Israel. Solidarity should be rooted in reality, not projection,” she wrote on Sunday in a follow-up to her original thread.
The inverted red triangle has become a common symbol at pro-Hamas rallies. The Palestinian terrorist group, which rules Gaza, has used inverted red triangles in its propaganda videos to indicate Israeli targets about to be attacked. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), “the red triangle is now used to represent Hamas itself and glorify its use of violence.”
Kiswani and her group Within Our Lifetime (WOL) have been at the forefront of anti-Israel and pro-Hamas activism since Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists killed 1,200 people and abducted 251 hostages during their invasion of southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, a massacre that started the war in Gaza.
On Oct. 8, 2023, one day after the biggest single-day slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust, WOL organized a protest to celebrate the prior day’s attack, which it described as an effort to “defend the heroic Palestinian resistance.” Kiswani notably refused to condemn Hamas and the Oct. 7 massacre following the atrocities.
Then, in Apil 2024, Kiswani refused to condemn the chant “Death to America” and organized a mass demonstration to block the “arteries of capitalism” by staging a blockade of commercial shipping ports across the world in protest of Western support for the Jewish state. That same month, she was banned from Columbia University’s campus in New York City after leading chants calling for an “intifada,” or violent uprising.
The following month, Kiswani led a demonstration in Brooklyn, New York in which she lambasted the local police department, claimed then-US President Joe Biden will soon die, and called for the destruction of Israel.
That proceeded the activist saying she does not want Zionists “anywhere” in the world while speaking in defense of a person who called for “Zionists” to leave a crowded subway car in New York City.
WOL, which planned a protest last year to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7 massacre, was also behind demonstrations at the Nova Music Festival exhibit, which commemorated the more than 300 civilians slaughtered by Hamas while at a music festival.
The latter protest prompted widespread condemnation, including from Biden and even progressive members of the US Congress who are outspoken against Israel.
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), for example, posted on social media that the “callousness, dehumanization, and targeting of Jews on display at last night’s protest outside the Nova Festival exhibit was atrocious antisemitism – plain and simple.”
The post ‘Western-Backed Project’: Founder of Radical Anti-Israel Group Comes Out Strongly Against Ukraine first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘We Didn’t Provide Aid to Nazi Germany’: US Sen. Tom Cotton Defends Israel’s Decision to Block Aid Into Gaza
US Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) speaks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, March 11, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Julia Nikhinson
US Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) defended Israel’s decision to pause aid deliveries into the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, pointing out that the United States did not provide humanitarian assistance to Nazi Germany during World War II.
“We didn’t provide aid to Nazi Germany during World War II. The idea is preposterous. Why should Israel be forced to provide aid to Hamas-run Gaza?” Cotton posted on X/Twitter on Sunday night.
The White House also expressed support for Israel’s decision.
“Israel has negotiated in good faith since the beginning of this administration to ensure the release of hostages held captive by Hamas terrorists,” National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes said in a statement. “We will support their decision on next steps given Hamas had indicated it’s no longer interested in a negotiated ceasefire.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced earlier in the day that Israel would block humanitarian aid transfers into Gaza.
Netanyahu’s announcement came after his government presented the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas with a proposal for a six-week extension of the ongoing Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal. The proposal would mandate that Hamas release half of the remaining Israeli hostages who were kidnapped into Gaza at the beginning of the extension. The rest of the hostages would be released at the end, if Hamas and Israel can agree on a permanent ceasefire deal. Israel would retain the right to restart the war in Gaza if negotiations are unsuccessful by the 42-day mark.
According to Jerusalem, the ceasefire extension proposal was the brainchild of US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
Hamas has refused to extend the first phase of the ceasefire deal, claiming that the Jewish state has violated the terms of the original agreement.
The Netanyahu government reportedly believes that pausing aid transfers into Gaza will pressure Hamas into accepting the ceasefire extension. Hamas, which started the Gaza war when it killed 1,200 people and abducted 251 hostages during its Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of southern Israel, dismissed Israel’s decision on Sunday as “cheap blackmail.”
“Unfortunately, Hamas rejected the proposal. As the first phase of the framework has ended, we have halted the entry of trucks into Gaza,” Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said in a statement.
Israel’s decision to block aid deliveries into Gaza was met with widespread backlash, with some observers accusing Jerusalem of committing “genocidal acts” and violating “international law.”
However, others have pointed out that over the past few months, Gaza has experienced a surge of humanitarian aid.
“In the last six weeks, Israel has flooded Hamas Gaza with 25,000 trucks of aid,” noted former Israeli government spokesman Eylon Levy. “The enemy territory whose government is committed to permanent jihad against Israel is amply stocked for months.”
Cotton, the chairman of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has staunchly defended Israel’s defensive military operations in Gaza. In October 2024, Cotton wrote a letter to then-US President Joe Biden, condemning his administration for threatening an “arms embargo” against Israel.
In December 2024, Cotton introduced legislation to mandate the US federal government refer to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria” — terminology preferred by Israel. Cotton has also lambasted the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) for allegedly diverting funds intended for humanitarian aid into the hands of the Hamas terrorist group.
The post ‘We Didn’t Provide Aid to Nazi Germany’: US Sen. Tom Cotton Defends Israel’s Decision to Block Aid Into Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Cut Off Aid to Gaza After Hamas Rejected Ceasefire Deal — And That’s Completely Legal
Trucks carrying aid move, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 13, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hussam Al-Masri
In what may be perhaps the most significant single strategic move since the start of the war in Gaza, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office announced this weekend that, “the entry of all goods and supplies into the Gaza Strip will be halted.”
Contrary to claims of “war crimes” and “starving civilians,” this new approach to Gaza is not only completely consistent with international law — but is likely to save civilian lives on all sides and bring the war to a close far more quickly than any other approach.
The massacre of October 7, 2023, saw the largest murder of Jews since the Holocaust. The internationally-designated Hamas terror organization, along with Palestinian civilians and UN staff, invaded Israel, killed over 1,200, took 251 hostage, committed mass torture and mass rape, and brought about 16 months of war.
As I wrote the other day, Israel and Hamas completed “Phase 1” of a three stage ceasefire agreement, which resulted in the release of some of the Israeli hostages. However, the parties have so far failed to negotiate the terms of “Phase 2.” US Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, presented a framework for continuing negotiations, which Israel accepted but Hamas rejected.
In response, Israel made this weekend’s announcement, and closed Gaza to aid deliveries.
Israel maintains a legal weapons blockade on Gaza, which is governed by the Geneva Conventions, The Hague Conventions, and the San Remo Convention. Under these agreements, a legal blockade is permitted as a defense against armed attack. Israel’s blockade of Gaza, which began in 2007, fits this requirement, as it is a response to Hamas’s ongoing rocket barrages on Israeli civilians.
Under these same international rules, the blockading party may not intentionally starve civilians as a tool of warfare. This effectively means that the blockading power is required to transfer humanitarian aid into the blockaded area — a requirement that Israel has fulfilled at a massive scale.
However, the aid that enters into Gaza is typically not transferred to civilians. To the contrary, Hamas, habitually steals international aid, as well as torturing and killing civilians who attempt to take the aid for themselves.
This reality has been confirmed by multiple international sources including the United Nations, and has been caught on camera numerous times.
Hamas uses stolen aid supplies to fuel its rockets, equip its troops, and sells some of what’s left to civilians as a way of raising funds for its war effort. Indeed, many of the resources Hamas used on October 7, and in the months since, were taken from aid supplies, including the tunnels where Israeli hostages are currently held, which were built with cement funded by America’s USAID agency.
In effect, Israel has been fighting a war of survival while also funding both sides: a strategy doomed to fail. This kind of national suicide is absolutely not required by international law.
To the contrary, Article 23 of Geneva Convention IV specifically states that a power is not required to allow the passage of humanitarian aid unless it is satisfied that the aid will not be diverted to enemy combatants. Therefore, not only is Israel not required to transfer aid under the present circumstances, but pressuring Israel to do so is, in itself, a war crime.
International law is structured this way for good reason: funding both sides of a conflict only serves to prolong hostilities and thus increase completely avoidable harm to civilian populations on all sides.
In this case, aid to Gaza ends up almost exclusively in the hands of an internationally -designated terror organization that is also an enemy combatant. The international community has had 18 years since the beginning of the blockade in 2007, and 16 months since the October 7 massacre, to find a solution to this particular war crime, yet has both failed and refused to do so. The consequence has been to prolong the current war, the captivity of the Israeli hostages, and also war’s deleterious impact on the lives of both Israeli and Palestinian civilians.
For the moment, this war crime of compelling Israel to provide aid to enemy combatants, in violation of Article 23 of Geneva Convention IV, has come to an end. This can only result in a quicker defeat of Hamas, and a quicker end to the current war. Such a result will, in turn, provide immeasurable benefits to Israelis, to Palestinians, and to the entire world at large.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post Israel Cut Off Aid to Gaza After Hamas Rejected Ceasefire Deal — And That’s Completely Legal first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login